[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77152-77158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28162]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Kern Brook Lamprey as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra
hubbsi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find
the petition and other information available did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the Kern brook lamprey may be warranted. Therefore, we will not
be initiating a further status review in response to this petition. We
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of or threats to the species. This
information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of the
species.
The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), river lamprey (Lampetra
ayresi), and western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni) were also
identified in the petition. However, these species are addressed in a
separate finding, prepared by the Portland Fish and Wildlife Office in
Oregon, and are not addressed in this notice.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made December 27,
2004. Submit any new information concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: Comments, material, information, or questions concerning
this petition and 90-day finding should be sent to the Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846. The
petition and supporting information are available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne White, Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above) (telephone
916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6712).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on all
information available to us at the time we make the finding. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days
of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding
promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species, if one has not already been initiated, under our internal
candidate assessment process.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). This finding summarizes information included in the petition
and information available to us at the time of the petition review. Our
process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the
[[Page 77153]]
petition meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we
subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, as the Act
and regulations contemplate, in coming to a 90-day finding, we accept
the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information
unless we have specific information to the contrary.
Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case
for listing on its face. Thus, our finding expresses no view as to the
ultimate issue of whether the species should be listed. We reach a
conclusion on that issue only after a more thorough review of the
species' status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 more
months, we will perform a rigorous, critical analysis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, not just the
information in the petition. We will ensure that the data used to make
our determination as to the status of the species is consistent with
the Act and Information Quality Act.
On January 27, 2003, we received a petition, dated January 23,
2003, from the Siskiyou Regional Education Project and 10 other
organizations, requesting we list the Pacific lamprey, western brook
lamprey, river lamprey, and Kern brook lamprey in Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, and California. Further, the petitioners requested designation
of critical habitat for the range of the species or for distinct
population segments comprised of one or more major river basins. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and contained the names,
addresses, and signatures of the petitioning organizations'
representatives. The petition included the following information for
each lamprey species: life history information; population status and
local distribution; destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; other natural or manmade factors affecting the
species' continued existence; predation; overutilization for commercial
or recreational purposes; inadequacy of existing mechanisms; and a
conclusion for each lamprey species.
In response to the petitioners' requests to list these species, we
sent a letter to the petitioners dated March 12, 2003, explaining that
we would not be able to address their petition until fiscal year 2004.
The reason for this delay was that existing court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions required nearly all of our listing
funding for fiscal year 2004. In March 2004, we received a 60-day
notice of intent to sue, and on May 26, 2004, received a complaint
regarding our failure to carry out the 90-day and 12-month findings on
the status of the four species of lamprey. On November 23, 2004, we
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to complete the 90-day finding
by December 20, 2004, and to complete if applicable, the 12-month
finding by November 15, 2005.
Species Information
The Kern brook lamprey adult has gray-brown sides and dorsal
region, a white ventral area, unpigmented dorsal fins, and some black
pigmentation restricted to the area around the notochord (the
cartilaginous rod that runs along the back) in the caudal fin (Vladykov
and Kott 1976). The Kern brook lamprey has poorly developed plates
(teeth) on its oral disc (mouth). In adults, the supraoral lamina plate
(the thin plates above the oral opening) typically has two cusps
(projections on the teeth) (Moyle et al. 1995) with three or four
(usually four) lateral plates on each side of the oral disc (Moyle
2002). In addition, this species has 9 to 12 posterial teeth (average
10.3) (Vladykov and Kott 1976). The Kern brook lamprey has only three
velar tentacles, which prevent undesirable objects from entering the
digestive cavity and are present in the junction of the pharynx and
esophagus. In other lamprey species the number of velar tentacles
varies from 5 to 18 (Vladykov and Kott 1976). The Kern brook lamprey
has 51 to 57 trunk myomeres (Moyle 2002), which are the ``blocks'' of
muscle mass along the body (Moyle et al. 1995). Males have a longer
urogenital papilla, a small conical tube through which gametes are
expelled, located just ahead of the anal fin and usually visible only
during, or shortly before, spawning (Vlaydykov and Kott 1984). Only the
females develop an anal finlike fold close to spawning time, and can be
distinguished from the males based on this morphological characteristic
(Vladykov and Kott 1984).
