FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199007700

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Increases in efficiency; decreased effort in dam-angling and gill-net fisheries; field sampling for Task 4c deferred from 2003 to 2004.

Reason for change in scope

No change in scope.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Funding needed in FY 2004 is 11% greater than funding needed for FY 2003 because sampling for Task 4c (part of the evaluation of the NPMP) will occur in FY 2004. This sampling takes place once every 3-5 years.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Specific Comments on the Proposal:

This is a well-written proposal to continue 12 years of northern pikeminnow harvest. The project has become more evaluative over time with the exception of economic considerations. Neither monitoring nor evaluation contains an economic component, but economics, including cost-effectiveness monitoring, should be a core part of the project's evaluation. This is an expensive project and there is an opportunity cost of funding this project at $3 million rather than other projects.

"Success" of the benefits to salmon is measured strictly in numbers of pikeminnow caught. There is no analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the pikeminnow removal on salmon or any economic tradeoffs embedded in conducting this program in its current form.

The Hankin and Richards report reviewing the program two years ago contained recommendations for improving the efficiency of the program. Two such recommendations not yet implemented are to conduct further study of the tiered reward system and to explore possibilities to increase rewards by decreasing promotion costs. A trained economist (not a biologist) should be subcontracted to conduct these analyses. Even more desirable would be an economic evaluation of the entire program. Additionally, we note that in the two years since that review, the catch per unit effort has dropped significantly, especially in site specific and dam fishing but also in the entire program. The total numbers, size and biomass of the program seems to have dropped by more than 50% since implementation in 1991, by the programs own numbers. The program does not seem to have presented a downward modified smolt consumption index related to the smaller 200 mm fish now considered a substantial part of the harvest. We recognize that removal of this smaller size fish was recommended in the Hankin and Richards review. The rationale that these fish contribute to future benefits is reasonable, but nonetheless, the reality is that actual smolts saved by removing non-predatory northern pikeminnow cannot be "counted twice", once for what they might have eaten this year and what they might have consumed next year.

Early feasibility analysis indicated the potential for commercial "rough fish" harvest and processing into minced product. However, implementation of a commercial fishery (other than the tribal long-line experiment) was precluded by policy decisions at ODFW and WDFW to use northern pikeminnow as a recreational fishing opportunity to compensate for diminished salmon fishing opportunities.

Catch targets are cited for the sport-reward fishery, but none are cited for the dam angling fishery or the site-specific fishery. The dam fishery caught 2751 fish in 2001. A total of $49,692 is budgeted for this fishery in 2003. If the numbers caught in the dam fishery continue at the 2001 level this fishery will cost about $18 per fish removed. The site-specific fishery caught 518 fish in 2001. $38,605 is budgeted for this fishery in 2003. If the numbers caught in the site-specific fishery continue at the 2001 level this fishery will cost about $74 per fish removed. The conversion of these costs to adult salmon returns will be several magnitudes larger. The reality is there is a downward trend in Catch Per Unit Effort for all portions of the fishery. The proponents should provide an economic and efficiency evaluation of these fisheries with justification for their continuation.

Past recommendations from ISRP indicated that future submissions of this program should endeavor to better describe the budget for the reward system and the $1 million personnel costs. A concern about current work is whether the investigators are continuing to do verification on the captured pikeminnows to confirm assumptions of predation rates on salmon. There are some questions that the "live" smolt index is accurate today given the new size removal index and the declining number caught per unit effort. Another previous concern not addressed was the request to address alternative approaches and their evaluation. None of these three recommendations has been followed. Some previous comments calling for new approaches include the following:

Due to the high annual cost in this project, reviewers suggest that it may be time to creatively re-think how this program could be delivered. Given that northern pikeminnow are long-lived and slow growing, and that the number of northern pikeminnow that are being removed appears to be declining in recent years, a cost/benefit analyses should be conducted to assess alternative predator control strategies. Running the predator removal program every second or third year may be equally effective; or less expensive designs could be developed for a variety of strategies, including running the program in alternate years but offering increased incentives for fishing (e.g. double or higher the current reward offered for each fish). The recruitment relationship for northern pikeminnow should also be determined and the size of fish for which rewards are offered should be tied directly to this recruitment (growth rate and size-at-age) relationship. The attractiveness and spin-off benefits (e.g. increased tourism) of other types of rewards, incentives and approaches (e.g. major international squawfish derby every year with large prizes for capture of tagged squawfish) could be investigated as a way to maintain effectiveness and control costs. Should we spend even numbered years capturing predators and alternate years salmon?

