Transcript Coordinated Assessmnents Roadmap: Selecting

Coordinated Assessments
Roadmap: Selecting &
Prioritizing Indicators
July 8, 2015
Attempted to Assess CA Priorities Across
the Columbia Basin
Survey Using Survey Monkey - 28 Responses
CA Workshop Participants, StreamNet Partners, BPA, NPCC, others
Discussion with CA Core Team, BPA, NPCC, StreamNet Steering Committee
Recognize likely bias towards Salmon & Steelhead due to participation
Survey information is not meant to imply quantitative endorsement by regional fish &
wildlife managers, but is meant to inform the Executive Committee – Ask that you
make the decision on priorities for the project
Self reported “Organization you work for”
Federal (4)
State (16)
NWFSC- NOAA
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
NPCC
ODFW
BPA
ODFW
NPCC
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODFW
Other (2)
State
Peven Consulting (BPA)
ODFW
PSMFC/Idaho State University
State - ODFW
State
Tribal (6)
IDFG
Colville Confederated Tribes
WDFW
Nez Perce Tribe
ODFW
Tribes
WDFW
Tribe
IDFG
CTUIR
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
ODFW - State of Oregon
(Note that respondent may not represent organization’s position on issues)
Asked respondents: what should be the longer term (5-10
year) focus on the CA Project?
Developing a clear plan for where the project is going
37.0%
Populating the existing adopted indicators with data
25.9%
Getting a clearer picture from managers about what exactly they want
from the project
18.5%
Developing new indicators
Other (please specify)
11.1%
7.4%
Given current limitations, what do you think should be the
most important focus for the Coordinated Assessments project
for the next year?
Populating the existing adopted indicators with data
66.7%
Getting a clearer picture from managers about what exactly they want
from the project
17.9%
Other (please specify)
7.1%
Developing a clear plan for where the project is going
7.1%
Developing new indicators
0.0%
Asked respondents to list evaluation(s) or assessment(s) they
felt would most benefit from having regionally standardized
data available (Could list multiple)
 NOAA Status Assessments
 NPCC HLIs and Dashboards
 USFWS Range-wide Assessments
 State and Tribal Plans
 Several Others….
Existing CA Indicator Exchange Templates
Natural Origin (Adopted)
Spawner abundance (with / without jacks)
Smolt to adult ratio (percentage)
Recruits per spawner: adults
Recruits per spawner: juveniles
Presmolt abundance
Number of outmigrants
Hatchery Origin (Draft)
Smolt to adult ratio (percentage)
Recruits per spawner: adults
Number of fish spawned
Proportion of hatchery broodstock that are
natural origin fish
Egg take
Proportionate natural influence (PNI) of
supplementation hatcheries (with / without
jacks)
Egg to release survival rates for hatchery
programs
Coordinated Assessments Data Flow in 2015
216 TRT populations listed in the Interior Columbia &
Lower Columbia/Willamette Recovery Domains
Predicted reporting for TRT populations in FY 2015
Indicator
Natural Origin Spawner Abundance
Recruits per Spawner
Smolt to Adult Ratio
Juvenile Abundance
Predicted/
Total TRT
133/216
34/216
3/216
25/216
Pred./Total
ODFW
%
61.6
40
15.7
19
1.4
1
11.6
IDFGӾ
29
15
1
WDFW Tribes*
63
1
1
Reported TRT populations/annual estimates as of July 7, 2015
Indicator
Natural Origin Spawner Abundance
Recruits per Spawner
Smolt to Adult Ratio
Juvenile Abundance
Ӿ
Reported/
Predicted
96/133
15/34
1/3
0/25
Includes estimates coordinated with ISEMP and/or NPT
Rep/Pred.
