FY07-09 proposal 199007700

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDev Of Systemwide Predator Control for Northern Pikeminnows.
Proposal ID199007700
OrganizationPacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Short descriptionThe Northern Pikeminnow Management Program is designed to remove predator-sized northern pikeminnows at an annual rate of 10-20%, resulting in the restructuring of their population which modeling shows could reduce predation on juvenile salmonids by 50%.
Information transferThe Northern Pikeminow removals and an evaluation of the results is published each year at the end of the sport reward fishery season. These annual reports are transmitted to BPA's website and posted at www:pikeminnow.org for public review. Weekly landings are posted during the season and salmonid interactions reported to NMFS by weekly reports and postings on the website.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
Form submitter
Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission russell_porter@psmfc.org
All assigned contacts
Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission russell_porter@psmfc.org

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
45-35N 122-00W Columbia River Mouth of the Columbia to Priest Rapids Dam
45-50N 119-10W Columbia River Bonneville Dam to Priest Rapids Dam
46-10N 119-00W Snake River Mouth of the Snake River to Hells Canyon Dam
45-05N 116-55W Snake River Mouth of the Snake River to Hells Canyon Dam

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Anadromous Salmonids

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments
2005 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 2005 was 19%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
2004 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 2004 was 17%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
2003 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 2003 was 13%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
2002 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 2002 was 10.6%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
2001 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 2001 was 16.2%. This was well within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids
2000 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 2000 was 11.9%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1999 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 1999 was 12.5%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1998 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 1998 was 11.1%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1997 Exploitation in 1997 was 9.6%. This fell slightly below the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reducte predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1996 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 1996 was 12.1%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1995 Exploitation of Northern Pikeminnow in 1995 was 13.4%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1994 Exploitation of Northern Pikeminnow in 1994 was 10.9%. This fell within the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the northern pikeminnow in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1993 Exploitation of Northern Pikeminnow in 1993 was 8.1%. This fell below the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reducte predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1992 Exploitation of Northern Pikeminnow in 1992 was 9.3%. This fell slightly below the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reducte predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.
1991 Exploitation of Northern pikeminnow in 1991 was about 8%. This fell below the range set by our model to remove between 10-20% of the predacious size Northern pikeminnows in order to reduce predation by a significant amount on juvenile salmonids.

