Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2011-014-00 - Evaluate Status & Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in the lower Deschutes River, Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River Subbasins Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2011-014-00 - Evaluate Status & Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in the lower Deschutes River, Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River Subbasins

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2011-014-00
Title:
Evaluate Status & Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in the lower Deschutes River, Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River Subbasins
Summary:
This project combines projects 2002-016-00 (Evaluate the Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Lower Deschutes River) and 2007-007-00 (Determine Status and Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River subbasins, Oregon). Combining the work from these two projects into one project will improve administrative and operating efficiency in project implementation.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Gorge Fifteenmile 25.00%
Hood 25.00%
Columbia Plateau Deschutes 50.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Lamprey, Pacific
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Tags:
None
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $476,395 $476,395 $476,395 $476,395 $262,935

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $476,395 $476,395 $476,395 $262,935
FY2019 (Current) $476,395 $476,395 $476,395 $69,990

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $476,395 $476,395 $476,395 $69,990
FY2020 (Next) $476,395 $476,395 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $476,395 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $476,395 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $173,131 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 11/8/2017 11/09/2017
FY2018 Expense $173,131 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 11/8/2017 11/09/2017
FY2019 Expense $476,395 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $476,395 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife $5,000
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) $5,000
Total $0 $10,000
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 $10,000 2 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
77177 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2011-014-00 EXP EVAL STATUS/LIMITING FACTORS OF PACIFIC LAMP Issued $476,395 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
80595 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2011-014-00 EXP EVAL STATUS/LIMITING FACTORS OF PAC LAMPREY (WS) Issued $476,395 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):7
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:30
On time:26
Avg Days Late:0

Historical from: 2007-007-00
Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
43272 48255 200700700 EXP LAMPREY STATUS FIFTEENMILE & HOOD RIVER SUBBASINS Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 07/2009 07/2009 History 9 26 0 0 0 26 100.00% 0
Project Totals 66 275 30 0 4 309 98.71% 4


Historical from: 2002-016-00
Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
9553 26436, 34864, 39063, 44716, 50086 2002-016-00 LAMPREY SPECIES COMP/LARVAL DISTRIBUTION/ADULT ABUND Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 04/2002 04/2002 History 27 62 0 0 0 62 100.00% 0
Project Totals 66 275 30 0 4 309 98.71% 4


Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
55237 58343, 62952, 67297, 70208, 73852, 77177, 80595 2011-014-00 EXP PACIFIC LAMPREY - DESCHUTES, FIFTEENMILE & HOOD Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 10/2011 10/2011 Issued 30 187 30 0 4 221 98.19% 4
Project Totals 66 275 30 0 4 309 98.71% 4


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2011-014-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2011-014-00 - Evaluate Status & Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in the lower Deschutes River, Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River Subbasins
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2011-014-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

Qualifications:

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe their responses to the ISRP's comments and suggestions below in their upcoming annual report covering FY 2019 accomplishments.

1.      Provide quantitative objectives with timelines.

2.      Explain more clearly how this project meshes with recovery efforts in other subbasins. 

3.      Describe the adaptive management process (i.e., review cycles) by which decisions to alter course are being made. 

4.      Provide additional information about the sampling design and procedures for inferring the density of ammocoetes in study streams. It is not clear how the individual electrofishing locations were chosen.

Comment:

This is an ambitious project that continues to provide important data for assessing status and trends of Pacific lamprey in three subbasins: Hood River, Deschutes River, and Fifteenmile Creek. The proponents propose to expand their Pacific lamprey surveys into the John Day subbasin. Together, the proposal and 2017 Annual Report provide a useful synthesis of activities since 2011 and general progress toward achieving stated objectives. The proponents have established workable protocols that are being used to track changes in the distributions and abundances of lamprey in these subbasins. Surveys are providing information on habitat characteristics that adult and juvenile lamprey prefer. Testing for contaminant levels in lamprey will begin in 2019. All this information is useful. Conservation and restoration of Pacific lamprey depend on obtaining knowledge about population structure and factors that currently limit distribution and productivity.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The objectives are clearly stated and justified. Objectives 1 to 3 are implicitly quantitative (i.e., estimating parameters for population assessment). Objectives 4-7 are not expressed quantitatively.

The proposal clearly explains why this project was initiated and how it addresses biological objectives identified in the Pacific Lamprey Restoration Initiative, as well as critical uncertainties identified in the Fish and Wildlife Program. Anticipated benefits and opportunities for further research are described, but they are not expressed quantitatively. The seven deliverables mirror the objectives (although numbered differently) and lack quantitative details and timelines. This is primarily a monitoring project that will require long-term continuity. There is no discussion of when conservation or enhancement actions based on findings from the monitoring might occur.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The proposal and latest annual report (for 2017) provide a useful synthesis of activities since 2011. The proponents have made substantial progress in establishing monitoring protocols for abundance, harvest, and escapement, as well as describing the distributions and densities of larvae in the subbasins. Habitat conditions are being assessed to help identify limiting factors (e.g., water temperature regimes, deficiencies of larval habitat, and potential passage barriers). Despite some unexpected challenges in 2017 caused by personnel changes, high water levels, and new detection equipment, the project appears to be on schedule and continues to provide important data for assessing status and trends of Pacific lamprey in this study area. 