%
72.2
44.1
33.3
0.0
Pops/Yrs
Pops/Yrs
ODFW
35/993
15/545
1/14
Ӿ
IDFG
Pops/Yrs
Pops/Yrs
WDFW Tribes*
1/9
60/1,509
*Comprehensive only for StreamNet Partners. Includes late 2014 CCT
As of 7/7/2015
Proposal: Five Year Plan for Coordinated
Assessments Project
Develop a longer term vision and schedule for the Coordinated Assessments Project
Have general outline of when next indicators will come on line
Maintain close contact with HLI users (BPA, NPCC, NOAA…)
Revisit annually to ensure alignment with regional priorities
Multiple tasks will occur annually; Populating last indicators with
data while developing next DES and also automating data flow
for previous indicators
Future Indicators for the CA Project? (Could choose multiple)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon and Steelhead Indicators (i.e Spatial
Distribution, Life History Diversity)
85.2%
Hatchery Fish and/or Hatchery Fish Effects on Natural Origin Salmon and
Steelhead Indicators
81.5%
Sturgeon, Lamprey, or Other Fish Indicators
48.1%
Resident Trout Indicators
Other (please specify)
40.7%
11.1%
Response Percent
“Other” included 2 requests for habitat indicators
Preference was for focus on additional natural origin
salmon & steelhead indicators
Average priority highest to lowest
Number ranking "most important"
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead
Indicators
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead
Indicators
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Discussion
Do the Executive Committee members want to direct the CA Project to devote
additional effort on other Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead indicators as the top
priority of the project?
Do you want to direct the CA work groups to focus on additional indicators used in
NOAA’s 5 year assessment and standardize data for the SPS database?
Do you want to provide any specific guidance on indicators?
Average priority highest to lowest
Spatial structure (i.e. geographic
distribution, connectivity, etc.)
Life stage specific juvenile survival
Note: pHOS discussion to follow
Population diversity
Second priority was hatchery fish, but what indicators?
Number ranking "most important"
Average priority highest to lowest
Additional Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators
Additional Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull
Trout)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull
Trout)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Highest Priority hatchery fish indicators?
Average priority highest to lowest
Number ranking "most important"
Proportion of natural spawners that are…
Proportion of natural spawners that are…
Total Return (Including fisheries…
Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a…
Total Return (Including fisheries…
Juveniles released
Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a…
Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
Stray Rate/Stray Distribution
Eggs Taken
Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI)
Harvest/Escapement Distribution
Juveniles released
Stray Rate/Stray Distribution
Harvest/Escapement Distribution
Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI)
Number Spawned
Egg to Release Survival
Eggs Taken
Number Spawned
Egg to Release Survival
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
#1 Proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS)
Other High-ranking Hatchery Indicators
 Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a hatchery broodstock (pNOB)
 Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
 Total Return (Including fisheries contribution)
 Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
 Juveniles Released
Already included in current exchange template
What Regional Hatchery Evaluations
need standardized data?
BPA BiOp Reporting?
NPCC Annual Reports, Current O&M Process ?
NOAA (Proportion of natural spawners of hatchery origin)?
Others?
Comprehensive (all programs, all fund sources) or Specific?
Discussion
The proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS) is already a
metric in the NOSA tables. Does the Executive Committee wish to elevate pHOS to an
Indicator and try to populate pHOS for as many populations as possible?
Do the Executive Committee members want to direct the CA Project to continue to
develop hatchery Fish indicators as the next priority after Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead indicators, as is currently the plan?
Do you want to direct that the CA work groups coordinate with any specific
assessment process or processes (i.e. NOAA, NPCC, etc.)?
Do we have all the right participants on our Hatchery Development Team?
Do you want to provide any specific guidance on indicators (i.e. total return including
harvest)?
Other fish (including ESA listed Bull Trout) next?
Number ranking "most important"
Average priority highest to lowest
Additional Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators
Additional Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull
Trout)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull
Trout)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Priorities for other fish (Species and Indicator Type)
"Other fish" species priority
Other fish possible indicator ranking*
Lamprey
53.6%
Bull Trout
46.4%
Sturgeon
Other (please specify)
32.1%
14.3%
Other included Eulachon, species listed elsewhere
Abundance
Spatial Distribution
Productivity
Diversity
*Highest by average priority and number of “most important”
Discussion
Do the Executive Committee members want to direct the CA Project to move to
“Other Fish” indicators as the next priority after Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead
and Hatchery indicators?
