Upload
annabel-reeves
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Coordinated Assessments Roadmap: Selecting & Prioritizing IndicatorsJuly 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) NWFSC- NOAA NPCC BPA NPCC Other (2) Peven Consulting (BPA) PSMFC/Idaho State University Tribal (6) Colville Confederated Tribes Nez Perce Tribe Tribes Tribe CTUIR Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
State (16) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks ODFW ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODFW State ODFW State - ODFW State IDFG WDFW ODFW WDFW IDFG Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 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?
Other (please specify)
Developing new indicators
Getting a clearer picture from managers about what exactly they want from the project
Populating the existing adopted indicators with data
Developing a clear plan for where the project is going
7.4%
11.1%
18.5%
25.9%
37.0%
Given current limitations, what do you think should be the most important focus for the Coordinated Assessments project for the next year?
Developing new indicators
Developing a clear plan for where the project is going
Other (please specify)
Getting a clearer picture from managers about what exactly they want from the project
Populating the existing adopted indicators with data
0.0%
7.1%
7.1%
17.9%
66.7%
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
1/9
ӾIncludes estimates coordinated with ISEMP and/or NPT *Comprehensive only for StreamNet Partners. Includes late 2014 CCT
216 TRT populations listed in the Interior Columbia & Lower Columbia/Willamette Recovery Domains
Predicted reporting for TRT populations in FY 2015
Indicator
Predicted/ Total TRT
Pred./Total
%
ODFW
IDFGӾ
WDFW Tri
bes*
Natural Origin Spawner Abundance 133/216 61.6 40 29 63 1 Recruits per Spawner 34/216 15.7 19 15 Smolt to Adult Ratio 3/216 1.4 1 1 1 Juvenile Abundance 25/216 11.6
Reported TRT populations/annual estimates as of July 7, 2015
Indicator
Reported/ Predicted
Rep/Pred.
% Pops/Yrs
ODFW Pops/Yrs
IDFGӾ
Pops/Yrs Pops/Yrs
WDFW Tribes* Natural Origin Spawner Abundance 96/133 72.2 35/993 60/1,509
Recruits per Spawner 15/34 44.1 15/545 Smolt to Adult Ratio 1/3 33.3 1/14 Juvenile Abundance 0/25 0.0
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
“Other” included 2 requests for habitat indicators
Other (please specify)
Resident Trout Indicators
Sturgeon, Lamprey, or Other Fish Indicators
Hatchery Fish and/or Hatchery Fish Effects on Natural Origin Salmon and Steelhead Indicators
Additional Natural Origin Salmon and Steelhead Indicators (i.e Spatial Distribution, Life History Diversity)
11.1%
40.7%
48.1%
81.5%
85.2%
Future Indicators for the CA Project? (Could choose multiple)
Response Percent
Preference was for focus on additional natural origin salmon & steelhead indicators
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Habitat Data
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
Average priority highest to lowest
Habitat Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number ranking "most important"
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?
Population diversity
Life stage specific juvenile survival
Spatial structure (i.e. geographic distribution, connectivity, etc.)
Average priority highest to lowest
Note: pHOS discussion to follow
Second priority was hatchery fish, but what indicators?
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Habitat Data
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
Average priority highest to lowest
Habitat Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number ranking "most important"
Highest Priority hatchery fish indicators?
#1 Proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS)
Number Spawned
Egg to Release Survival
Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI)
Stray Rate/Stray Distribution
Harvest/Escapement Distribution
Eggs Taken
Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a hatchery broodstock (pNOB)
Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
Juveniles released
Total Return (Including fisheries contribution)
Proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number ranking "most important"
Egg to Release Survival
Eggs Taken
Number Spawned
Harvest/Escapement Distribution
Juveniles released
Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI)
Stray Rate/Stray Distribution
Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
Total Return (Including fisheries contribution)
Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a hatchery broodstock (pNOB)
Proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS)
Average priority highest to lowest
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?