At the presentation workshop, the question was posed about how many adult salmon might be returning because of the predator management program. It may be possible to obtain some insights into this question. The following is a heuristic example but more detail could yield insights. Predators eat an estimated 16 million smolts out of 200 million. This is about 8% of the hatchery fish and possibly 5% or less of the total run. How do these losses compare to other sources of mortality? The northern pikeminnow program claims a 25% reduction in predation losses. This is a savings of 4 or 5 million smolts. Assuming a 1% SAR (adult return rate) 5 million smolts provides a net value of returning adults is 50,000 adults. A program cost of $3 million/year, or $60 per fish. This may be comparable to the costs incurred for other programs and can be compared once more actual numbers are obtained.

Some other key questions:

1. Page 2 Para 2 and 4. Lab results show that northern pikeminnow prefer "dead" smolts to live ones. Yet evidence provided suggests that only 22% of the prey were "dead" experimental fish in stomachs sampled. How did the researchers know whether some of the unmarked stomach contents were not from dead but unmarked fish?
2. Considering that turbine mortality is estimated at about 10%, cumulative numbers suggest that even if half of juveniles are transported, there are over 60 million stunned or killed smolts in the river below the dams. What percent of these are eaten by other fish? By Northern Pikeminnow? Can we assume that the 1-2 million adult northern pikeminnows (calculated by dividing number harvested by % of population given on Table Page 9) are consuming all of these? If so, each fish must consume 30-60 smolts. How many more live fish would they consume? Do we have consumption rates? This would help characterize total losses in the system from northern pikeminnow and other predators and help determine how much more cropping of predators would be effective in the future.
3. What are the current regulations on the take of smallmouth bass, channel catfish and walleye? If these have limits, and they are exotic predators of smolts, why don't we lift all restrictions on their sport harvest? Are harvests on these species restricted?
4. Inflation is one factor, but the northern pikeminnow program is now paying about double the rate to capture fish in 2000-2001 compared to 1990? What is the CPUE in 1990 versus 2000?
5. What is the cost to capture 500 NPM at dams and at site-specific locations? These represent less than 5% of the total population removed during the last 5 years? Compare cost per fish here versus cost per sport harvest fish? The use of a tiered bounty system might encourage collectives to artificially increase bounty and cost without increase in level of fishing effort. Is this a likely significant cost factor? Or should other payment schemes be investigated?
6. Does the northern pikeminnow program corroborate the actual location of fish harvested? What would be the consequence of inaccurate data?
7. Assuming that dead smolts will feed existing northern pikeminnow as well as live ones, has any attempt been made to artificially feed the northern pikeminnow with dead fish during the juvenile salmon migration? The concept would be to bait an area, like a tailrace with an abundance of dead fish to sate the predators. Would this have the benefit of attracting larger numbers of northern pikeminnow to a site-specific location and make them more vulnerable to harvest. How are the captive northern pikeminnow used? Can they be cut up and fed to northern pikeminnow? Will northern pikeminnow eat flesh of other northern pikeminnow? If so, these could be stockpiled to bait northern pikeminnow.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HYDRO SUBGROUP -- This proposal addresses RPA Action 100, which is not explicitly linked to BO RME RPAs 179-199. However, the RME Planning Group suggested we offer commentary on it.

This proposal is for the continuation of the Northern Pikeminnow Management Program, which is the primary thrust of RPA 100. This is an implementation project to directly improve juvenile salmonid survival within the FCRPS through the reduction of predation mortality; as such, it contributes directly to the hydrosystem juvenile reach survival performance standard. Integral to this project is a biological evaluation component to evaluate the effectiveness of removal fisheries. Results of biological evaluation indicate that annual predation losses have decreased approximately 25% when compared to pre-program levels and that there is no evidence of either inter- or intra-specific compensation. The management program and exploitation monitoring are implemented annually; the biological evaluation component is implemented in a 3-5 year cycle with the next evaluation in 2004. The RME group generally considers this project to be adequate for addressing northern pikeminnow predation.

The RME group also notes that the other component of RPA 100, evaluation of methods to control predation by non-indigenous fishes, is not addressed by this project. While this project includes evaluation of the effect of northern pikeminnow removals on predation, growth, and reproduction of smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish, it does not include potential methods to reduce predation mortality by these fishes. This component of the RPA is outside the scope of the Northern Pikeminnow Management Program.

A new proposal is referenced, titled Assess the Feasibility of Reducing Predation on Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River through Operation of the Hydropower System" (Proposal No. 35032) that attempts to address the second component of RPA 100. Specifically, the proposal entails review of existing data and evaluation of components of the riverine habitat that might be manipulated through operations to reduce the number of predators and associated predation losses. Sponsors propose to initially focus on areas downstream of Bonneville Dam, with some work in the lower Columbia and eventually in the lower Snake rivers. We note several areas of concern that may reduce the immediate priority of this proposal. Based on the proposal, there is too limited information on the location and timing of spawning of smallmouth bass and walleye for determining the feasibility of operational management alternatives; substantial resources may need to be devoted to obtain this information before any direct evaluation of operations to reduce predation might be feasible. This may be true, but we question if general information on spawning of smallmouth bass and walleye (e.g., timing, conditions, etc.) may not provide sufficient basis for developing an operation scenario for evaluation. Also, the proposal is for the river reach below Bonneville Dam where water elevation is largely a result of river flow (and to a lesser extent tidal influence). Reservoirs in the lower Columbia or Snake rivers upstream of Bonneville Dam afford considerably greater flexibility for operations across a range of flow conditions that would be more conducive for evaluating the feasibility of operational control of these predators. Conditions below Bonneville, on the other hand, are largely subject to river flow and not easily manipulated for such control measures. We also want to note that control of non-native species may be in direct conflict with regional fishery management objectives; this has important policy implications that must be addressed for this approach to be feasible.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP elicited more concern about the cost:benefits and economic efficiencies of the northern pikeminnow program than those from the RME group. We share the RME group's concern regarding management of exotic predators.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This is a long-term project to continue 12 years of managed harvest of northern pikeminnow, the principal predator of salmonid smolts. The project has become more evaluative over time. Catch per effort of northern pikeminnow, appears to be on a downward trajectory. Probably, this is because of the success of the program in depressing northern pikeminnow populations. There is likely a net benefit to adult salmon returns, but those benefit numbers have likely stabilized. Neither monitoring nor evaluation contains an economic component, but economics, including independent cost-effectiveness monitoring, should be a part of the project's evaluation.

The Hankin and Richards report that reviewed the program two years ago (on recommendation of the ISRP) contained recommendations for improving the efficiency of the program. Two such recommendations not yet implemented are to conduct further study of the tiered reward system and to explore possibilities to increase rewards by decreasing promotion costs. To their credit, the sponsors have agreed to eliminate two major inefficiencies, the tribal fishery and the tailrace fishery, and to investigate various alternative reward systems. Calculations suggest a definite decline in biomass and average size of northern pikeminnow in recent years. As catch has been declining, so have costs of rewards, and this explains part of the continuing "improvement" in cost containment.

Due to the high annual cost of this project, reviewers suggest that it may be time to creatively re-think how this program could be further improved. It would be worthwhile to consider new ideas for streamlining or economizing the approach. Considering that there is a trend of declining biomass (annual averages of 73 M grams in 1991-96 vs. 51 M grams in 1997-2001), analyses might be conducted to assess alternative predator control strategies. Alternative strategies, might be explored, that would increase the incentives for fishing. The attractiveness and spin-off benefits (e.g. increased tourism) of other types of rewards, incentives and approaches (e.g. a major international pikeminnow derby every year with large prizes for capture of tagged fish) might be investigated as a way to enhance public awareness, maintain effectiveness, and control costs.

The ISRP raised related questions about control of other exotic predators that might be explored in the future. Smallmouth bass, channel catfish and walleye are exotic species whose harvest is regulated by the management agencies according to objectives that may be in conflict with objectives of the Council and NMFS with respect to enhancement and recovery of salmonids in the basin. Some or all restrictions on sport harvest of exotic species might be lifted in order to reduce their populations and thus their predation on salmonid smolts.

In summary, the project is recommended for continuation with the recommendation that thought be given to new, innovative, cost-saving approaches that might be used to reduce pikeminnow predation on salmonids. As mentioned above, the Council funded an economic review of the project by Hankin and Richards two years ago. Their report contained recommendations for improving the efficiency of the program. Considering the visibility of this program and its cost, we believe it would be in order for the Council to request a follow-up and more in-depth review of the program. Because the economic issues are intertwined with biological issues, further joint ISRP/IEAB review could be a constructive approach toward improving the effectiveness of the program.

Comment:

Comments
While the cost of implementing this project is high, at present this is the major means of reducing predation. As other methods or procedures are tested and implemented (flow modification, etc.), the importance of this may decrease. For the present, both the removal program and the biological evaluation should continue.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Effort divided into 2 zones, above and below the Dalles Dam. Alternate zones each year.

Comment:

Comment:

Budget shown is based on discussion with ODFW/PSMFC, further reduced by $100k each year (to reflect administrative efficiencies implementing the sport-reward fishery) and would be expected to achieve approximately 90% of survival benefit compared to recent years. The appropriate project scope (and funding ) in 2005-06 will require careful consideration of the results of the modified scope in 2004; future funding must enable sustaining survival benefit.

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website