Do you want to provide direction on species priorities? (#1 lamprey, #2 bull trout ?)
Do you want to direct that the CA work groups coordinate with any specific
assessment process or processes (i.e. USFWS, NPCC, etc.)?
Do you have any specific guidance on indicators?
Resident trout next?
Number ranking "most important"
Average priority highest to lowest
Additional Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators
Additional Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in
Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery
Management Data)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull
Trout)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull
Trout)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Resident Trout
Habitat Data
Hydro Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Highest Priority resident trout
indicators?
Number ranked "most important"
Average priority highest to lowest
Abundance
Abundance
Spatial Distribution
Spatial Distribution
#1
#2
Productivity
Productivity
Artificial Production for Mitigation
Purposes
Diversity
Diversity
Artificial Production for Mitigation
Purposes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Discussion
Do the Executive Committee members want to direct the CA Project to move to
Resident Trout indicators as the next priority after Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead,
Hatchery, and “Other Fish” indicators?
Do you want to direct that the CA work groups coordinate with any specific
assessment process or processes (i.e. USFWS, NPCC, etc.)?
Do you have any specific guidance on indicators?
Coordinated Assessment 5 Year Plan(Draft 07/09/15 after StreamNet Exec CommMeeting)
Vision: High level indicators are standardized for specific regional data needs
on a prioritized basis.
Year 2 - (2016-17)
Year 0 (current)
Populate Natural Origin (NO) indicators, align NO indicators with SPS
Begin development of hatchery DES
Adopt 5 year plan for project
Maintain automated flow of existing NO indicators. Implement
recommendations of Performance Review. Continue to populate
and update adopted indicators with data
Year 1 - (2015-16)
Maintain and automate flow for existing NO fish indicators, develop and
finalize additional NO indicators. Continue to populate and update
adopted indicators with data
Based on the performance review, continue development of
hatchery indicators, assess available data, begin to populate
hatchery indicators, coordinate closely with hatchery database
managers
Initiate a “performance review” process (via the StreamNet Executive
Committee, regional fish and wildlife managers) to assess and discuss
data availability, critical gaps, relationships to regional data needs, etc. for
the CA project. To start, review will focus on initial 4 NO indictors and the
“pHOS” and “pHEC” question. Review to include recommendations on
data collection effort (i.e. more or less data collection needed for certain
indicators), representative populations, resident O. mykiss in steelhead
population areas, etc.
Development of hatchery indicators will be slowed while an assessment
of currently available data, hatchery data needs, etc. is conducted.
Project will ensure alignment with regional hatchery data needs through
discussion with hatchery data users and current existing hatchery
database managers, in preparation for the next performance review
(hatchery data)
Conduct performance review of hatchery data, to assess and
discuss data availability, critical gaps, relationships to regional data
needs, etc. for the CA project
Year 3 - (2017-18)
Maintain automated flow of existing NO indicators. Continue to
populate and update adopted indicators with data. Implement
recommendations of hatchery performance review
Finalize and adopt hatchery indicators. Begin to populate adopted
hatchery indicators with data
Conduct performance review of data on lamprey, sturgeon, and bull
trout, to assess and discuss data availability, critical gaps,
relationships to regional data needs, etc. for the CA project
Begin development of lamprey, sturgeon, and bull trout indicators,
ensure alignment with data needs, broaden discussion to include
lamprey, sturgeon, and bull trout database managers
Coordinated Assessment 5 Year Plan(07/09/15) page 2
Year 4 - (2018-19)
Maintain automated flow of NO and hatchery indicators and
continue to populate and update adopted indicators with
data. Implement recommendations of performance reviews in
data collection efforts
Finalize and adopt lamprey, sturgeon, and bull trout
indicators, begin to populate with data
Conduct performance review of data on resident trout, to
assess and discuss data availability, critical gaps, relationships
to regional data needs, etc. for the CA project
Begin development of resident trout indicators, ensure
alignment with data needs, broaden discussion to include
lamprey, sturgeon, and bull trout database managers
Year 5 - (2019-20)
Maintain automated flow of NO, hatchery, lamprey, sturgeon,
and bull trout indicators and continue to populate and update
adopted indicators with data. Implement recommendations of
performance reviews in data collection efforts
Finalize and adopt resident trout indicators, begin to populate
with data
Conduct performance review of CA project and evaluate next
5 years for possible new plan. Include assessment of regional
data needs, etc. for the CA project (to include habitat indicator
discussion, other?)
Begin development of next indicators, ensure alignment with
data needs, broaden discussion to include appropriate
database managers
Revisit annually and change as needed if regional
priorities change. Years are Contract fiscal years (Oct. 1 –
Sep. 30)
Along the way; Maintain close contact with HLI users
(BPA, NPCC, NOAA…) and with regional fish and wildlife
managers. Recruit other parties (e.g. resident fish
managers, habitat managers, etc.) as needed.
May require more resources to obtain data, cooperation,
and participation (EPA grants, other?)
Ensure alignment with regional priorities, adapt and
change as needed
From a technical standpoint the development of DES needs
to;
1) start with the right people for each new data
type. Include those who want data and those that
provide it to them. (Year 1)
2) Decide to add a new data type to the DES. Precisely
define each indicator. Design or modify DES table(s) to
accommodate the new data type. (Year 1 and into year
2)
3) Agency/tribal biologists create routines for calculating
indicators and metrics. Data management personnel
create database tables and programming infrastructure
for sharing data. Data sharing begins. (Years 2-3)
4) Routine data flow starts. (Year 3 or 4)
Background Slides
Survey Questions
5. Are there any other types of indicators that you feel should be as
high or higher priority than those listed above? Please list them below,
in your priority order
Choice 1:
1. Please enter your name (optional)
Choice 2:
2. Please indicate whether you are a
Choice 3:
Data provider
Data consumer
Both
3. Please enter the organization you work for (state,
tribe, agency, etc.)
6. What evaluation(s) or assessment(s) (i.e. such as the NOAA 5 year
status review) do you feel would most benefit from having regionally
standardized data available? Please list all that apply
7. For Hatchery Fish, please rank the following possible indicators from
most to least important (1 is most important) when it comes to
standardizing and sharing data for regional evaluations
4. The Coordinated Assessments (CA) Project has
focused to date mainly on Natural Origin Salmon and
Steelhead. What types of indicators does your agency
or tribe think should be considered in the future? Please
choose all that apply
Number Spawned
Additional Natural Origin Salmon and Steelhead
Indicators (i.e Spatial Distribution, Life History Diversity)
Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
Hatchery Fish and/or Hatchery Fish Effects on Natural
Origin Salmon and Steelhead Indicators
Eggs Taken
Egg to Release Survival
Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a hatchery broodstock (pNOB)
Resident Trout Indicators
Total Return (Including fisheries contribution)
Sturgeon, Lamprey, or Other Fish Indicators
Proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS)
Other (please specify)
Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI)
Stray Rate/Stray Distribution
Harvest/Escapement Distribution
Juveniles released
Survey Questions (continued)
8. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Hatchery Fish
that you feel should be standardized? Please list them below
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
9. For Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead, please rank the following
additional indicators in order (1 most important, 2 next most
important, etc.)
Spatial structure (i.e. geographic distribution, connectivity, etc.)