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Habitat Data
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
Average priority highest to lowest
Habitat Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number ranking "most important"
Priorities for other fish (Species and Indicator Type)
*Highest by average priority and number of “most important”
Diversity
Productivity
Spatial Distribution
Abundance
Other fish possible indicator ranking*
Other (please specify)
Sturgeon
Bull Trout
Lamprey
14.3%
32.1%
46.4%
53.6%
"Other fish" species priority
Other included Eulachon, species listed elsewhere
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?
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Habitat Data
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
Average priority highest to lowest
Habitat Data
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
Hydro Data
Resident Trout
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Hatchery Fish (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Additional Natural Origin Salmon & Steelhead Indicators
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number ranking "most important"
Highest Priority resident trout indicators?
Diversity
Artificial Production for Mitigation Purposes
Productivity
Spatial Distribution
Abundance
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Number ranked "most important"
Artificial Production for Mitigation Purposes
Diversity
Productivity
Spatial Distribution
Abundance
Average priority highest to lowest
#1
#2
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 Comm Meeting) Vision: High level indicators are standardized for specific regional data needs on a prioritized basis.
Year 0 (current) Populate Natural Origin (NO) indicators, align NO
indicators with SPS Begin development of hatchery DES Adopt 5 year plan for project 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
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)
Year 2 - (2016-17)
Maintain automated flow of existing NO indicators. Implement recommendations of Performance Review. Continue to populate and update adopted indicators with 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
Based on the performance review, continue development of hatchery indicators, assess available data, begin to populate hatchery indicators, coordinate closely with hatchery database managers
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 1. Please enter your name (optional) 2. Please indicate whether you are a Data provider Data consumer Both 3. Please enter the organization you work for (state, tribe, agency, etc.)
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
Additional Natural Origin Salmon and Steelhead Indicators (i.e Spatial Distribution, Life History Diversity)
Hatchery Fish and/or Hatchery Fish Effects on Natural Origin Salmon and Steelhead Indicators
Resident Trout Indicators Sturgeon, Lamprey, or Other Fish Indicators Other (please specify)
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:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
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
Number Spawned
Eggs Taken
Egg to Release Survival
Recruits per Spawner (RperS)
Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR)
Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a hatchery broodstock (pNOB)
Total Return (Including fisheries contribution)
Proportion of natural spawners that are of hatchery origin (pHOS)
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
Diversity
15. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Other Fish that you feel should be standardized? Please list them below
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
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
17. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Habitat that you feel should be standardized? Please list them below
Choice 1:
Choice 2:
Choice 3:
18. For Hydro, please rank the following indicators from most important (1) to least important
Adult passage by facility, species, or ESU/DPS
Juvenile passage by facility, species, or ESU/DPS
19. Are there other indicators (not listed above) for Hydro that you feel should be standardized? Please list them below
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 (Production/Hatchery Management Data)
Hatchery Fish (Interactions in Nature/Spawning in Wild Data)
Other Fish (i.e. Lamprey, Sturgeon)
ESA Listed Fish Populations (i.e. Bull Trout)
Habitat Data
Hydro 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)
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)?
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)
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
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 DistributionModeled habitat function by basin and fish speciesHydrosystem Performance Standards
Average number of smolts per spawner
Resident trout have had little attention to date.
Sturgeon & LampreyAquatic predation for each pool
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
Hatchery & Natural Interactions
Avian predation for each pool
Are there other types of indicators for hatchery fish that you feel should be standardized?
fish/lb at release
Mark rateProportion of Natural Origin fish population placed into hatchery broodstockcompare trends (abundance, productivity) with reference condition
off- or on-site release location
% spatial overlap with natural originOther 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 N-O)
Size at age
Juvenile releases and adult returns need to be quantified down to the subwatershed scale
8
6 6
5
4
3
2
Evaluations & Assessments that would benefit from standardized data
NOAA NPCC OtherRange-wideAssessments
EffectivenessMonitoring
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