FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200002800: Eval Pacific Lamprey In Clearw

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Tim Cochnauer

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200002800
Proposal Name: Eval Pacific Lamprey In Clearw
BPA Project Manager: Deborah Docherty
Agency, Institution or Organization: Idaho Department of Fish & Game
Short Description: This ongoing project investigates all aspects of Pacifc lamprey life history/ecology in Idaho and defines their present status and distribution in Idaho. This project will continue to add to our knowlege and provide direction for future management.
Information Transfer: Data collected will be provided to the State of Idaho Conservation Data Center. All thesis, scientific publications, status and annual reports will be made available on the BPA web site. Presentations have been given and will continue to be given to a number of professional societies such as the American Fisheries Society.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Tim Cochnauer Idaho Department of Fish and Game 3316 16th St.
Lewiston, ID 83501
Ph: 208-799-5010
Fax: 208-799-5012
Email: tcochnauer@idfg.idaho.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Tim Cochnauer Idaho Department of Fish and Game 3316 16th St.
Lewiston, ID 83501
Ph: 208-799-5010
Fax: 208-799-5012
Email: tcochnauer@idfg.idaho.gov
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mountain Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Clearwater ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
46.417 117.017 Clearwater River All tributaries and entire mainstem reaches , Idaho Clearwater Yes
45.422 116.314 Salmon River All tributaries and entire mainstem reaches , Idaho Salmon Yes
45.223 116.700 Snake River All tributaries and entire mainstem reaches , Idaho Snake Hells Canyon Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Pacific Lamprey

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Continued collecting baseline life history and distribution information in Clearwater River and Salmon River drainages. Continued coordination with Lamprey Technical Workgroup.
2004 Continued baseline life history and distribution surveys in Clearwater River drainage and initiated surveys to collect baseline distribution of larval and juvenile forms in Salmon River drainage. Continued coordination with Lamprey Technical Workgroup.
2003 Continued to obtain baseline life history information and distribution of larval and juvenile forms throughout Clearwater River drainage. Assessment of status based on surveys and adult counts at dams. Continue coordination. Refine habitat descriptors.
2002 Continued obtaining baseline information on life history, habitat utilization, and distribution of larval and juvenile forms in S.F. Clearwater River subbasin. Initiated sampling in remainder of Clearwater River drainage. Continued coordination.
2001 Continuing obtaining baseline information on life history, habitat utilization, and distribution of larval and juvenile forms in S.F. Clearwater River subbasin. Continued coordination with Columbia River Basin Lamprey Technical Workgroup.
2000 Obtained baseline information on life history, habitat utilization, and distribution of Pacific lamprey larval and juvenile phases in S.F. Clearwater River subbasin. Coordinated findings with Columbia River Basin Lamprey Technical Workgroup.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199402600 Pacific Lamprey Population Sta Coordination and data sharing.
BPA 200001400 Evaluate Lamprey Habitat/Popul Coordination and data sharing
BPA 200201600 Lamprey Abundance Coordination and data sharing
Other: USACOE ADS-P-00-8 Evaluation Adult Salmon, Steelhead and Lamprey Coordination and data sharing