Life stage specific juvenile survival
Population diversity
10. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Natural Origin
Salmon & Steelhead that you feel should be standardized? Please
list them below
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
11. For Resident Trout, please rank the following possible
indicators from most to least important (1 is most important)
when it comes to standardizing and sharing data
Abundance
Productivity
Spatial Distribution
Diversity
Artificial Production for Mitigation Purposes
12. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Resident
Trout that you feel should be standardized? Please list
them below
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
13. For Other Fish, please indicate which species you think
should be the first priority when it comes to standardizing
and sharing data
Lamprey
Sturgeon
Bull Trout
Other (please specify)
Survey Questions (continued)
14. For Other Fish, please rank the following possible
indicators from most to least important (1 is most important)
when it comes to standardizing and sharing data
Abundance
Productivity
Spatial Distribution
17. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Habitat
that you feel should be standardized? Please list them
below
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Diversity
Choice 3:
15. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Other
Fish that you feel should be standardized? Please list them
below
18. For Hydro, please rank the following indicators from
most important (1) to least important
Choice 1:
Adult passage by facility, species, or ESU/DPS
Choice 2:
Juvenile passage by facility, species, or ESU/DPS
Choice 3:
19. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Hydro
that you feel should be standardized? Please list them
below
16. For Habitat, please rank the following indicators from
most important (1) to least important Fish passage (miles of
impaired or blocked access)
Water temperature
Water flow
Riparian condition
Biota
Habitat complexity
Threats to habitat
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
Survey Questions (continued)
20. In terms of regional coordination and sharing, please rank the
following types of indicators in order (1 is most important, 2, is
next most important, and so on)
Resident Trout
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
22. Given workload limitations, what do you think
should be the most important focus for the Coordinated
Assessments project for the longer term (the next 5-10
years)?
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Populating the existing adopted indicators with data
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Developing new indicators
Habitat Data
Developing a clear plan for where the project is going
Hydro Data
Getting a clearer picture from managers about what
exactly they want from the project
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
21. The workload of the personnel managing fisheries data is
already daunting. Given current limitations, what do you think
should be the most important focus for the Coordinated
Assessments project for the next year?
Populating the existing adopted indicators with data
Developing new indicators
Developing a clear plan for where the project is going
Getting a clearer picture from managers about what exactly they
want from the project
Other (please specify)
Other (please specify)
23. Do you have any perspectives on the Coordinated
Assessments Project that you would like to share with
us?
Are there any other types of indicators that you feel should be
as high or higher priority than those listed?
fish-in/fish-out
Hydro
Length of Female Spawners (Mid eye to fork or hyporal plate)
Predator Indicators (avian, pinniped, non-native fish)
Hatchery fish interactions will always be an issue and as such
require attention
Number of Natural Female Spawners
Habitat Indicators (including climate change)
Spatial distribution and life history can help with ESU evaluations
and are valuable
given different groups of people are involved in habitat, and non
salmon/steelhead, if we have the staff we could do some parallel
work
Salmon & Steelhead Spatial Distribution
Modeled habitat function by basin and fish species
Hydrosystem Performance Standards
Hatchery & Natural Interactions
Avian predation for each pool
Average number of smolts per
spawner
Resident trout have had little attention to
date.
Sturgeon &
Lamprey
Aquatic predation for each
pool
Are there other types of indicators for hatchery fish that you
feel should be standardized?
fish/lb at release
Mark rate
Proportion of Natural Origin fish
population placed into hatchery
broodstock
compare trends (abundance,
productivity) with reference
condition
off- or on-site release location
% spatial overlap with natural
origin
Other native origin life history types that could be effected by
hatchery strays or escapement.
SAR for hatchery fish should be
HRR and I have ranked it
accordingly
travel time from release thru hydropower system
Coded-wire- tag number
reproductive success (relative to natural-origin fish)
brood stock origin
Age structure
Total spawners (excluding fisheries contributions) is how I rated
Total returns
life history diversity comparison (between H-O and NO)
Size at age
Juvenile releases and adult returns need to be quantified down
to the subwatershed scale
Evaluations & Assessments that would benefit from standardized data
8
6
6
5
4
3
2
NOAA
NPCC
Other
Range-wide
Assessments
Effectiveness
Monitoring
State &
Tribal
BiOp/
BA
Other Natural Origin Salmon &
Steelhead Indicators to Standardize?
Viable salmonid population parameters (VSP)
Effective population size
Recruits per spawner
Prespawn survival
Site specific lake carrying capacity
Increased level of detail for adult returns down to the subwatershed scale rather than
for the population
Juvenile production estimates down to the subwatershed scale
Smolt to adult ratio
Spawning locations of redds