FY07-09 proposal 200201600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 9/30/2010
Comments: This project will be completed with the issuance of a final technical report in September, 2010. Findings from this project may lead restoration proposals as well as continued status and trend monitoring.

Final deliverables: Final technical report describing results from 2007-2009 will be issued to BPA , tribal managers, USFWS and CBLTWG. If results are significant they will be submitted for publication during 2010-211. Data will be shared with regional monitoring efforts such as CSMEP.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Technical and scientific background: The problem is adequately described and involves gaining a better understanding of the basic biology of lamprey populations in the Deschutes River to enable development of a restoration plan. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The project is consistent with a number of plans calling for lamprey protection and restoration. The project directly addresses objectives in the Fish and Wildlife Program, the Deschutes River Subbasin Plan, and the CRITFC tribal recovery plan. Relationships to other projects: The project is said to be related to work funded by PGE and other BPA funded lamprey projects in the basin. ODFW personnel will assist with some of the fieldwork. It was encouraging to read the discussion of the "Columbia River Basin Lamprey Summit" convened by CRITFC in 2004, and the designation of a Columbia Basin Lamprey Technical Working Group in 2005. The ISRP recommended such a system for coordinating Lamprey studies in the Basin. However, it is not clear how the TWG operates. We thus raise a question whether the projects funded to restore lamprey populations in the basin are well enough coordinated to avoid duplication of effort. Although they are conducted in different watersheds, the results ought to be transferable to some degree from one to the other. We don't see this issue discussed in any of the proposals. There should be coordination of objectives and assignment of tasks to avoid duplication. The ISRP has developed a separate statement with programmatic comments on lamprey studies. The sponsors should refer to it. Project history: The proposal would be improved by providing more details on how close the proponents are toward completion of the habitat model as well as the stock-recruitment relationships. Some simple correlations are mentioned but the model seems to be a multiple regression model. The inclusions of results (e.g., abundance estimate plots) in the proposal helped give a perspective on findings. The knowledge gained since inception of the project would appear to contribute significantly to understanding lamprey biology in the Deschutes River. The sponsors, however, did not organize the statement of results according to the original objectives, so it is not possible to determine to what extent the objectives were achieved. The sponsors should interpret and draw conclusions from graphs and tables rather than simply referring the reviewer to them. The variance estimate for the M–R study was very large. What will be done to reduce the variance? The sponsors should report the 95% CI for the population estimates. Objectives: Objectives are quantified. The proposal would be improved if more benchmarks were provided toward completion of the model. According to one statement it is not going to be completed until 2010. The objectives are clear and are a logical extension of previous work. The sponsors should explain why they think a stock-recruitment model is appropriate for population assessment. What function will it serve? How will the model be developed using the data obtained? The objectives focus upon the river above Shirar Falls. It is not clear whether Shirar Falls has itself been identified as an obstacle to lamprey passage that should be corrected. There is "assumed" to be no spawning below the dam there. The basis for this assumption is not given. It seems peculiar, given that studies are being funded of spawning in the mainstem Columbia River. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are described reasonably well and most appear to be scientifically sound. Methods used to date have apparently shown mixed results especially trapping. The proposal would be improved if more details were given on why the trap holding efficiency was zero. Is that because the larvae escaped? Feasibility studies with redd caps show an innovative approach. There are a few issues the sponsors have to address. Multiple adult population estimates will be obtained throughout the summer. How will these multiple estimates be treated analytically? How was the number of radio-tagged fish arrived at? Given the number and size of tributary streams above Shirar, it would seem that 100 tags would be grossly inadequate to provide the information the sponsors are seeking. More information is required on the habitat model that is proposed. Monitoring and evaluation: Provisions for monitoring are an integral part of the project. Migration patterns, escapement, harvest and temperature data are key information. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Good facilities and equipment including a specialized lamprey electrofishing unit (not sure what that is however). The personnel are trying to cover a variety of species and are lamprey generalists with some reports submitted. Facilities seem adequate. This type of work has been ongoing since 2002. The personnel appear qualified and have been conducting lamprey research in the Deschutes basin. They have not produced any peer-reviewed publications. Economies are achieved by borrowing equipment from other projects. Information Transfer: The description of this element is particularly good, and could serve as a model for others. Plans are in place for release of data on Streamnet with a final technical report in 2010. "Analyze data generated from this project and compile findings in a technical report for distribution to managers. Significant results will be submitted for publication." The proponents should consider focused papers in journals before that as well as presentations of results at workshops or public meetings. Benefit to focal and non-focal species: This is a fairly comprehensive project with some innovations (e.g., the redd cap work) that will benefit other lamprey studies in the Columbia River Basin. The information will be used as the basis for a lamprey restoration plan. As described the project will probably benefit the species locally and contribute to a broader understanding wherever lamprey are found in the Basin. At this stage there remains an uncertainty. Possible benefit to bull trout and others is considered. Proponents should consider effects of electrofishing and trapping on focal salmonids, non-salmonids and mammals. Response should address the following questions and issues: 1. The sponsors did not organize the statement of results according to the original objectives, so it is not possible to determine to what extent the objectives were achieved. 2. There are several methodological issues that the sponsors need to deal with. A critical one is the methodology to obtain reasonably accurate estimates of numbers of returning adults. 3. The method used for estimating trap holding efficiency was unclear. 4. Respond to the issues raised in the ISRP's Programmatic Comments on Lamprey

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsors have developed an excellent, comprehensive response to ISRP's concerns. The level of detail in the response was appreciated. It is apparent that the sponsors made a serious effort to clarify issues that the ISRP raised. They should be encouraged to publish their results. A good series of annual reports has been published and could be synthesized for publication. The only disconcerting comment is related to the identification of larval lamprey (comment under Objective 2). Apparently, dichotomous keys are not available to the sponsors for identifying larval lamprey. Development of the keys should be a priority. The study has a strong habitat focus, and the sponsors are documenting habitat-lamprey relationships with a sophisticated statistical model. The response relating to the statistical model was very thorough. After peer review this model may be one of the products that could be used throughout the Columbia River Basin, or at least tested in several streams. This might be one of the ways a generalized approach, rather than a stream-by-stream tactic, might be fostered. Regarding the ISRP programmatic reference to efforts by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, through appointment of a Columbia River Basin Lamprey Technical Working Group (CRBLTWG) to achieve a coordinated effort in studies of lamprey in the Columbia Basin, the sponsors observe “The CRBLTW is currently lacking in their efforts to coordinate on-going and future lamprey research and monitoring project. Thus far, the group has spent their time disseminating information through workshops and information requests and prioritizing uncertainties.” We hope that CBFWA and USFWS will provide leadership in directing the efforts of CRBLTWG to uphold its original statement of purpose. Coordinating projects to achieve results applicable to the entire Columbia River Basin is essential given the scarce funds available for Pacific lamprey research.”