Close Message
CBFish.org and Pisces Desktop will be unavailable briefly starting at 5:00pm PM, Thursday December 14th, for scheduled maintenance. Please save your work and log out before that time.
Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1990-077-00 - Development of Systemwide Predator Control Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1990-077-00 - Development of Systemwide Predator Control
Project Number:
1990-077-00
Title:
Development of Systemwide Predator Control
Summary:
The Northern Pikeminnow Management Program (NPMP) is a basin-wide program to harvest northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis). It was started in 1991 in an effort to reduce predation by northern pikeminnow on juvenile salmonids during their emigration from natal streams to the ocean.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (Govt - Federal)
Starting FY:
1990
Ending FY:
2018
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mainstem - 100.00%
Purpose:
Predation
Emphasis:
Predator Removal
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU (endangered)
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Lamprey, Pacific
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Shad, American
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Northern Pikeminnow Management Program boundaries, including Dam Angling sites.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P121523

Document: Report on the Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Program Evaluation for the Columbia River Basin Experimental Northern Pikeminnow Management Program

Page Number: 108

Project: 1990-077-00

Contract: 46941

Angling locations for the 2010 Dam Angling crew at The Dalles Dam.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P121523

Document: Report on the Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Program Evaluation for the Columbia River Basin Experimental Northern Pikeminnow Management Program

Page Number: 108

Project: 1990-077-00

Contract: 46941

The Dam Angling crew at The Dalles Dam 2010.

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P121523

Document: Report on the Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Program Evaluation for the Columbia River Basin Experimental Northern Pikeminnow Management Program

Page Number: 109

Project: 1990-077-00

Contract: 46941

Example of typical rigging used by 2010 NPMP Dam Anglers.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P121523

Document: Report on the Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Program Evaluation for the Columbia River Basin Experimental Northern Pikeminnow Management Program

Page Number: 110

Project: 1990-077-00

Contract: 46941

Examples of soft Plastic lures and tube baits used by 2010 NPMP Dam Anglers.

Figure Name: Figure 6

Document ID: P121523

Document: Report on the Predation Index, Predator Control Fisheries, and Program Evaluation for the Columbia River Basin Experimental Northern Pikeminnow Management Program

Page Number: 110

Project: 1990-077-00

Contract: 46941


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $4,174,106 $4,474,106 $4,474,099 $4,474,099 $4,211,395

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $4,474,106 $4,474,099 $4,474,099 $4,211,395
FY2018 (Current) $4,474,106 $4,474,106 $4,476,398 $4,476,398 $17,206

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $4,474,106 $4,476,398 $4,476,398 $17,206
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Nov-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $4,174,106 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2017 Expense $300,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Jan 19th Transfers 01/20/2017
FY2018 Expense $4,474,106 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2017 0 %
FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 0 %
FY2011 0 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-003706 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev Of Sytemwide Pred Control Active $727 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-004315 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev of Systemwide Pred Control Active $3,610 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004979 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev of Systemwide Predator Control Active $3,504 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005564 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $3,875 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-005703 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags/Advertising - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $1,721 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006343 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $3,150 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007050 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $3,033 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007723 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $1,853 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008379 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $2,441 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008907 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $8,821 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
71866 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1990-077-00 EXP NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Issued $4,519,926 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017
BPA-009521 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $2,858 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
75527 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1990-077-00 EXP NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Issued $4,471,241 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
BPA-010193 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Active $2,292 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:44
On time:16
Avg Days Late:29

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4477 22819, 26763, 31848, 37442, 41717, 46941, 52617, 56795, 61037, 64365, 68321, 71866, 75527 1990-077-00 DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM-WIDE PREDATOR CONTROL Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 44 140 18 1 5 164 96.34% 5
BPA-005564 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-003706 PIT Tags - Dev Of Sytemwide Pred Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004315 PIT Tags - Dev of Systemwide Pred Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004979 PIT Tags - Dev of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005703 PIT Tags/Advertising - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006343 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007050 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007723 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008379 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008907 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009521 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010193 PIT Tags - Dev. of Systemwide Predator Control Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 44 140 18 1 5 164 96.34% 5


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1990-077-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1990-077-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (54.8 70.1 70.2 70.3)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1990-077-00 - Development of Systemwide Predator Control
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1990-077-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal describes a successful ongoing program to encourage anglers to exploit a native nuisance predator, the northern pikeminnow (NPM), and to evaluate the effectiveness of this exploitation for reducing predation on outmigrating salmonids. After 20 years of modifications and fine-tuning, the program has achieved 10-20% exploitation rates on large northern pikeminnow, which are the most predaceous, and an estimated 40% reduction in predation on out-migrating smolts.

The overall significance of these northern pikeminnow removals on SARs remains unknown, relative to marine survival in particular, as the proponents note:

“Although it is inherently difficult to relate predator removals to smolt survival benefits, it should in theory be relatively easy to estimate the correlation between SARs and NPMP exploitation rates. The NPMP staff plans to complete this evaluation in the next project cycle.”

Qualification 1: The program would be improved if the evaluation was completed (or at least some detailed plans for evaluation completed) in the present project review cycle.

Statistical designs and analyses have been reviewed about 7-10 years ago, and investigators are using estimators that, although valid, might be improved.

