Lamprey Information ExchangeDecember 12, 2019

Ann Gray & Christina WangU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

• Japan• National – Not Assessed• Regional – “Critically Endangered” (Hokkaido Prefecture 2000; Tochigi

Prefecture (2005) • Russia

• National – No Status (Dyldin and Orlov 2016)• Canada

• National• “Apparently Secure” (NatureServe 2019; Renaud 2009)• “High Priority” candidate wildlife species for status assessment

(COSEWIC 2019)

• Mexico• National – “Threatened” (Maitland et al. 2015)

• United States• Tribes - Culturally Important – Brother Eels• National – Species of Concern (USFWS)• Oregon – State Sensitive Species• Washington – Priority Species • Idaho – State Endangered Species• California – State Species of Concern

1993 - Oregon designates PL as State Sensitive Species1994 - Northwest Power and Planning Council and

Bonneville Power Administration start directing and funding lamprey work

1995 - Columbia River Status Report1995 - Columbia River Lamprey Technical Workgroup 1999 - Bonneville daytime counts resume2000 - Adult translocation program – Umatilla Tribe2002 - Commercial harvest banned in Oregon

• Petitioners (2003)• Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center• Siskiyou Regional Education Project• Friends of the Eel• Northcoast Environmental Center• Environmental Protection Information Center• Native Fish Society• Center for Biological Diversity• Oregon Natural Resources Council• Washington Trout• Umpqua Valley Audubon

• 2003 Petition to List 4 Species:• Pacific, River, Western Brook and Kern Brook

lampreys• 2004 – “Not warranted” decision for all species

• River, Western Brook and Kern Brook lampreys• Insufficient information

• Pacific lamprey• Agreed there were declines• No defined listable entity (distinct population

segment)• What can we say now? …….

• Population Genomics of Pacific Lamprey • (Hess et al. 2013)

• DNA sequencing from 500+ lamprey• California to British Columbia• Little genetic variation tied to geographic origin• Consistent with population genetic heterogeneity

within a species with extensive gene flow• Identified some regional genetic variation

Phylogenetic analysesHess J.E. et al. (2013) Mol Ecol, 22(11), 2898-2916DNA sequencing - SNP loci

2004 - Willamette Falls License - Lamprey Passage Plan 2006 - Rocky Reach License - Lamprey Mgmt Plan2008 - USACE 10 year Lamprey Passage Plan2008 - Priest Rapids License - Lamprey Mgmt Plan2009 - Wells License - Lamprey Management Plan2010 - Clackamas License - Lamprey Passage Plan

CRITFC Lamprey Summit I - 2004Lamprey Summit II - 2008

Fish Accords - 2008 Pacific Lamprey Conservation Initiative - 2008

Pacific Lamprey Conservation Initiative

RMUs and Assessment2011-2012

Oregon ZooYakama NationUmatilla TribesWarm Springs TribesCow Creek Band of UmpquasGrand Ronde TribesSiletz TribesBlue Lake Rancheria TribeMechoopda TribeWiyot TribeYurok TribeCoos, Lower Umpqua Siuslaw TribesCalifornia Dept of Fish and WildlifeOregon Dept of Fish and WildlifeIdaho Dept of Fish and GameWashington Dept of Fish and WildlifeAlaska Dept of Fish and GamePortland Metro

City of Portland Environmental ServicesPortland General ElectricBonneville Power AdministrationU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Bureau of Indian AffairsU.S. Bureau of Land Management – CA, ID & ORU.S. Bureau of ReclamationUS Fish and Wildlife Service – Regions 1, 7 & 8U.S. Forest Service – Regions 1, 4, 5 & 6National Marine Fisheries ServicePacific States Marine Fish CommissionLower Columbia River Estuary PartnershipColumbia Land TrustSalmon Creek Watershed CouncilCalifornia Dept of Water ResourcesU.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 10Grant County PUDChelan County PUD

2010 - Best Management Practices Document2011 - Tribal Restoration Plan 2012 - Lamprey Summit III/Conservation Agreement2013 - Regional Implementation Plans 2017 - Lamprey Summit IV2018 - Assessment revised – OR, WA, ID, AK and CA2019 - ODFW completes Conservation Plan for Lampreys

• SIMILARITIES• Regional management areas (RMUs vs Core Areas)

• Meet regularly for coordination • Technical Workgroups• Modeling (Risk Assessment with ~5 year updates)• Recovery Plans (2019 Assessment and RIPs)

• Differences• No designation of critical habitats• No “take” prohibitions• No ESA consultation (BOs) on all federal actions• No federal permitting for scientific research etc.• Less attention/ public awareness• Less $$ available

• PLCI- Collaborative conservation strategy• Voluntary actions and collaboration*

• 1,000 cfs surface collector

• Insert graph

QUESTIONS?

Thank you!

• Ben Clemens• Chris Allen• Jon Hess• PGE• RMU leads and

partners