FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 199007700: Dev Of Systemwide Predator Control for Northern Pikeminnows.

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
Finalized Russell Porter

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199007700
Proposal Name: Dev Of Systemwide Predator Control for Northern Pikeminnows.
BPA Project Manager: John Skidmore
Agency, Institution or Organization: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Short Description: The 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 Transfer: The 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.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 205 SE Spokane St Suite 100
Portland OR 97202-6413
Ph: 503.595-3100
Fax: 503.595-3232
Email: russell_porter@psmfc.org
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Russell Porter Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 205 SE Spokane St Suite 100
Portland OR 97202-6413
Ph: 503.595-3100
Fax: 503.595-3232
Email: russell_porter@psmfc.org
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mainstem/Systemwide ARG Province: Mainstem on the ground/Multiprovince
Sponsor Subbasin: Systemwide ARG Subbasin: Mainstem on the ground/Multiprovince
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45-35N 122-00W Columbia River Mouth of the Columbia to Priest Rapids Dam , Oregon Columbia Lower No
45-50N 119-10W Columbia River Bonneville Dam to Priest Rapids Dam , Washington Columbia Lower Middle No
46-10N 119-00W Snake River Mouth of the Snake River to Hells Canyon Dam , Oregon Snake Lower No
45-05N 116-55W Snake River Mouth of the Snake River to Hells Canyon Dam , Washington Snake Hells Canyon No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
All Anadromous Salmonids

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
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
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199702400 Avian Predation On Juvenile Sa Comparitve study of predation by birds.
BPA 199702600 Marine Fish Predation On Juven Comparative study of predation by marine fish

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
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 4-57
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 4-35
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 4-57
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 4-35
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. 4-57
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. 4-35

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated 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 Metrics
Pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Oversight and coordination
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Oversight and coordination
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Oversight and coordination
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Oversight and coordination
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Oversight and coordination
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element

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 Metrics
Evaluation of pikeminnow removals
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
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 or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$4,307,923 $4,523,319 Projected from 5% inflation for labor and supplies with reward fund remaining stable.
Future Operations & Maintenance 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 Comments
None 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
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: Mainstem on the ground/Multiprovince
Subbasin: Mainstem on the ground/Multiprovince
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments: [none]


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
Total NPCC Rec
$9,000,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:Multi-province
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
Total NPCC Rec
$9,000,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:Multi-province
NPCC Comments:
NPCC Staff 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.

Local or MSRT Comments: The MSRT recommends reducing the reward portion of the budget. If harvest is successful and the reward portion of the budget requires increasing, the project should pursue the within-year process at that time. The project has been achieving their projected harvest rates, therefore, the dam angling portion of the program could be removed. The project sponsors should determine the most effective way to implement the project at this level of funding. The MSRT recommends focusing on reducing the administration costs of the sport reward fishery.

MSRT General Comments: Does increased harvest rate on pike minnow (nearing 20%) relate to a relative increase in salmon survival? The project has undergone a biological and economic review every several years. The reviewers are concerned about the significant increase in budget since 2005. Will the increased biological benefits for salmon be equivalent to the increase in costs, particularly as compared with other alternatives that increase salmon survival?


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
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.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
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?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.