Council Document ISRP 2000-4

Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Review of

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation’s

 “Restoration Plan for Pacific Lampreys (Lampetra tridentata)

in the Umatilla River, Oregon”

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Dennis Lettenmaier

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Richard R. Whitney

Richard N. Williams

ISRP 2000-4

May 19, 2000
1 ISRP 2000-4

ISRP Review of the CTUIR’s “Restoration Plan for Pacific Lampreys

(Lampetra tridentata) in the Umatilla River, Oregon”

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) have provided a useful

draft of a restoration plan for Pacific lamprey. The plan nicely summarizes considerable

background and historical information on the lamprey and points to areas where little

information presently exists. However, the technical and editorial quality of the plan needs

improvement. The study design lacks specificity and technical details, for example no specific

index reaches or plots are identified either in tables or maps, yet they are a critical part of the

study design. Similarly, the monitoring and evaluation portion of the study design fails to

identify specific restoration benchmarks, such as numbers of returning adult lamprey or larval

lamprey densities in index plots, that could be used to judge program progress or success.

The draft will require considerable revision if it is to be a clear and persuasive document

justifying and guiding the restoration program planned by the CTUIR and the Council. Although

funding to begin this work has been assured, development of a high-quality plan and rigorous

study design are essential for the project’s success, including continued successful competition

for Fish and Wildlife Program funds, defense of restoration of a non-salmonid species, and

justifying both the concept and decision criteria for moving toward artificial production, which

remains technically and socially controversial. Toward that end, we provide advice for

improvement below. This advice is directed to the project sponsors rather than policy-makers.

General Comments:

1. The introduction, background, and historical analysis sections are well written and

informative. They include information necessary for developing and understanding a plan.

2. The conceptual foundation is appropriate. However, it is easy to misinterpret Table 1 as the

preferred conceptual foundation. A better text description is needed to contrast the old

foundation from the preferred one. Great length is not needed, but enough words to clarify

the intent. Further, it is not clear in the remaining text and plan that the new conceptual

foundation was actually used. Some references to it in the plan would have better tied the

concepts to the plan.

3. The plan uses the term “significant increases” many times, sometimes implying statistical

significance and other times implying perhaps, something biologically meaningful. More

precision with the text language would help clarify the intent.

In the same vein, do not base a decision on solely statistical significance. Rather the use of

point estimates and confidence intervals (see D.J. Johnson, Wildlife Mgt., 1998) may prove

helpful. Do not depend so heavily on tests of hypothesis, the results of which depend

primarily on the sample size. Rather, estimate the increase (or decrease) of parameters and

compute confidence intervals on them.
2 ISRP 2000-4

4. The recommendations for recovery listed in Chapter 5 seem unrealistic in tone, if not in

intent. These actions are not, in fact, what the plan recommends. This section could be

restructured to first note what is probably needed but not realistic (much of p. 37) followed

by Table 3 with its prioritization, concluding with recommended actions at the end of the

table. This chapter can lay out the ideal action plan and then present the logic and rationale

for the recommendations of the recovery plan.

Accomplishing what is listed in Table 3 would certainly increase normative conditions in the

Umatilla basin and provide an ecological boost to lamprey and salmonid populations there.

However, much of what is listed may not occur due to biological or social constraints. One

way to make the activities in Table 3 more realistic, and more directly link these activities to

lamprey restoration, would be to rely on existing analyses of these limiting factors on

salmonids. For example, has a watershed assessment been completed for the Umatilla

Basin? If so, this should be integrated into the lamprey restoration plan. The watershed

assessment would address some of the factors listed in Table 3, assess likely progress for

each of the factors, and identify areas of improvement in each of these areas.

If a watershed assessment is not available, then some of the same analyses could likely be

found or inferred from sources listed in the plan’s bibliography (e.g., Boyce 1986; CTUIR

1990a, 1990b; Jackson et al. 1996, 1997; Kan 1975). The CTUIR references may prove to be

the most helpful.

5. Chapter 6 (the restoration plan itself) is poorly presented and in need of the most revision and

further development. It lacks a clear strategy; the existing plan summary on p. 4-42 is not a

statement of strategy. The strategy appears to be to stock spawning adults obtained from the

John Day River to augment spawners in the Umatilla River, monitor juveniles in the Umatilla

for increases, monitor the John Day and Columbia Rivers for depletion, while conducting

research to prepare for a possible artificial production program if it should be needed. If the

plan is not more persuasive, it is likely to be viewed as an attempt to justify a hatchery. The

primary goal of the plan is to restore lampreys to the Umatilla River. A well designed study

and monitoring and evaluation protocol will help determine whether artificial production is

needed as part of the restoration program.

A clear statement of strategy should precede a listing of objectives and any text describing

the detailed plan. The bulleted objectives are then easily recognized as the key elements of

that strategy.

6. With the exception of Objective 2, the objectives listed are tasks, rather than outcomes

expected to result from the work. A clear statement of strategy would frame the objectives.

The objectives seem to be the following: to increase the larvae in the river, as well as adults

migrating into the river to numbers sufficient to sustain a harvested population; to test an

artificial production scheme for potential use; to prevent damage to the remaining lamprey in

the John Day or Columbia rivers.

To achieve these objectives one first must have some idea of the numbers of fish desired.

The tasks and subtasks related to attaining these numbers include surveying the larvae and
3 ISRP 2000-4

adults before and after transplants, estimating reproductive success, experimenting with and

evaluating artificial production approaches, and monitoring lamprey in the John Day and

Columbia Rivers for detrimental effects. The plan would be informed by the use of baseline

data from the 1998 and 1999 surveys. It will be extremely difficult to set useful recovery

benchmarks for monitoring and evaluation without first identifying current abundance and

distribution of adult and larval lampreys.