Identification of the Kern brook lamprey can be problematic. While
definitive identifications of the Kern brook lamprey can be made
through genetic analysis (Docker et al. 1999), identifications are more
commonly made by analyzing adult morphological characteristics, such as
tooth patterns on the oral disc (Vladykov and Kott 1976). When
utilizing morphological characteristics to determine a lamprey species,
adults must be analyzed because the juveniles, or ammocoetes, of the
different lamprey species are not readily distinguishable from each
other (Kostow 2002). For example, the number of trunk myomeres is
frequently counted to determine species. However, Kern brook lamprey
ammocoetes have 51 to 57 trunk myomeres, while the western brook
lamprey has 52 to 67 (52 to 58 in California populations), making these
two species indistinguishable using this morphological characteristic
(Moyle 2002). Identification of lamprey species is made more difficult
because lamprey species are in the adult stage for a relatively short
duration of their life. Based on the life history of other lamprey
species, the Kern brook lamprey spends approximately the first five
years of its life as an ammocoete, and approximately one year as an
adult, which reduces the opportunity to make conclusive identifications
during the adult stage. In addition, misidentifications may also occur
between parasitic and brook lamprey species at early stages of
metamorphosis because they both have eyes and the development of the
oral discs are still incomplete, making these characteristics
unreliable until further development (Kostow 2002; Brian Beale,
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pers. comm. 2004).
Range and Distribution
The Kern brook lamprey is endemic to the east side of the San
Joaquin Valley and found only in the San Joaquin River drainage in
California (Vladykov and Kott 1976). This species has been reported in
the Friant-Kern Canal and Merced, San Joaquin, Kings, and Kaweah Rivers
(Moyle 2002). Brown and Moyle (1993) made a considerable effort to find
Kern brook lamprey in the Kern, Tule, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers,
which are tributaries in the same geographic region as those with Kern
brook lamprey, but were unsuccessful in capturing the species.
This species was first discovered by Vladykov and Kott in February
1972 in the Friant-Kern Canal, east of Delano, Kern County (Vladykov
and Kott 1976). The Friant-Kern Canal is connected to Millerton
Reservoir and the upper San Joaquin River through an extensive
irrigation system (Wang 1986). This canal also connects the Kern River
with the San Joaquin River, which led Vladykov and Kott (1976) to
believe that this species originated in the Kern River system. The
canal is not considered typical habitat for the Kern brook lamprey
because it is concrete lined and flows are greater than the rivers
where this species is found (Vladykov and Kott 1976). In 1988,
ammocoetes and adults were collected by CDFG from the siphons of the
Friant-Kern Canal when they were poisoned with rotenone as part of an
effort to eradicate white bass (Morone chrysops) from the system (Brown
and Moyle 1993; Moyle et al.
[[Page 77154]]
1995). The Kern brook lamprey still occurs in the Friant-Kern Canal,
but spawning habitat is not available within the canal, so ammocoetes
that enter the canal do not reproduce in the canal itself (Moyle 2002).
Between February and March 1977, ammocoetes and adult Kern brook
lamprey were collected from the Merced River, below McClure Reservoir,
near Merced Falls (Vladykov and Kott 1984). Brown and Moyle (1993) also
collected Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes from the Merced River during
surveys from 1985 through 1987. Recently, Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes
have been incidentally reported in the Merced River during rotary screw
trap salmonid surveys (Tim Heyne, CDFG, pers. comm. 2004; Dave Vogel,
Natural Resource Scientists, pers. comm. 2004).
Wang (1986) collected ammocoetes between July and September of 1979
in the upper San Joaquin River downstream of Kerckoff Dam to the
junction with Millerton Lake. The trunk myomeres count (53 to 58) of
those specimens fit the description for ammocoetes of either the
western brook lamprey or Kern brook lamprey. No adult specimens of
either species were captured, but these ammocoetes were likely Kern
brook lamprey, based on their low number of trunk myomeres (Brown and
Moyle 1993; Moyle et al. 1995; Moyle 2002). Brown and Moyle (1993) also
collected Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes from the San Joaquin River
below Friant Dam during surveys from 1985 through 1987. We are not
aware of recent surveys for this species on the San Joaquin River.