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
[BO Title left blank] [BO Description left blank] None [Strategy left blank] [Page No blank]
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio Problem 14, Obj. 14A: Anadromous fish entering irrigation systems are subjected to threats of dewatering, predation, and increased temperatures. Salmon 14A4:Meet with irrigation districts to define management strategies to ensure ditches are managed to help fish. 34, 58-59
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam Problem 1, Obj. 1A: The major impacts of upstream hydroelectric development are on those species that primarily use the mainstem Snake River for much of their life history. However, all focal aquatic species are impacted to some degree by upstream hydropower development including the Hells Canyon Dam and complex. Snake Hells Canyon 1A3. Monitor both the effects of limiting factors on populations and restoration and management efforts aimed at minimizing impacts of limiting factors. 17
1A.Increase natural spawners Out-of-subbasin factors including, estuarine, and ocean conditions, hydropower impacts such water quality and fish passage, mainstem Snake/Columbia River water quality and conditions, and downriver and oceanic fisheries are the primary factors limiting recruitment of anadromous spawners to the Clearwater subbasin. Increases in both anadromous adult escapement and habitat carrying capacity will be required to achieve anadromous fish objectives in Table 3 (page 16) and this objective. The interaction of out of basin effects with subbasin restoration efforts will require coordination and cooperation in basinwide efforts to address problems impacting Clearwater subbasin fish stocks. Establishment of index stocks is necessary to allow for long term monitoring of anadromous population abundance trends applicable to Clearwater subbasin (including escapement, life stage specific survival, etc.) Life stage specific information relevant specifically to Clearwater anadromous fish populations is necessary for their successful management. Clearwater 1. Participate in province and basin-wide coordinated studies and water management forums. Work with other entities to ameliorate and mitigate limiting factors. 2. Define anadromous stocks to identify adult abundance and life history characteristics. 14-16
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults Problem 1, Obj 1A: Out-of-basin factors including estuary and ocean productivity, hydropower impacts on water quality, quantity, and fish passage, and downriver/ocean fisheries are primary factors limiting recruitment of anadromous species to Salmon subbasin. To achieve stock building called for in the plan (Table 6, page 22), it will be necessary to improve out of basin and in subbasin conditions. Establishment of representative index stocks is necessary for long-term monitoring of specific anadromous fish population SAR rates (along with escapement, productivity, life history characteristics, genetic diversity, etc., as identified in this plan). Population specific SAR and other information in Salmon subbasin is needed to successfully manage these populations. Salmon 1A1.Participate in province and basinwide studies and water management forums to examine various out-of-basin and in subbasin habitat characteristics impacting anadromous Pacific lamprey. 20-22
21RR.Increase resource information delivery Problem 21, Obj. RR: It is important to develop broad public understanding and commitment to fish and wildlife efforts in the Clearwater subbasin. These efforts need to involve individuals as well as agencies. A sustained long-term effort to provide information to community and residents of subbasin needs to be maintained indefinitely. Information dissemination should be woven in programs and projects when possible. Clearwater 3.Provide information and assistance to agencies, organizations, and interested parties. 4.Provide for subbasin-wide information distribution such as public meetings, newsletters, newspaper articles, etc. 58-60
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species Problem 2, Obj.2A:Numerous out-of-subbasin impacts combine to limit recruitment and/or success of anadromous species. (See assessment 4.1.1) Local participation in province and basinwide planning and management will ensure coordination. Participation of subbasin managers in these broader scale efforts will also enhance the understanding of, and the ability to discern, management versus basinwide effects to fish populations within the subbasin. Snake Hells Canyon 2A2:Utilize existing forums to enhance communication and coordination. 2A5.Conduct research on Pacific lamprey life history, abundance/distribution, and productivity within the subbasin. 18-19
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti Problem 2.B: The natural production areas for anadromous fish species in Clearwater subbasin are currently underseeded as a result of downriver conditions in migratory corridor, estuary, and ocean. However attainment of goals in Table 3 (page 16) will require improvements in downriver conditions as well as habitat productivity with Clearwater subbasin. The establishment of PMU (primary management units) representative index streams and their successive monitoring will facilitate the need to determine the degree to which the productivity of a certain life history stage of anadromous focal species is being limited, by providing researchers with requisite life stage specific survival information. Clearwater Strategy 1: Identify and prioritize primary limiting factors in each PMU by anadromous species life stage. Areas should be identified for protections and restoration. Strategy 3: Establish index streams by PMUs. 16, 18-19
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals. Problem 3 Objective D. In an effort to meet adult return management objectives identified in Table 3 (page 16) natural production measures will be undertaken. The effectiveness of the implemented natural production propagation measures will be assessed through monitoring and evaluation to provide information relative to numerical goals and objectives and will give adaptive management of the program. Clearwater 3. Implement artificial natural production measures. 4. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of implementation of natural production strategies. 16, 19-21
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards Problem 7, Obj. Q: Excessive stream temperatures in various portions of Clearwater subbasin are considered to be limiting factors to anadromous and native fish populations. Prioritization of stream reaches for temperature ameriolation is needed. 303d-listed stream reaches inhabited by multiple focal species, or those influencing habitats containing key species will direct restoration prioritization efforts. Clearwater Q1.Identify and prioritize need--inventory and prioritize when temperature amelioration would most benefit various target species. Conduct inventories placing emphasis on stream shading data. 31,33-34
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity Problem 7, Obj U: Aquatic habitat conditions are defined as limiting all focal species in at least some areas of the subbasin. Improvement in habitat productivity is considered critical to attainment of goals listed in Table 3 (page 16). This objective requires a combined and coordinated approach of efforts individually addressing individual components of habitat complexity or factors acting upon it. Clearwater 1. Identify the need--identify habitats that have been simplified to a degree detrimental to anadromous and resident populations. 16, 37
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients. RM&E 7A1 (Table 12):Improve definition of ecosystem impacts associated with anadromous carcass reductions. This project will only provide baseline historical and present-day distribution information. Salmon Determine the effects of reductions in marine-derived nutrients (e.g., salmon or other anadromous fish carcasses) on aquatic and terresterial food webs. 119
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status Collection of M&E data will include life history, distribution, abundance by life stage, and genetic and homing behaviour attributes of Pacific lamprey ammocoetes and macropthalmia in Clearwater subbasin. Utilizing data collected through habitat assessment and population surveys, potential restoration opportunities will be identified. Clearwater RM&E 6.3. Assess population status, limiting factors, and rehabilitation potential for Pacific lamprey in Clearwater subbasin. 71-72