7. The draft guidelines in Attachment 3 are a strength of the plan but do not seem to have been

used explicitly in the text. The guidelines should be the backbone of the strategy and

detailed plan. The plan’s text should demonstrate explicitly that the requirements of the

guidelines are satisfied.

8. The last three chapters need careful attention to composition, grammar, and proofreading.

They read as if done in haste without internal editorial review. These problems distract from

the technical evaluation of the plan for a long term research and management program

9. Missing from the plan are any quantitative benchmarks for when artificial production will be

needed. What numerical criteria will be used to determine that not enough larvae or adults

are being produced from the inter-basin stocking program? Conversely, what numerical

criteria will be used to determine whether enough young are being produced so that there is

no need for a hatchery? What specific formulas and methods will be used to set numerical

criteria upon completion of the first phases of this project?

Detailed Comments:

1. The map (Figure 1) does not contain most of the features named in the text. Locating these

features is essential to the logic of the plan. For example, Three Mile Dam (referred to on

page 14), Westland (p. 16), Cold Springs Reservoir (p. 31), McKay Reservoir (p. 31),

Hermiston Dam (p. 32), Furnish Reservoir (p. 32), Coe Dam (p. 32), Echo (p. 32), and

Yokum (p. 33) need to be shown.

2. What are attachments 1 and 2 (missing from the reviewed copy)? These should be integrated

into the plan as tables or added as appendices, whichever is most appropriate.

3. The methods for mark and recapture are not clear, beginning on page 43 (Approach) and

continuing into Methods (p. 44). What are “portable assessment traps?” If they are deployed

at Three-mile Falls Dam, why the need for portability? Is capture at the dam the mark

location, recapture location, or both? What is “the facility” noted on page 44? If lampreys

are to be counted at the dam, why is a mark-recapture study necessary? A better description

is needed.

4. How will index plots for larval collections be selected? Randomly? Habitat specific? How

often will sampling be done? Will a multiple-pass system of electroshocking be used or

single pass? What statistics will be used for estimating numbers from the samples? (pp. 43 &

44). The plan should describe how the index plots will be selected, and identify plot
4 ISRP 2000-4

locations with maps and UTM coordinates.

5. For the recently metamorphosed larvae, where and what is the trap noted on page 44? Is it

the screw trap mentioned later? Where will that trap be located? Is it to be used in one spot

only in the river, or moved to sample several locations?

6. The migratory pheromone paragraph (p. 45) suggests that the whole sub-project is based on

three samples collected in 1999 that have not yet been analyzed. This appears to be

unrealistic. A better description is needed.

In the same vein, substantial importance is placed on the role of the migratory pheromone as

a stimulant to increase adult lamprey entries into the Umatilla River. Can the pheromone be

synthesized and used to attract adult lampreys in addition to the pheromone production by

juvenile lamprey?

7. As a stylistic matter, separation of the data analysis from the rest of the methods results in a

choppy report that is hard to follow. It would be better to include data analysis as a final

paragraph in each of the methods descriptions.

8. Under adult lampreys (p. 43), if you are counting all of them at the dam, why are markrecapture statistics needed?

9. Under larval lampreys (p. 45), what is the Zippen formula? It would be helpful to have it

presented and a reference to it provided.

10. Under migratory pheromone (p. 46), conducting statistical tests on three samples makes no

sense.

11. The second paragraph of Approach on page 46 would be best placed first, so the context for

using John Day as a brood source is understood (however, the third sentence is a method

sentence and should come later).

12. Be cognizant of consistent use of past and future tenses, e.g., on page 47.

13. The rationale for studying caged larvae (p. 47) is not given in the approach section. How and

when will the larvae in the cages be checked? It would also be a good idea to repeat this

study in the John Day River as a control.

14. In the section on nest sampling (p. 49), the plan needs to describe the procedure for selection

of 1 of 10 nests. For example, select a random digit 0, 1, 2,....,9, say 7 then take the 7th, 17th,

27th, etc. The plan states “Percent egg viability comparisons with be made within the

Umatilla River and between the Middle Fork John Day River. Comparisons of egg viability

will be qualitative”. We suggest that you estimate the percent viability in each with a

confidence interval using the nest as the experimental unit (sample size).
5 ISRP 2000-4

15. The section and table on flows (p. 48) do not explicitly say that the flows averaged from

1904-1926 will be the target flows. Are they?

16. The data analysis sentence for adult outplants is not data analysis (p. 48).

17. The data analysis sentence for flows is not data analysis (p. 49).

18. How will the redd surveys (p. 49) be carried out? Complete coverage? Sample sites? How

will sample sites be selected? What will be the disposition of sampled eggs? Will they be

returned or killed? The plan needs to describe a random or systematic procedure for

sampling reaches of the stream, if 100% of the Umatilla River is not going to be surveyed.

Use a procedure similar to that used to sample coastal streams for coho juveniles. Describe

the survey procedure. Is it enough to just walk the stream bank?

19. Why be satisfied with only a qualitative comparison of egg viability? (p. 50)

20. Objective 4 is better stated in the paragraph on Approach.

21. The notion of straying is odd, as used on page 54. How can a population that does not home

to a maternal stream but rather follows flows to wherever there is adequate water for

spawning be considered “straying?”

22. Where are the traps noted under objective 4 to be fished and where will fish be released?

23. The concentration of formalin noted on page 52 is sufficient to pickle a fish (i.e., kill it).

24. Watch for incomplete sentences on page 52 and poor English on p. 53.

25. It would be helpful to keep the same order of topics on p. 54 as listed on the previous page.

26. In general, the risks section (Chapter 7) should show some correspondence to the attachment

on guidelines.

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2000-4 lamprey.doc