Qualification: The ISRP requests that a synthesis of the work be prepared within one year. The synthesis should not be simply a summary of past work but rather should focus on general conclusions that can be drawn from the body of the work since initiation of the project, with supporting evidence, and possible future directions for the work. The proponents should also provide a candid assessment of status and trends in fish and habitat performances including whether trends suggest improvements in these performances related to restoration and enhancement efforts. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing the synthesis.

In addressing the ISRP comment pertaining to ocean survival, the proponents briefly reviewed the little that is known about lamprey ocean ecology and acknowledged that ocean conditions could affect survival. However, they did not discuss studies that would specifically answer the questions, arguing that ocean survival was beyond the scope of the study. The ISRP is concerned that major commitments to lamprey restoration in tributaries such as the Deschutes will be to no avail if these "out of subbasin" effects are not dealt with. Perhaps they will be under the proposed lamprey master plan. We assume CTWSO is engaged with the development of the lamprey master plan, which at least is a step towards the needed understanding of cumulative effects.

In the response to the ISRP comment pertaining to mainstem passage problems, the proponents acknowledge the severity of lamprey passage mortality. They refer to work being conducted to improve passage for lamprey over mainstem dams. They note that Deschutes River lamprey returns have been relatively stable from 2004-2009 and suggest that Deschutes lamprey is an anchor population. The proponents have a point and need to gain as much understanding of this population as possible. Their major point, however, was that ocean impacts and dam passage problems do not obviate the need for lamprey research and restoration in tributaries. The ISRP agrees. As stated above, our central concern with this project and other lamprey projects is that the effects of poor ocean conditions combined with mainstem passage problems may be so pervasive as to counteract any positive impacts of tributary restoration actions.

Regarding the ISRP question concerning contaminants as a possible limiting factor, the proponents indicated they will assist CRITFC's effort to collect lamprey tissue samples for contaminant analysis. The proponents noted that a contaminant study is beyond the scope of this project and rightfully argued that contaminant studies need to be designed on a larger scale and involve spatial and temporal issues.

In their response to the question concerning specific escapement goals for Deschutes lamprey, they provided a general goal, and believed specific goal setting was premature. However, we note that to develop a specific goal stimulates thinking about all of the types of information that is needed. Some of this type of thinking was noted in their response.

The proponents state their difficulties with some very basic measurements including lack of tagging technology, an inability to capture and retain lamprey in traps, and the imprecise nature of aging lamprey. The proponents are therefore very concerned about lamprey enumeration technique issues, and perhaps this narrow problem should be more of a focus for their work.

The ISRP requested a synthesis of the work. The proponents responded by providing an abbreviated list of accomplishments, in bulleted format, and referring the ISRP to their annual reports. It is unfortunate that the proponents have chosen not to respond in depth to the ISRP's key request for a synthesis of findings to date. Since the project has been going since 2002, this is not an unreasonable request.

A response is requested on the following items (also see the questions under “Other ISRP comments” below):

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."