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.      Include quantitative objectives that are clearly linked to deliverables with specified timelines.

2.      Provide additional information about procedures for inferring the availability of suitable habitat and the average density of larval Pacific lamprey in tributaries. Estimating the overall availability of suitable habitat and the average density of larval Pacific lamprey would require a random (or stratified random) sampling design throughout accessible tributaries. It is not sufficiently clear how the individual 50-m electrofishing sites are chosen, or how the presence/absence data are used to determine accessible reaches.

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

4.      Develop a formal management plan to refine procedures for sharing methods and data.

Comment:

The proposal and the 2017 Annual Report provide good evidence of progress since 2008 toward achieving stated objectives. Indeed, the knowledge obtained and management actions instituted through this project are very impressive. It is time to summarize these accomplishments in a comprehensive report, perhaps a peer-reviewed monograph that demonstrates the progress made by the Yakama Nation.

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

This project is large and diverse. The proposal provides insight about the overall direction but does not clearly describe the specific research and management activities for the next few years. Objectives are mentioned frequently, but the proposal becomes confusing, partly because the objectives are diverse and evolving over time, and partly because objectives are not labeled and described consistently throughout the proposal. The four broad objectives in the objectives section (page 9) are not quantitative, although they do include some consideration of timelines.

The Problem Statement section describes (on page 8 under "New Objectives (2018-2028)") 7 restoration activities, 8 RME activities, and 5 deliverables. The proposal does not explain how these activities and deliverables relate to the 12 deliverables listed in the Project Deliverables section (pages 62-65) or how the 12 deliverables address the 4 objectives (stating only "to be developed" on pages 66-67).

The Problem Statement section also describes 8 original objectives for the period 2008 to 2018, which help to evaluate progress over that period, but these objectives do not correspond with 13 primary goals listed in the latest annual report (for 2017).

The extensive discussion about objectives and deliverables suggests a lot of planning and diverse activity within the project, but the inconsistent framework obscures the proponent's strategy and complicates evaluation of progress. For completeness, the proposal should provide descriptions of the specific work tasks to be completed over the next four-year funding period (i.e., specific quantitative time bound objectives). For example, how many larval index sites will be surveyed annually? How many adults will be translocated annually into the Yakima, Methow, Wenatchee, and Entiat subbasins? How many public outreach presentations will occur annually?

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.

This project will require annual funding and long-term continuity to achieve the diverse objectives.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The proposal and latest annual report (for 2017) provide extensive summaries of activities and progress since 2008. These results contributed to the recent synthesis report (CRITFC 2017a) that was reviewed favorably by the ISRP (ISRP 2018-2). The project is on track and continues to generate new approaches and data necessary for assessing and improving the status of Pacific lamprey in the study area.

The proponents are commended for their commitment to adaptive management. The Adaptive Management section of the proposal is nicely organized and includes many good examples of lessons learned and self-evaluation of progress to date. However, neither the proposal nor the 2017 Annual Report describes the actual process (i.e., review cycles) by which decisions to adjust course will be made. Developing more specific objectives and protocols to assess compliance and effectiveness will help in refining the adaptive management process.

This project provides new knowledge on methodological issues and status and trends that are broadly applicable to Pacific lamprey populations throughout the Columbia Basin. The proposal indicates that the project is evolving steadily and creatively as information is gained, limiting factors are discovered, and new approaches for restoration are developed. Examples of results that will have broad utility include new tagging methods, hatchery methods to propagate juvenile larvae and macrophthalmia, and field keys to distinguish the larvae of Pacific lamprey, brook lamprey, and river lamprey.

The annual reports provide an appropriately detailed discussion of objectives, methods, and results. In the Data Management section of the proposal (pages 58-59), the proponents acknowledge a continuing need for a formal management plan to refine procedures for sharing methods and data. This concern was raised by the ISRP in our 2009 review and has yet to be addressed.

Project findings have been shared with regional partners, presented at regional and national meetings, and documented in at least 73 publicly accessible documents and annual reports, and numerous peer-reviewed publications. The reports cover many topics including juvenile surveys, adult collections and translocations, juvenile PIT tagging, juvenile entrainment, public outreach, and other topics related to the objectives and primary deliverables. A full evaluation of these reports is beyond the scope of this review, but a partial reading of a few reports indicates that they are well-written scientific documents.

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. Both reports use the published literature to justify assertions and support procedures. Methods generally seem appropriate.

An exception is the description of survey procedures for estimating the availability of suitable habitat and the density of larval Pacific lamprey. Estimating the overall availability of suitable habitat and average density would require a random (or stratified random) sampling design throughout accessible tributaries. It is not clear how the individual 50-m electrofishing sites are chosen or how the presence/absence data are used to determine accessible reaches. The larval Pacific lamprey surveys are intended to provide information on presence/absence at selected sites as well as average density by size category in Type 1 and 2 habitats within the selected sites. The methods should provide additional explanation of how the 50-m electrofishing sites were selected because that process will determine the statistical validity of inferences about density at larger spatial scales. With more sophisticated statistical analysis of density distributions from stratified random survey data, it might be possible to distinguish among three different factors that could limit the density of lamprey observed in a particular site and habitat type: (1) accessibility of the site to larval Pacific lamprey; (2) the number of larval Pacific lamprey that have access to the site (e.g., "seeding" level in the tributary); and (3) habitat preference by larval Pacific lamprey that are able to reach the site. Such an analysis could look for spatial and habitat correlates in deviations from the density distributions that would be expected under the null hypothesis of unrestricted access to sites and random occupation within sites.

Some specific methods employed by the project have not yet been documented for PNAMP. The proposal summary states that an effort will be made to upload methods into PNAMP in the future. Most research objectives are stated as anticipated outcomes rather than explicit hypotheses.

This project aims to serve a long-term monitoring and assessment function. The proposal and 2017 Annual Report together provide appropriate detail about the types of monitoring activities that have been conducted or planned. More detail regarding methods and outcomes for monitoring efforts can be gleaned from the array of documents and reports.

Work element/objective specific recommendations: • The work elements for Objectives 1, 2, 4, and 5 are scientifically supported. • For Objective 3 – document current status of larval Pacific lamprey with presence/absence surveys – the ISRP requests a response to the concerns raised about the survey design before implementation; this memo provides suggestions to be included in the final survey design. • Objective 6 – identification of “all known and potential” limiting factors – is a very large undertaking and should be described in greater detail, particularly with regard to the specific life history requirements of Pacific lamprey in the Yakima subbasin. Taking a full life-cycle approach, the major limiting factor may be either adult or ammocoete passage at mainstem Columbia River dams, so this really needs to be recognized and discussed more in Objective 6. The ISRP concludes that enough published data exist on this species to scope a more strategic approach before beginning the extensive field work proposed. • Objectives 7 and 8, which involve lamprey reintroductions and initiation of a supplementation program, can be phased in pending the outcome of the survey and limiting factor analysis.