Dev Of Systemwide Predator Control for Northern Pikeminnows. proposal 199007700

FY07-09 proposal 199007700

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Dev Of Systemwide Predator Control for Northern Pikeminnows.
Proposal ID	199007700
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.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Russell Porter	Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission	[email protected]
All assigned contacts
Russell Porter	Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission	[email protected]

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description
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

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

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
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 objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
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 name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est 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

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
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/org	Item or service provided	FY 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.