Qualification 2: The ISRP recommends investing in an updated review of these methods (before the next review cycle) by scientists with expertise in current capture-recapture methods, to ensure that the best methods are being used.

Previous ISRP comments still apply, “This program is well justified, technically, and 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).”


Other ISRP comments:

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project primarily responds to the 2008 FCRPS BiOp (a number of RPAs referred to for several objectives). The program is important at the regional level, since it measures northern pikeminnow predation throughout >400 miles of the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, and addresses predation at the whole-system scale.

The technical background provides good justification for the program and is supported by a large number of peer-reviewed publications detailing the biological parameters of predation, and the models used to estimate both abundance and consumption, all of which are used to estimate system-wide predation and compare it to pre-program levels. However, there may be some potential for further improvements in design and analysis as the statistical sampling design and statistical estimators used have been reviewed about a decade ago (Hankins and Richards 2000 [not listed in the References]; Styer 2003). Moreover, some references listed (e.g., Everhart and Youngs 1981) are nearly 30 years old. Although unbiased statistical estimators do not become out of date, newer methods are constantly being developed that provide improved estimates. For example, capture-recapture methods used for estimating exploitation of waterfowl are an active area of research and analysis. The ISRP believes that a modest investment in review by analysts with expertise in modern capture-recapture theory would be well worth the investment to continue updating methods and deriving the best estimates (e.g., see White and Burnham 1999; Royle and Garrettson 2005, White 2008, Zimmerman et al. 2009).

Royle, J. A., and P. R. Garrettson. 2005. The effect of reward band value on mid-continent mallard band reporting rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:800-804.

White, G.C. 2008. Closed population estimation models and their extensions in Program MARK. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 15(1): 89-99.

White, G.C. and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46 Supplement, 120-138.

Zimmerman, G. S., T. J. Moser, W. L. Kendall, P. F. Doherty, G. C. White, and D. F. Caswell. 2009. Factors influencing reporting and harvest probabilities in North American geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:710-719.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

A thorough description of history and accomplishments of the northern pikeminnow program is provided.

Major results are explained in detail in the Problem Statement / Technical Background of the Objectives subsection. Several important ones include:

(1) Fisheries for northern pikeminnow, have resulted in the removal of over 3.3 million northern pikeminnow >250-mm fork length throughout the lower Columbia and Snake rivers, with annual exploitation from 1991-2009 averaging approximately 13%.

(2) Exploitation of northern pikeminnow >250-mm fork length has remained above 10% since 1998, and has increased in recent years. Exploitation rates in 2004 (18.5%), 2005(19.0%), and 2008(19.5%) were the highest observed rates in the history of the program.

(3) Predation index values have generally decreased since the early years of the program (1990-1993), especially above Bonneville Dam. Below Bonneville Dam, predation indices have fluctuated recently (1999, 2004, and 2005), but remain below mean 1990-1996 values.

The project is continuing to meet goals, but (as indicated above) the ISRP would like to see results and data regarding the question of significance of northern pikeminnow removals for benefiting SARs.

The project is continually practicing adaptive management by adjusting program efforts based on annual results as indicated by exploitation rates.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Although no Project Relationships were listed, it is clear that this effort is a close collaboration among the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other management agencies.

Northern pikeminnow predation has long been recognized as a limiting factor for salmonid smolt survival. An emerging limiting factor might be the overarching effects of climate change on conditions like temperature, which might foster or reduce populations of northern pikeminnow or non-native predators like walleye and smallmouth bass.

There is scope for value added results from the project such as information on lamprey in northern pikeminnow stomachs. Proponents should collaborate with CRITFC relative to the Columbia River Basin Lamprey plan to see if joint data collection could be conducted.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables, work elements and metrics are well established and proven to meet their intended purposes (i.e., estimate consumption rate of salmonids by northern pikeminnow). One exception is for Objective 6, which seemed to be a relatively vague statement about using the model and attempts to continually improve it, but with little reference to how these might occur.

Methods were adequately described (with the exception of Objective 6) and references made to peer-reviewed publications where needed.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal describes a successful ongoing program to encourage anglers to exploit a native nuisance predator, the northern pikeminnow (NPM), and to evaluate the effectiveness of this exploitation for reducing predation on outmigrating salmonids. After 20 years of modifications and fine-tuning, the program has achieved 10-20% exploitation rates on large northern pikeminnow, which are the most predaceous, and an estimated 40% reduction in predation on out-migrating smolts.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-NPCC-20110125
Project: 1990-077-00 - Development of Systemwide Predator Control
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1990-077-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Qualifications: The program would be improved if the evaluation was completed (or at least some detailed plans for evaluation completed) in the present project review cycle.

Statistical designs and analyses have been reviewed about 7-10 years ago, and investigators are using estimators that, although valid, might be improved.

The ISRP recommends investing in an updated review of these methods (before the next review cycle) by scientists with expertise in current capture-recapture methods, to ensure that the best methods are being used.
Previous ISRP comments apply - This program is well justified, technically, and the predator removal programseems 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).
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1990-077-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Pikeminnow predator control; direct mitigation for FCRPS.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1990-077-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1990-077-00 - Development of Systemwide Predator Control
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1990-077-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1990-077-00 - Development of Systemwide Predator Control
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Dan Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Steve Williams Project Lead Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Catherine Al-Sheikhly Administrative Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Makary Hutson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration