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?

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.

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?