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
BPA 199702600 Marine Fish Predation On Juven Comparative study of predation by marine fish
BPA 199702400 Avian Predation On Juvenile Sa Comparitve study of predation by birds.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals Evaluation of pikeminnow removals for population analysis and determination of the effect of the program on increase in salmonid survival. Lower Columbia Evaluation includes determination and analysis of (1) pikeminnow exploitation rates (2) reduced predation on juvenile salmonids; (3) tag loss; (4) age validation; (5) estimates of abundance, consumpiton and predation incicies; (6) compensatory respons
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals Evaluation of pikeminnow removals for population analysis and determination of the effect of the program on increase in salmonid survival. Lower Middle Columbia Evaluation includes determination and analysis of (1) pikeminnow exploitation rates (2) reduced predation on juvenile salmonids; (3) tag loss; (4) age validation; (5) estimates of abundance, consumpiton and predation incicies; (6) compensatory respons
Oversight and coordination Oversight of technical and fiscal aspects of the Northern Pikeminnow Management Program amongst the participants and with BPA. Lower Columbia Subcontracting to state agency participants for sport reward fishery and evaluation. Management of reward fund, IRS and Angler 1099's and reporting on listed salmonid stock interactions to NMFS
Oversight and coordination Oversight of technical and fiscal aspects of the Northern Pikeminnow Management Program amongst the participants and with BPA. Lower Middle Columbia Subcontracting to state agency participants for sport reward fishery and evaluation. Management of reward fund, IRS and Angler 1099's and reporting on listed salmonid stock interactions to NMFS
Pikeminnow removals Employ sport reward fishery for northern pikeminnows with a goal of a 10-20% exploitation rate for predatory size fish in order to reduce salmonid predation by up to 50%. Lower Columbia Reduction of northern pikeminnow predation by removals of 10-20% annually of predator size fish.
Pikeminnow removals Employ sport reward fishery for northern pikeminnows with a goal of a 10-20% exploitation rate for predatory size fish in order to reduce salmonid predation by up to 50%. Lower Middle Columbia Reduction of northern pikeminnow predation by removals of 10-20% annually of predator size fish.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals Dam Angling at Lower Columbia River Dams along with Long-lining in the BRZ to remove pikeminnows Provide fisheries for long-lining in theBoat Restricted Zone (BRZ) below lower Columbia River dams. Conduct dam angling at lower Columbia river dams as determined effective in the 2006 pilot studies for these two components. 5/5/2007 9/30/2009 $499,141
Biological objectives
Pikeminnow removals
Metrics
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals Northern Pikeminnow Sport Reward Fishery Promotion Prepare Program brochures each season with start and end dates, station operations and times, newspaper adds for program operations and sportsments show materials 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $165,506
Biological objectives
Oversight and coordination
Metrics
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals Process Sport Reward Vouchers for Payment - PSMFC Processing and maintaining records of sport reward fishery vouchers, checks issued and total payments per angler for tax reporting purposes 5/5/2007 9/30/2009 $433,198
Biological objectives
Oversight and coordination
Metrics
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals Sport Reward Fund - PSMFC Northern Pikeminnow Management Program Sport Reward Fund for payment of vouchers. 5/5/2007 11/15/2009 $5,250,000
Biological objectives
Oversight and coordination
Metrics
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals Staff & Operate the 2007 Sport Reward Fishery Registration and Creel Check Stations - WDFW Staff stations, collect and dispose of pikeminnow from the sport reward fishery, issue vouchers and analyze angler effort and catch. 4/15/2007 3/31/2009 $3,132,195
Biological objectives
Pikeminnow removals
Metrics
Manage and Administer Projects Contractural and Fiscal program oversight - PSMFC Provide contractural and fiscal oversight for the Northern Pikeminnow Management Program for PSMFC, ODFW, and WDFW 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $178,133
Biological objectives
Oversight and coordination
Metrics
Provide Technical Review Budget Preparation, Biological Opinion Data and Salmonid Take Reporting - PSMFC Prepare annual budgets, provide technical oversight of work and report on salmonids interactions weekly in accordance with the NMFS Biological Opinion 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $97,132
Biological objectives
Oversight and coordination
Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data Evaluate system-wide response of Northern pikeminnow and other predators to sustained fisheries - ODFW Evaluate the response of size structure and biological characteristics of Northern pikeminnow and other predators after 15 years of program implementation 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $527,002
Biological objectives
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Analysis of Dam Angling and Long Lining fisheries Review conduct of the dam angling and long lining fisheries as to sucess of removals and portions of the population targeted 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $40,000
Biological objectives
Pikeminnow removals
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Evaluate effects of the 2007 program fisheries on salmonid predation - ODFW Evaluate effects of the 2007 program and estimate relative reductions in predation on juvenile salmonids as a result of the Northern Pikeminnow Management Program to date. 10/1/2007 3/31/2009 $429,141
Biological objectives
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Implement the 2007 Sport Reward Fishery - WDFW Work with PSMFC, ODFW and BPA to set 2007 Sport Reward Fishery seasons, stations, and review past data to develop descriptions and promotional materials for the fishery. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $337,625
Biological objectives
Pikeminnow removals
Metrics
Mark/Tag Animals Mark and Pit tag pikeminnows and index populations for exploitation rates and evaluation - ODFW Mark pikeminnows, conduct boat sampling, collect biological data, monitor sport reward tag returns and evaluate exploitation and natural motality rates for program analysis 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $888,504
Biological objectives
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel PSMFC, ODFW, WDFW $879,291 $923,256 $969,418
Other Reward Fund $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Fringe Benefits PSMFC, ODFW, WDFW $302,922 $318,068 $333,971
Supplies PSMFC, ODFW, WDFW $211,122 $221,678 $232,762
Travel PSMFC, ODFW, WDFW $131,574 $138,153 $145,061
Capital Equipment PSMFC, ODFW, WDFW $10,500 $11,025 $11,576
Overhead PSMFC, ODFW, WDFW $433,636 $455,318 $478,084
Other Contractual Studies $165,000 $173,250 $181,912
Totals $3,884,045 $3,990,748 $4,102,784
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $11,977,577
Total work element budget: $11,977,577
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Totals $0 $0 $0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $4,307,923
FY 2011 estimated budget: $4,307,923
Comments: Projected from 5% inflation for labor and supplies with reward fund remaining stable.

Future O&M costs: The future program will continue under the current design as set forth in the work elements and the budget in relation to salaries, rewards, supplies etc.

Termination date: None
Comments: This project will be ongoing each year to continue the benefits of predator removals and for adherence to the Biological Opinion and recovery plan.

Final deliverables: N/A

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

2007-09 ISRP Response Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $9,000,000 Expense Multi-province Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 Multi-province
Comments: Priority concerns for other reasons: based on Council’s long past experience w/ project and current comments, reason to believe the project objectives can be met for less than proposed: proposed 3.884m; reduce to 3m. MSRT recommeds $3,000,000.

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is an ongoing project that has proven its worth through repeated technical and economic reviews since its inception. The notion that a major predator on juvenile salmonids could be reduced in numbers and the survival of salmonids improved thereby has been validated by many years of data and analyses. The project has responded well to reviews. The predator removal program seems to have reached its objectives over the years, although better information might be provided on how this has improved smolt-to-adult return rates (SARs). A number of peer-reviewed publications have been prepared and specific reporting has been completed. This history of results is adequately presented in the proposal. The general context is well explained through coverage of the existing regional plans relevant to the project, but linkages with other predator related projects in the Columbia River Basin are only briefly mentioned. Good outline of work elements. The proposal is slim on methods, although these have been well standardized over the years. An established database and reporting program is in place. The proposal calls for significant increase in effort toward data synthesis and interpretation; this should be supported. Despite a generally favorable response, the ISRP raised several questions to be addressed in a response by the proponents. 1) The basic premise of capturing the northern pikeminnow at an appropriate size (to reduce the effect of older fish) seems sound, but the increase in survivorship of the smolts is not well documented. Jones et al. (2005) are cited as having produced a useful model, but the model has not been peer reviewed (and is not yet in the grey literature). What progress is being made toward publication? 2) There is some uncertainty about the scale of predator removal effects on smolt SARs. Benefits are short term in that the work has to be done every year. Has an attempt been made to relate the predator removals and estimated smolt benefits to SARs? 3) What is meant by systemwide response? Is this assumed simply because of the passage of all the upstream salmon through the reaches encompassed by the effort? Is something happening in the ecosystem from northern pikeminnow harvesting that is of immediate concern to the fish and wildlife program of the basin? Would the proponents benefit from a wider involvement in Columbia River Basin ecosystem related management? More clarifying information on the concept of a systemwide response would be helpful. 4) In the ISRP's Retrospective Report, the ISRP noted the issue of invasive species and salmonid predators, e.g., walleye and bass, which are regulated for a fishery. Is reduction of the northern pikeminnow population by this project opening habitat for increased bass and walleye populations? What relationships do the proponents see between the efforts for northern pikeminnow and other predatory fish in the basin?


ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This is an ongoing project that has proven its worth through repeated technical and economic reviews since its inception. The notion that a major predator on juvenile salmonids could be reduced in numbers and the survival of salmonids improved thereby has been validated by many years of data and analyses. The project has been exemplary on reporting of results and has responded well to external reviews. The sponsors have provided a satisfactory and useful response to the ISRP's questions in the preliminary proposal review. The predator removal program seems to have reached its objectives over the years, although better information might be provided on how this has improved smolt-to-adult return rates (SARs). The response indicated how difficult this would be and noted that the project has not attempted it. A number of peer-reviewed publications have been prepared and specific reporting has been completed. This history of results is adequately presented in the proposal. The general context is well explained through coverage of the existing regional plans relevant to the project, but linkages with other predator related projects in the Columbia River Basin are only briefly mentioned in the proposal. However, the response provided good amplification regarding other predators. There was also a good outline of work elements. The proposal is slim on methods, although these have been well standardized over the years. An established database and reporting program is in place. The proposal calls for significant increase in effort toward data synthesis and interpretation; this should be supported. Despite a generally favorable initial review, the ISRP raised several questions that were well addressed in a response by the sponsors. 1) A model for estimating the improved survivorship of smolts is a work in progress. 2) There has been no attempt to relate the predator removals and estimated smolt benefits to SARs because of inherent difficulty. 3) The sponsor clarified what they mean by a systemwide response: “The term “system-wide response” is used in the narrative (2nd paragraph) in reference to possible compensation by remaining pikeminnow and other predators to sustained removal efforts.” The sponsors would welcome a wider involvement in Columbia River Basin ecosystem related management. It would be worthwhile to foster this interest. Perhaps an appropriate agency could host a symposium on predation effects on Columbia River salmonids. Predation in all habitats could be discussed and might shed some light on how or if salmon SARs are being influenced by northern pikeminnow. 4) They provided a useful perspective on other predators (smallmouth bass, walleye) that might increase in response to northern pikeminnow reductions, providing both existing knowledge about lack of compensatory effects and current status of these populations. The ISRP appreciates the concise and informative responses.