FY 2000 proposal 199007700

Additional documents

199007700 Narrative Narrative
199007700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleNorthern Pikeminnow Management Program
Proposal ID199007700
OrganizationPacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRussell Porter
Mailing address45 SE 82nd Dr., Suite 100 Gladstone, OR 97027-2522
Phone / email5036505400 / russell_porter@psmfc.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionReduce predation on juvenile salmonids by implementing fisheries to harvest northern pikeminnow in the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers. Monitor effects of fisheries on predation by northern pikeminnow and other resident fish.
Target speciesNorthern pikeminnow; all species and races of anadromous salmonids present
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1993 Initial index of northern pikeminnow predation on juvenile salmonids completed.
1993 Sport-reward and dam-angling fisheries found to be successful in removing large numbers of northern pikeminnow.
1997 Confirmation that compensation by northern pikeminnow and other resident fish predators has not occurred.
1997 Predation on juvenile salmonids by northern pikeminnow reduced from pre-program levels.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9007800 Evaluate Predator Control and Provide Technical Support for PATH 9007800 would have little to evaluate if 9007700 was not conducted
9702400 Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River Complementary study of predation by birds downstream from area covered by 9007700.
9702600 Identify Marine Fish Predators of Salmon and Estimate Predation Rates Complementary study of predation by marine animals.
8201300 Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program
9705911 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon - Irrigon WMA Addition
9705904 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon - Horn Butte
9705900 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon
9079 Inventory Resident Fish in Bonneville, The Dalles, & John Day Reservoirs
8605000 White Sturgeon Mitigation & Restoration in the Columbia & Snake Rivers
8810804 Streamnet: The Northwest Aquatic Information Network
9105 Determine if Salmon Are Successfully Spawning Below Lower Columbia Dams
8906900 Annual Coded Wire Tag Program - Missing Production Oregon Hatcheries
9306000 Evaluate Columbia River Select Area Fisheries
20515 Mainstem Columbia River Umbrella Proposal
9705909 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon - Mitchell Point
9600800 PATH-Participation by State & Tribal Agencies

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $1,100,000
Fringe $400,000
Supplies $45,000
Operating $150,000
Travel $225,000
Indirect $386,000
Other Reward and Prize Fund $1,000,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$3,306,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$3,306,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Schedule constraints are minor, but are related to yearly flow rates and temperatures in the Columbia and Snake rivers that affect availability of northern pikeminnow to anglers. Biological Opinion guidelines may affect program duration or start date.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund, but this project may benefit from an in-depth cost-benefit analysis with consideration of alternative methods of predator control or alternative strategies of deliveries.

Comments: This proposal is a great job on what must be a continuing controversial project to justify. They convince us of the technical merits of this program. The proposal writing is excellent, the arguments that relatively low exploitation rates (10%) can have and have had important effects on reducing squawfish predation seem well supported, and the number of scholarly publications that have resulted from the ongoing program is impressive. This publication indicates good management of past activities and continued inspection of results. It was unfortunate, however, that several of the key references were not yet available or that supporting data was not presented. For example, estimation of the exploitation rates on the pikeminnow was frequently cited but supporting data was not presented.

Given the strength of the technical presentation and the size of this project's budget, it is to be expected that many of the comments from reviewers concerned the budget. For example, not all of the component projects appear to be equally successful and it is recommended that the budget request be broken down by sub-project (reward sport fishery, dam angling and site specific fishing) to allow better cost/benefit analyses. The annual costs for personnel and administration/delivery appear to be too high and should be carefully examined. One reviewer commented "that it is probably a misnomer to refer to the bounty-fishing as a "sport-reward" fishery. Has an economist taken a look at the dynamics and livelihood of the participants in the bounty fishery?

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 squawfish are long-lived and slow growing, and that the number of squawfish 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 squawfish 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.

A minor suggestion is that "In Press" MS references did not indicate the journals that had accepted the work. Citations should include this information.

Future submissions 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.

The project is evaluated under the Implementation and Management criteria but two notable rating criteria were not addressed in the proposal: alternative approaches and their evaluation. Why should BPA fund the project? Given the cost of this program, both of these criteria are reasonable questions.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Based on FY99 contract, there will be $800,000 in carry forward for FY00.
Aug 20, 1999


Criteria all: Met? Yes - Not supported by PATH SRP weight of evidence report. Independent scientists selected 0% rather than 25% effect in modeling.
Mar 1, 2000


(c) predator control - (9007700, 20095 - PSMFC, OSU/CRITFC), approx. $3.14 million.

Issue 1: (avian predation) The Council requested a long-term management plan for Caspian tern predator control activities funded by Bonneville. A report on the management plan to the Council was provided on September 21.

Issue 2: (Northern Pikeminnow) Regarding Pikeminnow, are the projects proposed consistent with that prior guidance to utilize those most cost-effective means of reducing these predators and not an expenditure on additional research oriented activities?

Past Council Treatment: (avian predation) On July 22, 1999 the Council sent a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service, CBFWA, and the Corps requesting that they develop a management plan for Caspian tern predator control. That management plan was provided on September 21st, and a presentation was made to the Council.

Northern Pikeminnow: In its Fiscal Year 1998 recommendations, the Council responded to an ISRP report criticizing the level of expenditures devoted to the Northern Pikeminnow control program by recommending funding for those portions of the proposed projects that utilized what experience had demonstrated as being the most cost-effective methods for reducing these predators, and recommending that funding be discontinued for those methods that had not been as demonstrably effective. In addition, the Council noted that the project had been so successfully monitored and evaluated that the questions related to predator behavior, and the benefit obtained by reducing their numbers had been answered, and that additional efforts to evaluate such issues were unnecessary.

Council Recommendation: (avian predation) The Council evaluated the avian predation project after considering the report and presentation by USFWS, NMFS and the Corps on the long-term management plan on September 21st. Following the ISRP presentation and discussion on this project, the Council became extremely concerned by what appeared to be a high level of disagreement and/or lack of focus on a plan to dramatically reduce the predation rates by Caspian terns. The Council sent a letter to NMFS asking that it assert a leadership role in quickly developing a plan to reduce predation rates on juvenile salmonids to less than five percent in the year 2000 out-migration.

On November 2nd, representatives of the Working Group made a second presentation to the Council and outlined an Fiscal Year 2000 work plan that was supported by a majority of the group, and was aimed at reducing predation on juvenile salmonids by 25 to 45 percent in the year 2000. On November 3rd the Council voted to recommend to Bonneville that the activities planned by the Caspian Tern Working Group in its Fiscal Year 2000 Tern Management Plan be funded. While approving the project for Fiscal Year 2000, the Council continues to seek development and implementation of a workplan that reduces predation below five percent beyond year 2000. The Council is also concerned that the NMFS and USFWS have not made a significant financial contribution to this effort, and will evaluate the contributions from these entities in future proposals seeking Bonneville funds for this type of work.

Council Recommendation: (Northern Pikeminnow) The Council reviewed comments submitted by the sponsor in response to the ISRP report (Appendix B, p. 144, CBFWA August 20, 1999), stating that the proposal focuses on what has been shown as the most cost-effective reduction strategies. The Council finds that these sponsor comments about funding allocations within the project satisfy past Council concerns for purposes of the Fiscal Year 2000 proposal.

Therefore, the Council recommends that Northern pikeminnow project # 9007700 be funded at the level proposed by CBFWA. Funding is recommended upon the following conditions:

  1. The Council recommends that carryover funds from Fiscal Year 1999 be made available for this ongoing project, and;
  2. Funding of this program in future years will be dependent on an analysis and report to the Council that addresses the following

Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$2,050,000 $3,770,000 $3,770,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website