12
Overview of the Impact of Research and Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin Rob Clapp Gary Rule Blane Bellerud Ritchie Graves
Overview of the Impact of Research and Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin
Rob ClappGary Rule
Blane BellerudRitchie Graves
2
Outline
• Research and Monitoring Permits
• Effects of Research and Monitoring
• Effects of Tagging
• Goals and Expectations
3
Research and Monitoring Permits for ESA Listed Salmon and Steelhead
NOAA Fisheries authorizes hundreds of research and monitoring projects each year.
We consult on both naturally produced and listed hatchery fish.
• 4(d) Limit 7 Authorizations
• Letters of Authorization
• Section 10 Scientific Research Permits
4
ESA Section 4 – Listing DeterminationsProtective regulations for threatened salmon and steelhead – “4(d) Rules”
• 13 “Limits” on the take prohibitions
• Limit 7 allows NMFS to exempt state scientific research programs from the take prohibitions (annual authorization)
• Types of research and purposes vary
• Many of the projects are linked to other actions
• There were 165 projects in the 2011 research program (ID, OR, WA)
• Two-thirds of those projects were in the Columbia Basin
• 58 of the Columbia Basin projects include tagging and/or marking
5
ESA Section 7 – Interagency Cooperation
FCRPS and Willamette Biological Opinions
• Consultation with a Federal agency
• Authorizes incidental take
• The Incidental Take Statement includes research and monitoring
• Annual Letters of Authorization from NMFS Hydro Division
• Approximately 30 FCRPS and 10 Willamette Biop LOAs annually
6
ESA Section 10 - Exceptions
Sec. 10(a)(1)(A)—direct take permits for scientific purposes• Anyone can apply
• Endangered and threatened species
• Types of research and purposes vary
• Many of the projects are linked to other actions
• About 108 permits in 2011, more than half of which were for projects in the Columbia Basin
• 25 of the Columbia Basin permits include tagging and/or marking
7
Authorized take of naturally produced fish for research and monitoring under Section 10, 4d, and FCRPS (2011)
CommonName Population_Name Life Stage Total Take Total Morts Take % Abundance
Mortality % Abundance
Salmon, Chinook Snake River fall-run Adult 9,406 109 353% 4.1%
Salmon, Chinook Snake River fall-run Juvenile 187,017 2,371 34% 0.4%
Salmon, Chinook Snake River spring/summer-run Adult 15,355 125 116% 0.9%
Salmon, Chinook Snake River spring/summer-run Juvenile 1,136,322 12,606 85% 0.9%
Salmon, Chinook Upper Columbia River Adult 330 8 25% 0.6%
Salmon, Chinook Upper Columbia River Juvenile 65,444 1,571 8% 0.2%
Salmon, Chinook Lower Columbia River Adult 970 31 7% 0.2%
Salmon, Chinook Lower Columbia River Juvenile 1,783,312 20,817 8% 0.1%
Salmon, Chinook Upper Willamette River Adult 380 3 5% 0.0%
Salmon, Chinook Upper Willamette River Juvenile 104,073 1,692 3% 0.0%
Salmon, Chum Columbia River Adult 136 23 2% 0.4%
Salmon, Chum Columbia River Juvenile 958,559 15,057 14% 0.2%
Salmon, Coho Lower Columbia River Adult 3,773 59 18% 0.3%
Salmon, Coho Lower Columbia River Juvenile 261,214 3,868 22% 0.3%
Sockeye Snake River Adult 189 7 62% 2.3%
Sockeye Snake River Juvenile 11,826 317 99% 2.7%
Steelhead Snake River Basin Adult 15,238 155 44% 0.4%
Steelhead Snake River Basin Juvenile 553,659 8,101 48% 0.7%
Steelhead Upper Columbia River Adult 534 15 18% 0.5%
Steelhead Upper Columbia River Juvenile 50,241 1,566 24% 0.7%
Steelhead Middle Columbia River Adult 10,628 81 45% 0.3%
Steelhead Middle Columbia River Juvenile 330,952 6,488 39% 0.8%
Steelhead Lower Columbia River Adult 3,387 44 29% 0.4%
Steelhead Lower Columbia River Juvenile 79,604 1,493 13% 0.2%
Steelhead Upper Willamette River Adult 296 3 5% 0.1%
Steelhead Upper Willamette River Juvenile 8,410 314 4% 0.1%
8
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Num
ber o
f fish
PIT
tagg
edNumber of fish PIT tagged per year 1987-2010 from PTAGIS database.
total fish (all species and rear types) PIT tagged
Wild Chinook
Wild Steelhead
9
Effects of the Authorized Research
1. Protected Resources Division authorizes/permits research under sections 4(d) and 10 of the ESA.
2. For years, the assigned mortality rates have ranged from 1% to 3%.
3. N.b., under the ESA and NEPA, research and monitoring are not considered to be the same: Research must “not operate to the disadvantage of the species,” AND not be individually or cumulatively significant. This is starting to raise some concerns.
10
Literature Review
1. A preliminary review of the published work suggests that our estimates of effect (with respect to mortality, at least) need a hard look.
2. A few points to highlight—the research is highly variable with respect to what’s being tested; there seems to be a direct correlation between tag size and mortality rates, there seems to be an inverse correlation between fish size and mortality rates.
3. An even more preliminary look at other tags, handling, electrofishing, etc. indicates that our estimates of effect from them may be similarly low.
11
Summary
1. Given these factors (amount of effort, increasing scrutiny, poorly understood effects), we need to minimize take and combine efforts. This may well have the added advantage of lowering costs.
2. We haven’t yet got a handle on take from hatchery, harvest, or habitat effects.
3. We have not factored in sublethal effects and, to some extent, delayed mortality
4. Several factors driving the increasing level of effort.5. The increasing effort, coupled with the increasing scrutiny, points
out the need for setting regional priorities and process.6. Regional protocols will also be needed.
Questions?
Rob Clapp – [email protected] Rule – [email protected]
Blane Bellerud – [email protected] Graves – [email protected]