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
BPA Environmental Compliance Environmental Compliance Submit information as needed for BPA's Environmental Compliance Group to determine environmental compliance status. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $4,173
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
No Metrics for this Work Element

Maintain Fish Health Maintain Fish Health Maintenance of Pacific lamprey health while holding in aquaculture facility for a period of up to 12 months, which would include health monitoring, sampling, and administering treatment. 5/1/2007 12/31/2009 $5,425
Biological Objectives Metrics
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
No Metrics for this Work Element

Other Produce Pisces Status Report Complete quarterly reports within Pisces 4/1/2007 12/31/2009 $7,353
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
No Metrics for this Work Element

Other Trap/collect/hold wild fish Trapping, collecting, and holding of wild Pacific lamprey adults for inclusion in an adult translocation program in selected streams in Idaho. 5/1/2007 12/31/2009 $21,699
Biological Objectives Metrics
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination Coordination with federal, state and tribal biologists Throughout the calendar year, coordinate project activities with federal land management agencies, coordinate findings with federal, state, and tribal biologists, and continue work with Columbia River Basin lamprey technical work group. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $42,460
Biological Objectives Metrics
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Project Planning & Administration Covers work to manage on the ground efforts associated with the project. Also covers administrative work in support of on the ground efforts and in support of BPA's programmatic requirements such as financial reporting, and development of a SOW package (includes draft, SOW, budget, spending plan, and property inventory). 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $17,506
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Plan Final Conservation Plan for Pacific Lamprey in Idaho Develop a comprehensive adaptive management plan for restoring Pacific lamprey in Idaho, addressing population sizes, genetics, and fish health issues. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $13,625
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Annual Report Produce an annual report summarizing work accomplished in the previous 12 months, for the time period 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 and subsequent years. Report will inlcude a summary/conclusions of fish presence, habitat utilization, and genetics work. Compilation of the data will be included in the report. 1/1/2007 4/30/2009 $17,506
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Data analysis Field data, such as adult and juvenile migrational timing and magnitude at Lower Granite Dam, presence or absence of ammocoetes and macropthalmia at documented sample sites in the Clearwater, Salmon and Snake river drainages, migrational periodicity of juveniles in S.F. Clearwater River drainage, abundance estimations, length and weight data for ammocoetes and macropthalmia, and habitat utilization will be analyzed for enhancing knowledge of Pacific lamprey life history, habitat utilization, distribution and population status. With the continuing trend of depressed numbers of adult Pacfic lamprey entering Idaho, action must be taken to increase or maintain adult numbers in selected spawning areas to sustain populations within the State. The utilization of either adult translocation from lower Columbia River or Snake River hydroelectric facilities or hatchery production of early age juveniles may be the only avenues by which extinction of this fish species in Idaho may be prevented. These milestones will be utilized to develop conservation plans under Work Element F. 4/1/2007 12/31/2009 $35,011
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
Focal Area: Tributaries
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collection of field data for Pacific lamprey ammocoetes and macrothalmia Collect biological and physical habitat data for Pacific lamprey ammocoetes and macropthalmia in the Clearwater and Salmon River drainages, as well as the Idaho section of Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam. Biological data will include total lengths, weight, and transformation status. Physical habitat data will include general habitat type, water temperature, substrate, and water depth. Thirty-five permanent trend monitoring sites have been established in the Clearwater River drainage. Presence-absence surveys will continue in the Salmon River drainage. Fifty permanent trend monitoring sites have been established in the Salmon River drainage. The field data collection season is anticipated from 1 March to 1 December. The following protocol will be used for each sample; capture utilizing electroshocking equipment, anesthetization, identification as to transformation status, total length measurement, weight, and release back to site of capture. Tissues samples from a minimum of 100 Pacific lamprey will be collected for utilization in genetic analysis. These samples will come from primarily adult fish collected at any of the lower Snake River or Columbia River hydroelectric facilities. Monitoring of radio tagged adults will be conducted after translocated into the Potlatch River. These fish will be monitoring to determine degree of spawning success. 3/1/2007 11/1/2009 $167,439
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
Focal Area: Tributaries
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring

Create/Manage/Maintain Database Database maintenance Annual field data will be incorporated in an Excel database consistent with previous year's information. In addition applicable field data will be incorporated into GIS Format. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $51,703
Biological Objectives Metrics
14A.Reduce potential loss to irrigation diversio
1A.Ameriolate negative impacts of Hells Canyon Dam
1A.Increase natural spawners
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
21RR.Increase resource information delivery
2A.Increase SAR's of anadromous species
2B. Increase anadromous fish productivity/producti
3D.Utilize natural production to meet goals.
7Q. Reduce water temperatures to meet standards
7U. Improve aquatic habitat diversity
RM&E7A1. Marine derived nutrients.
RME Obj 4.3.1 VI.3:Assess population status
No Metrics for this Work Element

Mark/Tag Animals Tag adult Pacific lamprey monitoring spawning success after translocation Placing radio tags internally on translocated adult Pacific lamprey destined for Potlatch River, a tributary of the lower Clearwater River. Twenty adults will received tags and subsequently monitoring are introduction into receiving stream to determine success after spawning 12/1/2007 12/31/2009 $39,226
Biological Objectives Metrics
1A.Increase naturally spawning adults
Focal Area: Tributaries
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 1 Fishery Research Biologist -- 12 months; 1 Senior Fishery Research Biologist, 3 months; 1 Biological Aide, 8 months $54,485 $57,207 $60,068
Fringe Benefits 1 Fishery Research Biologist -- 12 months; 1 Senior Fishery Research Biologist, 3 months; 1 Biological Aide, 8 months $26,695 $28,026 $29,427
Travel Meetings, lamprey technical work group $1,460 $1,550 $1,650
Supplies Nets, buckets, waders, equipment repair, vehicle rental, etc. $34,900 $27,182 $28,519
Overhead 20.98% indirect charge on personnel, fringe benefits, travel and supplies $22,825 $23,967 $25,165
Totals $140,365 $137,932 $144,829

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$423,126
Total Work Element budget$423,126

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
BLM Funds for additonal personnel $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Cash Under Review
Idaho Department of Fish and Game Field Facilities $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Idaho Department of Fish and Game Rotary Screen Trap Operation $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 In-Kind Confirmed
NOAA Fisheries Adult trapping at lower Columbia River dams $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 In-Kind Under Development
Private individuals--350 hours @ $20/hr Field assistance $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 In-Kind Under Review
USFS Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests Facilities $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $17,200 $17,200 $17,200

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$125,000 $135,000 Outyear plans are contingent on 2007-2009 findings, but it is anticipated that population restoration efforts, monitoring of populations, and habitat improvements will be necessary to maintain species within the State of Idaho.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
It is anticipated that future year operations will be monitoring existing populations, adult capture and translocation, habitat improvements and continued coordination with other governmental and tribal entities. Costs will be dependent on extent of any or all of these activities but a reasonable estimate for personnel, supplies, travel, etc. would not exceed $125,000 annually of which approximately 50% would be personnel costs.
 
Termination Date Comments
Undetermined The termination of this project will be dependent on full recovery and stabilization of Pacific lamprey in Idaho's waters.
 
Final Deliverables
Final deliverables will be recovery plans, annuals reports, databases, scientific publications, and GIS maps.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Do Not Fund
Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: Project not prioritized


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC Comments: Most of the work in the proposal is a continuation of the same type of work that began in 2000. The ISRP’s 2000 review indicated that the proposed work should be able to be completed in 3-4 years, followed by a final report. At present, the work has been ongoing for six years. The sponsors have not provided adequate justification for continuing the full scope of the work for 2007-09. They have not published the work in a peer-reviewed journal, as requested in earlier reviews.

The proposal has several shortcomings. Results of work completed to date (Project History section) needed to be organized by objectives of the original proposal, and a synthesis of results to date and major conclusions should have been given. Well-identified and justified objectives also are lacking. The methods for each proposed objective needed to be more clearly explained and data analyses needed to be more clearly developed.

The fieldwork component of this project should be terminated and the sponsors should proceed with development of a management plan for lamprey. Objective #4, which is to "finalize the comprehensive adaptive management plan for restoring Pacific lamprey in Idaho," is the only part of the proposal that should be funded.

The decline of lamprey in Idaho is clearly a problem that needs resolution. The proposal provided good background material on where lampreys historically occurred in Idaho and gave some results from the proponents past work.

After stating that "[p]opulations of Pacific lamprey in Idaho appear to be on a precipitous decline which could result in extinction in Idaho," and presenting statistics to support this, the sponsors recount the project's long history of investigation into the status of lamprey populations. Toward the end of the section, they allude to some probable causes of the decline (e.g., deteriorated water quality, construction of dams). It would have improved the usefulness of this section -- and of the whole proposal -- if a clearer and more emphatic statement was given of the ultimate (undoubtedly anthropogenic) causes of lamprey decline, which is the true problem. The section ends with the assertion that "[a]dditional basic life history, distribution, and remaining population status are urgently needed to increase understanding of this species and to further implement intensive management before remaining populations decline to critical, unrecoverable threshold in Idaho." The truly urgent need would seem to be determination of the reasons for lamprey decline -- and then to deal with those causes.

The proposal addresses several objectives related to anadromous fish in three subbasin plans. This section does not adequately explain why the project needs to gather more information on the lamprey populations. The need would seem to be for information about the external factors causing lamprey decline and about how to remedy those causes.

The project is coordinated with the lamprey technical working group. The proposal would be improved if connections to other closely related projects in the subbasins were made. There is no discussion of whether the Clearwater and the other projects have adopted similar sampling protocols.

A great deal of information is presented, but it should be organized by objectives in the original proposal so that progress toward accomplishing the objectives can be assessed. The sponsors should synthesize the results and state major conclusions of the work to date. The project history should provide a clear justification for future work.

The narrative does not present results related to the listed accomplishments at the beginning of the Project History section. Specifically, information on life history characteristics and habitat utilization and preference are not presented. The sponsors state in the Project Relationship section that their project has worked to “determine the limiting factors impacting Pacific lamprey and develop redd survey index reaches.” But there was no discussion of limiting factors or results of redd surveys. The rationale for selection of sampling sites needs to be explained. Tables 1 and 2 refer in their captions to "presence-absence surveys" of lamprey, but the data seem to involve numbers of lamprey captured and population densities, not presence or absence at sites.

The sponsors state that it is unknown whether the populations are nearing extinction. How will population status relative to probability of extinction be known before extinction occurs? Is enough known about demographics to conduct a PVA?

The objectives are too general and not well focused. For example, one objective is to "study all aspects of lamprey in Idaho." The objectives should be restricted to number 4: Finalize Pacific Lamprey Conservation/Management Plan for Management/Conservation of populations in Idaho--and possibly also number 5: 5: Reintroduce Pacific lamprey into the historically occupied Clearwater subbasin, Potlatch River drainage, Idaho and monitor the population.

The sponsors might have given some thought to development of a randomized sampling plan that might be used to derive an estimate of the total population (or subpopulations) of lamprey.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods should be ordered by objective. For example, what methods will be used to determine life history characteristics (Objective 1) and how will this data be analyzed? How will population distribution, population trends, and status (define) be determined (Objective 2)? How often will sampling occur? How and why were 35 monitoring sites chosen in Clearwater and 50 in Salmon River?

The sponsors need to explain the “nonrandom methodology” and why it was settled upon as a sampling scheme. What is the habitat classification scheme that will be used? The sponsors state that field crews will select sampling sites likely to be occupied by lamprey. How will this approach lead to an unbiased measure of distribution and abundance?

Why not install continuously recording thermographs to determine temperature. Given variability of water temperature, a single temperature measurement taken at the time of sampling will be virtually meaningless.

What life history/population parameters, besides outmigration timing, will be determined from the from the rotary trap data? Is trap efficiency sufficient to obtain a reliable estimate of population parameters? How will population sampling be undertaken in the mainstem Snake?

The data analysis section is not well written, and it seems as through the sponsors have not thought carefully about appropriate analyses. How will habitat utilization and preference be determined? Consultation with a statistician and careful review and editing of this section is warranted.

The introduction of lamprey into the Potlach River needs to be justified. What is the purpose of the introduction? Why was this river chosen? The sponsors state that little is known about genetic structure of populations yet propose to introduce fish from as a far away as the Willamette. Given the lack of knowledge of genetic structure and the current emphasis on supplementing natural stocks with genetically and phenotypically similar stocks, how can the proposed introductions be justified?

There are no methods associated with completion of the Conservation Plan (Objective 4). The sponsors should describe this Plan, its purpose, and its elements. The proposed method is to "utilize the habitat utilization, distribution, and status information from proposed objectives 1-7 [doesn't this information exist from previous years?] to formulate guidelines for the habitat needed for persistence of the species, current limitations to persistence, and management actions necessary to conserve the species in the Snake River subbasin." It is questionable whether management guidelines can be based on such population information alone. The need is for analysis of environmental processes, particularly human-generated ones, that are causing the population decline, and for a plan to eliminate or reduce those adverse processes.

Results from the present monitoring should be explained.

Facilities seem adequate, but the qualifications of the personnel were not given in the narrative. Information transfer is well specified. Data are being archived and are available on a website. Plans for peer-reviewed publications are given, but there was no indication of any publications to date in the proposal. Plans for information transfer to stakeholders seem well developed.

This project will yield data on lampreys, but it should be better integrated with similar projects in the Columbia River basin.

The sponsors should be aware of effects of trapping and electrofishing on other focal species such as salmonids and non-focal species such as non-salmonids and mammals. The sponsors do not discuss what precautions would be taken to reduce effects on non-target species.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC Comments: Most of the work in the proposal is a continuation of the same type of work that began in 2000. The ISRP’s 2000 review indicated that the proposed work should be able to be completed in 3-4 years, followed by a final report. At present, the work has been ongoing for six years. The sponsors have not provided adequate justification for continuing the full scope of the work for 2007-09. They have not published the work in a peer-reviewed journal, as requested in earlier reviews.

The proposal has several shortcomings. Results of work completed to date (Project History section) needed to be organized by objectives of the original proposal, and a synthesis of results to date and major conclusions should have been given. Well-identified and justified objectives also are lacking. The methods for each proposed objective needed to be more clearly explained and data analyses needed to be more clearly developed.

The fieldwork component of this project should be terminated and the sponsors should proceed with development of a management plan for lamprey. Objective #4, which is to "finalize the comprehensive adaptive management plan for restoring Pacific lamprey in Idaho," is the only part of the proposal that should be funded.

The decline of lamprey in Idaho is clearly a problem that needs resolution. The proposal provided good background material on where lampreys historically occurred in Idaho and gave some results from the proponents past work.

After stating that "[p]opulations of Pacific lamprey in Idaho appear to be on a precipitous decline which could result in extinction in Idaho," and presenting statistics to support this, the sponsors recount the project's long history of investigation into the status of lamprey populations. Toward the end of the section, they allude to some probable causes of the decline (e.g., deteriorated water quality, construction of dams). It would have improved the usefulness of this section -- and of the whole proposal -- if a clearer and more emphatic statement was given of the ultimate (undoubtedly anthropogenic) causes of lamprey decline, which is the true problem. The section ends with the assertion that "[a]dditional basic life history, distribution, and remaining population status are urgently needed to increase understanding of this species and to further implement intensive management before remaining populations decline to critical, unrecoverable threshold in Idaho." The truly urgent need would seem to be determination of the reasons for lamprey decline -- and then to deal with those causes.

The proposal addresses several objectives related to anadromous fish in three subbasin plans. This section does not adequately explain why the project needs to gather more information on the lamprey populations. The need would seem to be for information about the external factors causing lamprey decline and about how to remedy those causes.