The proponents are also collecting tissue samples for analysis by contractors to estimate population genetics parameters (e.g., effective population size) and to investigate contaminant loads; however, it is difficult to evaluate progress on these objectives with the information provided. Movement patterns are being assessed using both PIT and acoustic tags, and water temperature is being monitored at several sites within the lower Deschutes subbasin. The information provided about these activities is insufficient to evaluate progress. 

The proposal and 2017 Annual Report indicate that the project is evolving steadily and creatively as information is gained, challenges are discovered, and new hypotheses are developed. M&E has led to changes in project operations and prompted the development of new initiatives. For example, recapture rates were increased by using PIT tags instead of Floy tags in the capture-recapture studies and adding additional PIT tag antennas at Sherars Falls. New initiatives include: (1) a recent effort to work collaboratively with ODFW and CRITFC to develop ways to extend lamprey assessment activities into the John Day subbasin; and (2) success in convincing management biologists to remove the "headworks" barrier on Shitike Creek based on inferences from juvenile surveys. 

However, neither the proposal nor the 2017 Annual Report describe the adaptive management process (i.e., review cycles) by which decisions to alter course are being made. The data being collected during this project are primarily monitoring data to assess progress toward recovery, but the proposal does not adequately describe management objectives and activities, or the process by which data from this project will be analyzed to influence future management decisions.

This project provides new knowledge on methodological issues and status and trends that are broadly applicable throughout the Columbia Basin. The genetic sampling in this project is directly linked to a study of population structure, adaptation, and migration that spans the lower Columbia and Snake river basins. 

The 2017 and earlier annual reports provide an appropriately detailed discussion of objectives, methods, and results. The proponents have completed annual reports in a timely fashion and have published twelve of their protocols in the PNAMP web site. There does not appear to have been any sharing of findings in peer-reviewed literature. 

A next step for the project is to use the information that is being gathered to develop restoration or conservation plans for Pacific lamprey in the subbasins they have been monitoring. Are there plans to do so? Further explanation of what is being planned for the John Day subbasin would be useful. Given that this project now involves four different subbasins, the proponents are urged to consider ways to improve coordination and data sharing with managers responsible for Pacific lamprey conservation in other subbasins.

In discussing the estimates of "effective population size" based on genetic data (page 8 of the proposal), the proponents state that the estimates of 206 individuals in 2016 and 291 in 2017 are much lower than the escapement estimates (1,897 and 3,357 individuals, respectively), and that they are "still trying to determine if one of the estimation methods is flawed, or perhaps there is a high level of pre-spawn mortality occurring." Neither of these explanations may be necessary—it is important to recognize that the genetically effective population size of a naturally spawning fish population is typically much smaller than its census population size (i.e., 10% is not extreme). A discrepancy is expected because the genetically effective population size indicates the number of individuals in an idealized population (characterized by a standard set of assumptions about sex ratio, probability of mating and variation in productivity among families) that would give rise to the same genetic diversity indices seen in the natural population being studied. Most natural populations deviate substantially from the idealized population. On the other hand, it is not clear in the text if the proponents actually mean genetically effective population size or instead are referring to the maximum number of parents detected by parentage analysis, which would depend on the number of fish that survived to spawn and the proportion of spawning fish whose progeny were represented in the samples for genetic analysis. 

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

The proposal provides a good overview of activities and methods, and the 2017 Annual Report provides sufficient detail for a rigorous review of methods. Methods seem appropriate and both reports cite published literature to justify assertions and support procedures. 

An exception is the description of procedures for estimating the density of ammocoetes in study streams. More detail is needed to explain the survey design and how the individual electrofishing sites were chosen. The sites seem to comprise an unspecified mix of previously sampled sites and new sites that are easily accessible and look suitable for ammocoetes. For this reason, it is not clear what the density statistics actually represent—it seems like they would represent just the collection of selected sampling sites, perhaps reflecting something like average density in the best habitat stratum in each stream. In the text they seem to be reported as representing the average density in each stream. Estimating the average density over all habitat types would require a random (or stratified random) sampling design. It's not clear if this was done. 

We agree with the proponents in expressing concern (page 22 of 2017 Annual Report) that capture-recapture estimates of escapement to the Warm Springs River might be biased by releasing marked fish on the same bank as the WSNFH fish ladder in which they were trapped. Releasing fish on both banks to ensure proper mixing seems like an appropriate precaution to take in future.