Brown and Moyle (1993) collected Kern brook lamprey during surveys
on the Kings River above and below Pine Flat Dam. The Kings River is
still known to support Kern brook lamprey. The Kings River Conservation
District has performed surveys for trout species from 1990 to the
present and has found Kern brook lamprey adults and ammocoetes both
above and below Pine Flat Reservoir during all years surveyed (Jeff
Halstead, Kings River Conservation District, pers. comm. 2004).
Brown and Moyle (1993) surveyed fish fauna in the lower Kaweah
River, downstream of the Kaweah Reservoir, and collected Kern brook
lamprey ammocoetes from 1985 through 1986. We are not aware of recent
surveys on the Kaweah River for this species.
Habitat
The Kern brook lamprey is known to occur in four of the San Joaquin
River tributaries emerging from the west side of the Sierra Nevada
mountains and has been observed at elevations of 100 to 1,000 feet (30
to 305 meters) (Moyle et al. 1995; Moyle 2002). This species commonly
occupies sand, gravel, and rubble substrates (Moyle et al. 1995). It
has been reported at stream depths of 12 to 43 inches (in) (30 to 110
centimeters (cm)) (Moyle 2002). Adults seek riffles with gravel for
spawning and rubble for cover, while ammocoetes are typically found in
sandy-bottomed backwaters, shallow river edges, and shallow pools, and
along edges of runs where there are low stream velocities, where they
remain buried with their heads protruding above the substrate for
feeding (Moyle et al. 1995).
Reproduction and Growth
Little information regarding the life history of the Kern brook
lamprey is available, but it is presumably similar to the western brook
lamprey (Moyle 2002). Adults are non-predatory, and feeding is confined
to the ammocoete stage (Moyle 2002). Because recently transformed Kern
brook lamprey adults have been collected in the spring, it is likely
that Kern brook lamprey undergo metamorphosis in the fall (Moyle et al.
1995; Moyle 2002). During metamorphosis, the Kern brook lamprey
develops eyes and more distinctive fins, and the oral disc enlarges
(Kostow 2002). As with other lamprey species, the adults do not eat and
they shrink in size following metamorphosis (Vladykov and Kott 1976).
Adults are 3 to 5.5 in (8 to 14 cm) and ammocoetes are 4 to 6 in (10 to
15 cm) in length (Moyle 2002).
Based on the life history of western brook lamprey, it is likely
that the Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes overwinter in burrows while they
undergo metamorphosis in mud and sand substrates, emerge in the spring
as sexually mature adults after completing metamorphosis, and then
migrate to spawning areas (Moyle 2002). Adults build nests in the
gravel-bottomed substrate, spawn, and then die (Moyle 2002). The eggs
are sticky and dense, and they are deposited in nests prepared by
spawning adults. The eggs are then buried by the adults beneath sand
and gravel. Based on the life history of the western brook lamprey
(Kostow 2002), the newly hatched larva of the Kern brook lamprey likely
spend another week to a month in the nest. The ammocoetes then emerge
and are carried downstream to mud and sand-bottomed backwaters where
they burrow into stream sediments (Moyle 2002). If life history is
comparable to other brook lamprey, Kern brook lamprey live for 4 to 5
years as ammocoetes (Moyle et al. 1995) and would therefore live up to
6 years or more after completing metamorphosis and spawning as adults.
When encountered, the ammocoetes are usually locally abundant (Brown
and Moyle 1993) and can be found in sand and mud substrates, where they
remain buried with their heads protruding above the substrate and
feeding by filtering diatoms and other micro-organisms from the water
(Moyle 1995).
Discussion of Listing Factors
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal list of
endangered and threatened species. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. In the following discussion,
we respond to each of the major assertions made in the petition, as
well as our analysis of other information in our files, organized by
the Act's listing factors. The five listing factors include: (1) The
present threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease and predation; (4) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The petition
provided specific information regarding the Kern brook lamprey in its
discussion of poisoning, water diversions, and channelization, under
Factor A. We have determined that the threat of poisoning would be more
appropriately addressed under Factor E, as a natural or manmade factor
affecting the continued existence of the species. The petition also
specifically addressed the Kern brook lamprey in its discussion of the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to manage dam operations within the
Kern brook lamprey's range, under Factor D. These are the only threats
for which the petition specifically addresses the Kern brook lamprey,
as the petition primarily focuses on the Pacific lamprey. This 90-day
finding is not a status assessment and does constitute a status review
under the Act.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
The petition discusses the following threats under Factor A: (1)
Artificial barriers; (2) road culverts; (3) water diversions; (4)
poisoning; (5) dredging; (6) streambed scouring and degradation; (7)
channelization; and (8) ocean conditions. The petition provided
[[Page 77155]]
specific information regarding the Kern brook lamprey in its
discussions of poisoning, water diversions, and channelization. For the
threats described under Factor A, the petition states that all of the
factors affecting the Pacific lamprey would also affect the Kern brook
lamprey, so we have analyzed all of the factors listed under Factor A,
except for ocean conditions, which does not apply to the Kern brook
lamprey because it is not an anadromous (migrates to the ocean and
spawns in freshwater tributaries) species and the threat of poisoning
which was addressed under Factor E.
Artificial Barriers and Road Culverts
Information provided in the petition: The petition lists dams,
culverts, or other artificial barriers as a threat to the Pacific
lamprey. The petition did not provide information regarding the effects
that dams, culverts, or other artificial barriers may have on the Kern
brook lamprey, including the extent to which artificial barriers may
threaten population numbers or distribution of the Kern brook lamprey.
Analysis of the information provided in the petition and
information in our files: Artificial barriers may prevent upstream
dispersal for adults because lampreys are not strong swimmers, are
unable to jump, and their movement is determined by flow velocity
(Kostow 2002). It is likely that if artificial barriers are present
within the range of the Kern brook lamprey, and if encountered, the
Kern brook lamprey would not likely be able to negotiate upstream
passage around the barriers. However, we are not aware of information
describing the number, distribution, or location of dams or artificial
barriers, and therefore, the overall extent to which these artificial
structures may affect Kern brook lamprey movement. Therefore, we are
unable to determine if dams, culverts, or other artificial barriers
have caused a reduction in the range or population size of the species.
Water Diversions
Information provided in the petition: The petition stated that
water diversions pose a threat to the Kern brook lamprey. The petition
supports this assertion by stating that the siphons of the Friant-Kern
Canal mimic habitat preferred by Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes, and the
species is not able to successfully reproduce in the canal due to a
lack of spawning habitat.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: We are unaware of the extent or number of Kern brook lamprey
which may be lost as a result of ammocoetes entering into the Friant-
Kern Canal system through the siphons. Therefore, we are unable to
determine if ammocoetes entering the siphons has caused a substantial
reduction in Kern brook lamprey population numbers.
Information in our files does indicate that the loss of habitat
through water diversions for irrigation may have an effect on Kern
brook lamprey population numbers. Most of the water that once flowed
into the San Joaquin River has been diverted for irrigation. The
limited remaining water is being used for human population growth in
the region, especially in the vicinity of the cities of Modesto,
Fresno, and Bakersfield (Brown and Moyle 1993). This reduction in
stream flow may result in a loss in both the range and numbers of this
species. However, we are unaware of information quantifying the loss of
habitat that has occurred within the range of the Kern brook lamprey,
or to what degree this threat has reduced the range or population size
of this species. In addition, we are not aware of information
describing how future population growth in those cities will threaten
the population size and range of the Kern brook lamprey.
Dredging
Information provided in the petition: The petition provided
information on threats from dredging to lamprey species in general, and
cited specific examples from Oregon. Kern brook lamprey are not
addressed in this discussion. The petition indicates that most lamprey
die after passing through dredges (Kostow 2002).
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: We are not aware of information detailing the extent that
dredging activities occur in streams within the range of the Kern brook
lamprey, or specific information regarding the threats that these
factors pose to the continued survival of the Kern brook lamprey.
Therefore, it is unknown at this time if dredging activities have
significantly affected the population status or distribution of the
Kern brook lamprey, or are likely to do so in the future.
Streambed Scouring and Degradation
Information provided in the petition: The petition's discussion of
streamed scouring did not specifically address the Kern brook lamprey,
but discussed logging practices that scour streams to bedrock, and the
effects that these practices have on lamprey species in general. The
petition focused on logging practices in Oregon, and cited examples on
the central coast of Oregon and in the Umpqua River basin.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: We are not aware of information regarding the extent to
which logging practices that result in streambed scouring occur in
streams within the range of the Kern brook lamprey, or if these
activities occur at all. In addition, there is a lack of information
determining whether these activities, if they occur, have caused a
substantial reduction in population size or range for the species.
Therefore, it is unknown at this time if logging practices that result
in streambed scouring have threatened or have the potential to threaten
in the future the population status or distribution of the Kern brook
lamprey.
Stream Channelization and Destruction of Riparian Vegetation
Information provided by the petition: Similar to the petition's
discussion of streambed scouring, the petition's discussion of stream
channelization and destruction of riparian habitat did not specifically
address the Kern brook lamprey, but discussed the effects that many
activities, including stream channelization, floodplain filling, and
destruction of riparian habitat, have on lamprey species in general.
According to the petition, these activities are widespread in low
gradient stream areas favored by lamprey species. The petition
indicated that these activities result in water temperatures that are
too warm for lamprey species, a loss in depositional areas favored by
larval lamprey, and a loss in wetlands, side channels, back eddies, and
beaver ponds. The petition did not provide information specific to the
Kern brook lamprey regarding these threats, or information describing
to what extent these activities have occurred or are likely to occur
within the range of the Kern brook lamprey.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: Development along the west side of the Sierra Nevada
foothills, where the Kern brook lamprey occurs, has accelerated
greatly, which has resulted in changes in land and water use (Moyle and
Nichols 1973, 1974). There is a lack of information determining to what
extent these activities have reduced the population size or range of
the species, and if activities that cause stream channelization and
riparian degradation have significantly affected the population status
or distribution of the Kern brook lamprey, or is likely to do so in the
future. Without this information we are unable to determine that stream
channelization and
[[Page 77156]]
degradation of riparian habitat threaten to substantially reduce the
population or range of the species.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We concur with the petitioner's opinion that the Kern brook lamprey
is not known to be harvested for commercial or recreational purposes.
The Service did not locate information regarding the importance of the
Kern brook lamprey to Tribes in the range of this species, and this
information was not provided in the petition.
C. Disease and Predation
Information provided in the petition: The petitioners stated that
the Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, western brook lamprey, and Kern
brook lamprey are all vulnerable to predation by non-native fish
species, especially in California, where conditions are favorable for
predator fish from eastern states. The petition did not provide any
information regarding the threats of disease to the Kern brook lamprey.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: Healthy populations of native fishes are in decline
throughout California, in large part because of an increase in non-
native predators (Moyle and Nichols 1973, 1974). Human activities in
the lower elevation foothills of the San Joaquin drainage tributaries
have led to an increase in stream habitat alteration. These alterations
have mostly been in the form of water impoundment, reduced stream
flows, and siltation, which creates habitat that is ideal for predatory
non-native fish (Moyle and Nichols 1973, 1974; Brown and Moyle 1993).
However, we are unaware of information describing the extent to which
non-native fish species have affected Kern brook lamprey population
size or their range, and this information was not provided in the
petition. It is unknown at this time if non-native fish species have
caused a substantial reduction in population size or range of the
species or are likely to do so in the future.
The petition did not provide information regarding the threat that
disease may pose to the Kern brook lamprey, and we are not aware of any
diseases at this time that threaten this species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition stated that State and Federal agencies have not
adequately regulated dam building, logging, mining, water withdrawals,
road building, and construction activities, all of which have led to a
decline in population numbers and range in lamprey species. The
petition divided its discussion of regulatory mechanisms into the
following categories: water law and flow regulations, passage at dams
and culverts, harvest and escapement goals, private and Federal
logging, and mining and dredging activities. The only category for
which the petition specifically addresses the Kern brook lamprey is
water law and stream flow regulation.
Water Law and Stream Flow Regulation
Information in the petition: The petition described various threats
posed by dams, water irrigation, and fish screens, and stated that
State agencies have not been able to ensure that aquatic species such
as lamprey have adequate flows for migration and long freshwater
rearing periods. According to the petition, flows and habitats of lower
reaches of rivers of the San Joaquin River drainage are not managed for
the needs of Kern brook lamprey.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: There are dams on all of the primary tributaries of the San
Joaquin River drainage. All collections of Kern brook lamprey have been
below the lowermost major dams, with the exception of the Kings River
population, which is found above Pine Flat Reservoir. These dams may
cause fluctuations or sudden reductions in stream flows, which may
isolate or kill ammocoetes (Moyle 2002). According to Moyle (2002), if
the Kern brook lamprey is going to persist, flows and habitats of lower
reaches of rivers of the San Joaquin drainage should be managed with
the consideration of the species' biological requirements. However, at
this time we are not aware of how the operations of the four major dams
are affecting the Kern brook lamprey, and if the operations of these
dams could substantially reduce or extirpate the species. In addition,
we do not have information at this time regarding the specific spatial
distribution of the Kern brook lamprey, and how changes in stream flows
affect this species. Without this information, it is speculative to
state that a single action, such as a rapid drawdown in stream flows,
could cause a significant reduction in the range or population of the
species. While it is possible that Kern brook lamprey populations have
been reduced by the management of stream flows from these dams, the
petition provides no evidence that the operation of these dams has led
to a significant decline in either population sizes or range of the
species, or is likely to do so in the future.
Through diverting nearly all of the San Joaquin River's flow,
Friant Dam's stream flow management on the San Joaquin River has likely
led to a reduction in native fishes (Natural Resource Defense Council,
et al. v. Kirk Rodgers (Case No. CIV-S-88-1658 LKK/GGH)). In this case,
the court found that this absence of water in the San Joaquin River has
led to a reduction in many native fish, including the Pacific lamprey
and western brook lamprey. While the court did not specifically list
the Kern brook lamprey as a native fish affected by the dam, it is
likely to be affected in the same manner as the other lamprey species.
Therefore, Friant Dam may have caused a reduction in the range and
distribution of the Kern brook lamprey because of a lack of stream
flows, but there is no information available to us or provided in the
petition that quantifies a reduction in the range and distribution of
this species, if any.
Passage at Dams and Culverts
Information in the petition: The petition provided information
regarding lamprey species in general, and did not specifically address
the Kern brook lamprey. The petition stated that current laws and
regulations do not require fish ladders, fish screens, and road
culverts to effectively pass adult lamprey species upstream or provide
for safe passage of ammocoetes and young adults downstream.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: The petition reiterates the threats discussed in its earlier
discussion of artificial barriers under Factor A. Please refer to the
discussion of Artificial Barriers, under Factor A described above. We
are not aware of, and the petition did not provide information that
indicates that a lack of regulatory mechanisms on fish passage has
significantly reduced Kern brook lamprey population numbers and
distribution. Because of this lack of information, we are unable to
determine that the current regulatory mechanisms have led to a
significant reduction in the range and population size of the species.
Harvest, Escapement Goals
Information in the petition: The petition focused on the harvest
and escapement goals for the Pacific lamprey, and did not provide
information that specifically addressed the Kern brook lamprey. The
petition stated that the current laws and regulations pertaining to
harvest and escapement goals are not adequate to
[[Page 77157]]
protect lamprey species. The petition also stated that the Kern brook
lamprey is not known to be harvested for commercial or recreational
purposes in its discussion under Factor B.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: We concur with the petitioner's opinion that the Kern brook
lamprey is not known to be harvested for commercial or recreational
purposes.
Logging Activities
Information in the petition: The petition did not provide
information that specifically addressed the Kern brook lamprey, and
focuses on Pacific lamprey in Oregon. The petition discusses the
Northwest Forest Plan and the Oregon Forest Protection Act, and cites
examples from rivers in Oregon, including the Smith River, Illinois
River, and Umpqua River. The petition indicated that the current laws
and regulations do not adequately protect lamprey species from logging
activities.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and informatin in
our files: We are not aware of information that indicates that a lack
of regulatory mechanisms on logging activities has substantially
reduced Kern brook lamprey population numbers and distribution. We also
do not have information regarding the extent that logging activities
affect the Kern brook lamprey, both within its range and upstream of
areas where it is known to occur. Because of this lack of information,
we are unable to determine that the current regulatory mechanisms on
logging activities have led to a reduction in the range and population
size of the species, or that a reduction in the range and population of
this species is likely to occur in the future.
Mining and Dredging Activities
Information in the petition: The petition reiterated the threats
described in its discussion of dredging under Factor A, and indicated
that the current regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect
lamprey species from mining and dredging activities. The petition did
not provide any information specific to the Kern brook lamprey, and
focuses on lamprey species in general.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: We are not aware of information that indicates that a lack
of regulatory mechanisms on mining and dredging activities has
significantly reduced Kern brook lamprey population numbers and
distribution. We also do not have information regarding the extent that
mining and dredging activities occur within the range of the Kern brook
lamprey. Because of this lack of information, we are unable to
determine that the current regulatory mechanisms on mining and dredging
activities have led to a reduction in the range and population size of
the species, or that significant reductions in the range and
distribution of Kern brook lamprey is likely to occur in the future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Continued Existence
According to the petitioners, a lack of monitoring data, lack of
taxonomic determinations between lamprey species, and vulnerability to
high density lamprey concentration areas are other threats to the Kern
brook lamprey. We have also addressed the threat of poisoning under
Factor E.
Lack of Monitoring Data and Lack of Taxonomic Determinations
Information provided in the petition: The petition indicated that
data gathering by State and Federal agencies is inadequate to determine
population trends and identify necessary conservation measures, and
that most monitoring is done in conjunction with salmonid monitoring.
During the petition's discussion of the need for more monitoring data
and taxonomic determinations, the petition did not address the Kern
brook lamprey specifically, and focuses on lamprey species in Oregon.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: There is a need for taxonomic clarity for all lamprey
species, as well as a need for more complete monitoring data (Kostow
2002; P. Moyle, pers. comm. 2004); the same could be said for thousands
of other species. However, lack of monitoring data and taxonomic
clarifications, in themselves, do not pose a threat to the continued
existence of the Kern brook lamprey.
Vulnerability of High Density Areas
Information provided in the petition: The Kern brook lamprey is not
specifically addressed in this discussion. The petition describes the
tendency of lamprey species to be locally dense in certain areas.
According to the petition, a local habitat disturbance, such as a
chemical spill or dredging operation, in an area that is densely
populated by lamprey species, could cause a major reduction in
population numbers.
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: According to Moyle (2002), Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes are
locally abundant when found. Because of this species' propensity to
congregate in high densities in particular locations, they may be
vulnerable to localized habitat disturbances (Kostow 2002).
Furthermore, if a local population of Kern brook lamprey is extirpated
and the species is unable to recolonize the area, the range and
distribution of the species would be reduced (Brown and Moyle 1993). If
enough local extirpations occur, this could lead to the eventual
extinction of the species (Vladykov and Kott 1976, 1984). However, we
do not have enough information at this time to conclude that the Kern
brook lamprey is at risk of substantial reductions in population or
range because of it's propensity to congregate in high densities. Based
on the information available to us, it is speculative at this time to
state that a single event, such as a chemical spill or dredging
operation, could cause the extirpation of the species from an entire
river system, or significantly reduce the population or range of the
species.
The petition did not provide, and we are not aware of information
on the precise locations inhabited by Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes. We
also do not have information regarding the locations of activities such
as dredging, or activities that could cause a poisoning event, in
relation to the areas where Kern brook lamprey are known to congregate.
In addition, we do not have information detailing how the operations of
the four major dams are affecting the Kern brook lamprey, and if the
operations of these dams could substantially reduce or extirpate the
species (see Factor A above), and if the operations of these dams could
substantially reduce or extirpate the species. Without this
information, it is speculative to state that a single action, such as a
chemical spill, rapid drawdown in stream flows, or a dredging
operation, could cause the extirpation of the species from an entire
river system or significantly reduce the Kern brook lamprey's
population size or range.
Poisoning
Information provided in the petition: Poisoning is described in the
petition as a major threat to the Kern brook lamprey. The petition
cites the only known occurrence of poisoning that resulted in the
deaths of Kern brook lamprey, when ammocoetes and adults were collected
by CDFG from the siphons of the Friant-Kern Canal when they were
poisoned with rotenone as part of an effort to eradicate white bass
from the canal system in 1988 (Brown and Moyle 1993; Moyle et al.
1995).
[[Page 77158]]
Analysis of information provided in the petition and information in
our files: The use of rotenone in the Friant-Kern Canal has not
occurred since 1988, and there are no future plans for this practice to
occur again (Peter Moyle, University of California-Davis, pers. comm.
2004). Other than this one-time poisoning event, the petition did not
provide any information regarding the use of chemicals or poisons
within close proximity to known occurrences of the Kern brook lamprey.
Because of a lack of information regarding activities that could cause
a poisoning event within the range of the Kern brook lamprey, as well
as a lack of information on the spatial distribution patterns of the
species, it is speculative to state that a single event, such as a
chemical spill, could cause the extirpation of the species from an
entire river system, or significantly reduce the population or range of
the species.
Summary
The petition to list the four lamprey species primarily provides
information about the Pacific lamprey, and information specific to the
Kern brook lamprey is lacking. The petition did not present substantial
information that indicates rangewide declines, a reduction in
population numbers, or threats to existing Kern brook lamprey
populations that place them in danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future.
According to the petition, many of the threats to the Pacific
lamprey would also apply to the Kern brook lamprey. Threats to the
Pacific lamprey, as described by the petition, included dams and
artificial barriers, passage at road culverts, dredging, streambed
scouring and degradation from logging activities, poisoning, water
diversions, channelization, and ocean conditions. Of these reported
threats, there are only four for which the petition specifically
addresses the Kern brook lamprey (poisoning, water diversions,
channelization, and lack of regulatory mechanisms regarding water law
and stream flow regulation). While these threats may affect populations
of this species, the information provided in the petition was
speculative in nature and not substantiated. The petition did not
provide specific information to document the degree that the species
has been affected by these threats, or if these threats have led to a
significant decline in the range or distribution of the species or are
likely to do so in the future.
There is a lack of survey information supporting reliable
population and distribution estimates for this recently described
species. The petition did not provide historical or current data to
compare abundance of the Kern brook lamprey in any of the rivers where
it is known to occur. We are not aware of quantitative documentation
from surveys that shows declines in Kern brook lamprey populations or a
reduction in range. In addition, the surveys that we are aware of which
have recorded Kern brook lamprey, did not use a consistent level of
effort in collecting Kern brook lamprey, occurred over periods of time
that were too short in duration to establish trends, or used data that
may be based on ammocoete counts where the surveyed species, whether
the Kern brook lamprey, western brook lamprey, or Pacific lamprey were
misidentified. Therefore, population and distribution trends at this
time are not known.
All of the known occurrences of Kern brook lamprey, with the
exception of the population above Pine Flat Reservoir on the Kings
River, are below major dams. The petition stated that these dams are
not managed to meet the biological needs of the Kern brook lamprey.
However, the petition did not provide information on how stream flows
below the four dams are managed and how these management practices
affect the population status and distribution of the Kern brook
lamprey. The petition provides no evidence that the operation of these
dams has led to a significant decline in either population sizes or
range of the species, or is likely to do so in the future.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and supporting literature, as well as
other literature and information available in our files. The petition
and other information available did not present substantial information
that indicates rangewide declines, a substantial reduction in
population numbers, or substantiated threats to existing populations
that rise to the level that indicate the Kern brook lamprey is either
in imminent danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
We will continue to monitor available information on the species,
and maintain the option of initiating listing procedures in the future
should such an action become necessary. We ask the public to submit to
us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of
this species. If you wish to provide materials concerning this finding,
submit them to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
Literature Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon
request, from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section above).
Author
The primary author of this notice is the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section
above).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 20, 2004.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-28162 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P