The project is coordinated with the lamprey technical working group. The proposal would be improved if connections to other closely related projects in the subbasins were made. There is no discussion of whether the Clearwater and the other projects have adopted similar sampling protocols.

A great deal of information is presented, but it should be organized by objectives in the original proposal so that progress toward accomplishing the objectives can be assessed. The sponsors should synthesize the results and state major conclusions of the work to date. The project history should provide a clear justification for future work.

The narrative does not present results related to the listed accomplishments at the beginning of the Project History section. Specifically, information on life history characteristics and habitat utilization and preference are not presented. The sponsors state in the Project Relationship section that their project has worked to “determine the limiting factors impacting Pacific lamprey and develop redd survey index reaches.” But there was no discussion of limiting factors or results of redd surveys. The rationale for selection of sampling sites needs to be explained. Tables 1 and 2 refer in their captions to "presence-absence surveys" of lamprey, but the data seem to involve numbers of lamprey captured and population densities, not presence or absence at sites.

The sponsors state that it is unknown whether the populations are nearing extinction. How will population status relative to probability of extinction be known before extinction occurs? Is enough known about demographics to conduct a PVA?

The objectives are too general and not well focused. For example, one objective is to "study all aspects of lamprey in Idaho." The objectives should be restricted to number 4: Finalize Pacific Lamprey Conservation/Management Plan for Management/Conservation of populations in Idaho--and possibly also number 5: 5: Reintroduce Pacific lamprey into the historically occupied Clearwater subbasin, Potlatch River drainage, Idaho and monitor the population.

The sponsors might have given some thought to development of a randomized sampling plan that might be used to derive an estimate of the total population (or subpopulations) of lamprey.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods should be ordered by objective. For example, what methods will be used to determine life history characteristics (Objective 1) and how will this data be analyzed? How will population distribution, population trends, and status (define) be determined (Objective 2)? How often will sampling occur? How and why were 35 monitoring sites chosen in Clearwater and 50 in Salmon River?

The sponsors need to explain the “nonrandom methodology” and why it was settled upon as a sampling scheme. What is the habitat classification scheme that will be used? The sponsors state that field crews will select sampling sites likely to be occupied by lamprey. How will this approach lead to an unbiased measure of distribution and abundance?

Why not install continuously recording thermographs to determine temperature. Given variability of water temperature, a single temperature measurement taken at the time of sampling will be virtually meaningless.

What life history/population parameters, besides outmigration timing, will be determined from the from the rotary trap data? Is trap efficiency sufficient to obtain a reliable estimate of population parameters? How will population sampling be undertaken in the mainstem Snake?

The data analysis section is not well written, and it seems as through the sponsors have not thought carefully about appropriate analyses. How will habitat utilization and preference be determined? Consultation with a statistician and careful review and editing of this section is warranted.

The introduction of lamprey into the Potlach River needs to be justified. What is the purpose of the introduction? Why was this river chosen? The sponsors state that little is known about genetic structure of populations yet propose to introduce fish from as a far away as the Willamette. Given the lack of knowledge of genetic structure and the current emphasis on supplementing natural stocks with genetically and phenotypically similar stocks, how can the proposed introductions be justified?

There are no methods associated with completion of the Conservation Plan (Objective 4). The sponsors should describe this Plan, its purpose, and its elements. The proposed method is to "utilize the habitat utilization, distribution, and status information from proposed objectives 1-7 [doesn't this information exist from previous years?] to formulate guidelines for the habitat needed for persistence of the species, current limitations to persistence, and management actions necessary to conserve the species in the Snake River subbasin." It is questionable whether management guidelines can be based on such population information alone. The need is for analysis of environmental processes, particularly human-generated ones, that are causing the population decline, and for a plan to eliminate or reduce those adverse processes.

Results from the present monitoring should be explained.

Facilities seem adequate, but the qualifications of the personnel were not given in the narrative. Information transfer is well specified. Data are being archived and are available on a website. Plans for peer-reviewed publications are given, but there was no indication of any publications to date in the proposal. Plans for information transfer to stakeholders seem well developed.

This project will yield data on lampreys, but it should be better integrated with similar projects in the Columbia River basin.

The sponsors should be aware of effects of trapping and electrofishing on other focal species such as salmonids and non-focal species such as non-salmonids and mammals. The sponsors do not discuss what precautions would be taken to reduce effects on non-target species.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.