This project aims to serve a long-term monitoring and assessment function. The proposal and 2017 Annual Report, together with links to the PNAMP site, provide appropriate detail about the types of monitoring activities that have been conducted or planned. Continued assessment of status and trends will be needed to evaluate the sustainability of current harvest rates (~20%) and to decide if harvest regulations are required.

Documentation Links:
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-ISRP-20100323
Project: 2007-007-00 - Determine Status and Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River subbasins, Oregon
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 12/12/2008
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP qualifies the recommendation identifying that additional effort and responses be given to: 1) adding a water quality monitoring component to detect the presence of potentially harmful chemicals, 2) detailing the juvenile lamprey sampling program, 3) examining the objectives for, and statistical basis of, applying 100 PIT tags to adult lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek, 4) describing results from (Project # 200201600 “Evaluate the Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Deschutes Basin” - initiated in 2002) to ensure that study protocols from the latter project are complementary as possible, avoiding any duplication in methods development.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-NPCC-20110711
Project: 2007-007-00 - Determine Status and Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River subbasins, Oregon
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2007-007-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through FY 2012 per January 12, 2010 Council decision. In addition, sponsor to address ISRP qualifications (ISRP 2010-44B) by assisting in the development of a synthesis report for ISRP review as described in programmatic issue #8. Implementation beyond FY 2012 based on ISRP and Council reviews of this follow-up action.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #8 Lamprey—.
Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-NPCC-20110113
Project: 2002-016-00 - Evaluate the Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Lower Deschutes River
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2002-016-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2012. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications (ISRP 2010-44B) by assisting in the development of a synthesis report for ISRP review as described in programmatic issue #8. Implementation beyond FY 2012 based on ISRP and Council reviews of this follow-up action.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #8 Lamprey—.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2002-016-00 - Evaluate the Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Lower Deschutes River
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2002-016-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
A response is requested on the following items (also see the questions under “Other ISRP comments” below):
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2007-007-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-007-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ()
All Questionable RPA Associations () and
All Deleted RPA Associations ()
Proponent Response:
Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2002-016-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2002-016-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ()
All Questionable RPA Associations () and
All Deleted RPA Associations ()
Proponent Response:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-007-00 - Determine Status and Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River subbasins, Oregon
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:
Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-016-00 - Evaluate the Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Lower Deschutes River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: The budget reflects the reduced scope associated with the radio tagging of adult lamprey.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-007-00 - Determine Status and Limiting Factors of Pacific Lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek and Hood River subbasins, Oregon
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This project is a duplication of studies proposed by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon in the Deschutes River, except that the Fifteenmile Creek basin work deals more with habitat degradation problems. Because most of the objectives are similar between the two proposals it would be more effective if the studies were focused on the Deschutes because it is uncertain if the lamprey habitat can be recovered in Fifteenmile. For these reasons, the ISRP believes this project is not fundable at this time.

While the CBFWA Lamprey Technical Working Group is mentioned, there is no indication that the TWG has identified the objectives of this proposal as fitting into an overall plan or strategy for determining basic information on lamprey. It should be possible to generalize from results of existing studies - if this is not so the proponents need to point out the absolutely unique attributes of Fifteenmile.

The habitat in the Fifteen Mile Subbasin appears to be in very poor condition. Lamprey habitat is suffering from multiple habitat stresses ranging from toxic spills to impassable conditions owing to culverts. Although the proposal was well written, insufficient data were provided on some of the degradation to determine if some features were recoverable, especially water quality. For example the specific type of toxic spill was not identified - is the stream still suffering from chronic effects of it? Although the proponents must feel lamprey habitat in the creek can be recovered, it was difficult to get a perspective on how realistic this goal actually would be.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-016-00 - Evaluate the Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Lower Deschutes River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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."
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-007-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Lamprey research, fishery managers, other hydro ops authorized/required.
Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-016-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Population status of lamprey in Deschutes, including harvest rates; fishery managers, other hydro on Deschutes authorized/required; need confirmation that cost share is reasonable (and/or that cost share from eg PGE is supporting at river-level basis)(cost-share percentage excludes cost share from another BPA-funded project).

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-007-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-007-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 2002-016-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-016-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2007-007-00 effective on 10/1/2011
Relationship Description: Effective with the FY12 contract that begins 10/1/2011, projects 2002-016 & 2007-007-00 (both Lamprey projects with Warm Springs Tribe) are being combined for contract, administrative and operating efficiencies.

This project Merged From 2002-016-00 effective on 10/1/2011
Relationship Description: Effective with the FY12 contract that begins 10/1/2011, projects 2002-016 & 2007-007-00 (both Lamprey projects with Warm Springs Tribe) are being combined for contract, administrative and operating efficiencies.


Name Role Organization
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Cyndi Baker Technical Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Siena Lopez-Johnston Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Andy Johnsen Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Elisabeth Bowers Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Zachary Gustafson Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Luca De Stefanis Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Tabatha Rood Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Chris Brun Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
David Kaplowe Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Leona Ike Administrative Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs