FY 2000 proposal 20121

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: ESA permits

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: The proposal is well presented and relates directly to recommended research and to several on-going or proposed projects. References appear thorough, and methods are generally well expressed. The proposal notes the vital significance of Pacific lampreys and their tendency to be under-estimated, but does not adequately discuss other lamprey studies either in progress or proposed. Disappointingly, the proposal pledges only that this effort will complement those other activities. The question may then logically be raised: Is this proposal critical to the success of the other projects, or vice-versa? Perhaps there should be an umbrella proposal explaining the interrelationships of the lamprey proposals.

Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed are: The extent to which ammocoetes can be identified is a major uncertainty. The problem is clearly stated, but its importance may not be fully acknowledged. If only 61 per cent of ammocoetes were correctly classified in the most recent study, Objective No. 2 will be compromised where multiple species are present. Objective No. 5 could become a very substantial job in itself. If prevailing dogma is that lampreys do not home, and if downstream migrants are to be given CWT, it seems that a more broad-scale effort should be proposed to recover tags in returning adults.

Regarding Objective No. 1, the estimation of adult lamprey abundance assumes that marked lampreys do not behave differently from unmarked lampreys, marked fish will try to re-ascend the falls, and marked lampreys suffer no greater mortality than unmarked lampreys. How will these important assumptions be tested so that unbiased results are assured? Regarding Objective No. 2, will habitats not used by ammocoetes also be characterized, so that the project develops information about habitat preferences?

The total commitment of the principal investigators to this and other projects (ongoing and proposed) should be evaluated to determine if they are over-committed.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Fund. The sponsors superficially, but adequately, addressed concerns of the ISRP with the exception that reporting of past results should be given higher priority.

The proposal is well written and describes objectives that are appropriate to the near-term goal of developing a restoration plan and the long-term objective of establishing naturally sustainable lamprey populations at levels that support tribal harvest opportunities. The proposed work seems to strike an admirable, but difficult balance between defining the information needed to restore lampreys specifically to the Umatilla and the information needed to guide much larger scale restoration efforts. The sponsor's response to ISRP comments was informative. Much work appears to have been done thus far; substantial planning has occurred and valuable databases are being assembled that bear on the restoration project.

Nevertheless, a major concern remains for the ISRP that the project is moving ahead into restoration actions (starting in 1999) without completion of the comprehensive plan (one of the project's objectives) that should serve to guide and coordinate such activities. Neither the proposal, nor the response, make clear a completion date for the comprehensive plan, although the Pacific Lamprey Plan in Appendix F of the CBFWA Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan (August 20, 1999) indicates that completion of the comprehensive plan is expected in 1999. The ISRP urges that this task be given highest priority among the present objectives and that it be completed as soon as possible. The ISRP recognizes that some of the project's research and survey activities up to this point have been needed in order to provide critical information for development of the comprehensive plan. However it appears from the proposal and response that adequate information now exists for development of the comprehensive plan. Using an adaptive management framework, sponsors can address remaining information gaps and incorporate new information as it develops. The comprehensive plan can also be revised as needed within this framework.

The ISRP reviewed the lamprey projects in relation to the Pacific Lamprey Plan. The plan demonstrates the need for the suite of research projects to address critical uncertainties. In addition, the plan appears to provide the vehicle through which coordination among the existing and new lamprey projects can occur. As a package, the new proposals address critical needs in lamprey research. Project 20064 should address uncertainties in upriver stocks, Project 20121 should address uncertainties in downriver stocks, and project 20065 should provide base scientific information on lamprey. This package also could include Project 20064 Upstream Migration of Pacific Lampreys in the John Day River, which received a CBFWA tier 2, and subsequently was ranked by the ISRP at 14 of 36 (see ISRP 99-3, October 8, 1999). The proposed lamprey projects are listed below.

Comment:

Comment:

Issue: CBFWA and the ISRP recommended funding for three new lamprey projects in Fiscal Year 2000. The Council was required to decide if it would: (1) recommend funding for the projects in concurrence with the ISRP, or (2) condition its recommendation on a finding that these new projects have been assessed and coordinated with the on-going lamprey umbrella project, demonstrating that there is a need for an expansion of the lamprey work in the basin.

Past Council Treatment: In its Fiscal Year 1999 recommendations the Council recommended that new lamprey research and evaluation projects recommended by CBFWA not be funded. The projects proposed that year did not appear to be connected or coordinated with the existing, on-going, coordinated lamprey umbrella project that was developed in response to a lamprey status review conducted in 1995 (project 9402600). That existing project, being implemented in phases, is supposed to provide information regarding lamprey status, and possibly identify restoration plans. It made little sense to the Council to recommend the start-up of new lamprey projects not linked to the existing umbrella project. Moreover, the Council was concerned that the existing project seemed to be out of sequence, seeking funds for implementation (phase III) prior to the planning and Council approval of the planning to be completed in phase II. The Council's recommendation stated that if project sponsors sought to initiate new lamprey research projects in the future, the project sponsors and CBFWA should assess the on-going effort and proposed new projects in a coordinated way and recommend whether there is a need for a more detailed project review and possibly an expansion of the lamprey effort in Fiscal Year 2000.

Moreover, and regarding the ongoing project and its implementation activities specifically, the Council recommended that no funds be expended until Council review and approval of the lamprey restoration plans to be produced during phase II of the project.

Council Recommendation: First, the ongoing project (9402600) was rated as "fund in part" by the ISRP initial review, but improved its rating to "fund" after the ISRP considered additional sponsor comments. Funding for Objective 2 of this proposal is recommended at this time. The Council conditionally recommends funding for Objectives 1, 3, and 4 (and particularly 3, "pilot tests") for this ongoing project. The condition that must be satisfied before funds should be provided by Bonneville for these objectives is Council receipt and approval of a lamprey restoration plan to be provided by the sponsor. The Council provided the sponsor a letter in late October 1999 explaining the Council's expectation with regard to receipt of a restoration plan, and setting out a preferred schedule for its submission to enable an expeditious review and final decision. The sponsor provided a draft of the restoration plan on November 29, 1999, which is under staff review.

Regarding the three new proposed lamprey projects, the ISRP considered them in its Response Review in the context of all the proposed lamprey work, ongoing and new, and in light of the "Status Report on Columbia Basin Pacific Lamprey Projects and Needs" provided in the August 20, 1999 Fiscal Year 2000 Draft Work Plan submitted by CBFWA. The ISRP found that these projects were adequately coordinated, and that there had been an adequate showing that it is reasonable to expand the lamprey work under the program at this time by initiating these three new projects. The Council recommends that the three new projects recommended for funding by both CBFWA and the ISRP identified above be funded in Fiscal Year 2000.

Comment: