Developing viability criteria for threatened Puget Sound steelhead Jeff Hard and Jim Myers (for the PSSTRT) Conservation Biology Division NMFS Northwest

Developing viability criteria for threatened Puget Sound steelhead

Jeff Hard and Jim Myers (for the PSSTRT)Conservation Biology Division

NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science CenterSeattle, WA 98112

West Coast Steelhead Management MeetingRedmond, OR

9-11 March 2010

interim^

Outline

• Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS

• Recent changes• Technical Recovery Team

(TRT) objectives• The TRT’s approach to

identifying viability criteria• Identifying DIPs & MPGs• Assessing viability of

DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS• Run type diversity; residency

and anadromy• Outlook

Puget Sound steelhead

status reviews• Originally reviewed in 1996;

ESA listing not warranted• 2nd status review in response

to September 2004 petition completed June 2007

• DPS listed as threatened under ESA

• Several populations continue steep declines despite harvest restrictions

• Low productivity; poor FW/marine habitat conditions; use of non-local/ derived hatchery stocks; depressed LH diversity

Outline







East Puget Sound steelheadTolt SSH

P(ex

tincti

on)

Years

Abun

danc

e

QET = 50

Green WSH

QET = 50

General RoE patterns for Puget Sound steelhead

• Some but not all northern PS populations are at relatively low risk of extinction

• Populations in central and southern PS (except Green WSH) are generally smaller and most are declining

• Hood Canal and SJF populations are small and at high risk, although some have been relatively stable

• Status of many South Sound/Kitsap Peninsula independents and most SSH populations unclear

• Of concern: Most central and SPS populations, many Hood Canal, all SJF populations

Outline







Technical Recovery Team (TRT)• When a population(s) under NOAA/USFWS jurisdiction is

petitioned for listing under ESA, a Biological Review Team (BRT) of federal scientists determines its risk of extinction—the basis for a listing decision

• Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP; McElhany et al. 2000) criteria:- Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity

• A TRT develops biological recovery (“viability”) criteria to guide recovery planning for listed unit

• A TRT has two primary charges:- Identify demographically independent populations (DIPs)

and major population groups (MPGs) within the ESU/DPS- Develop viability criteria for these units and the ESU/DPS

Outline







Demographically Independent Populations & Major Population Groups

• DIPs < MPGs < DPS• Data are usually limiting, and TRTs have had to rely

on indirect measures to identify DIPs and MPGs• TRTs have typically used simple decision rules to

evaluate these factors– e.g., spawning populations separated by some amount– e.g., elevation/gradient/hydrograph differs substantially

between areas• Assessment of historical populations a key element

of identifying DIPs and MPGs

DIP checklist• Tier 1

– Historical presence– Historical abundance– Demographic independence

• Tier 2 (proxies)– Recent abundance

• Intrinsic potential or other habitat based estimate of potential productivity– Basin size/drainage area– Geographic isolation– Genetic distance– Barriers

• physical• seasonal

– Ecological separation– Temporal isolation

• Tier 3 (species surrogates)• Genetic distance• Geographic isolation

0.1

Dosewallips

Duckabush77

Elwha wild05

Dungeness all87

15

DuckSmlt08

Hamma smlt

HammaSmlt0850

23

Skamania Hat

Minter Mx45

7

Nisqually all

Puyallup

WhiteR all62

GreenR wild06

Cedar all90

58

33

Samish all

Nooksac

Nook2100

59

Stillagua smlt

Skag Mansr100

29

15

5

7

Snow all

BigBeef all

BeefSmlt08100

Dewat all

DewatSmlt08100

Tahuya all

TahuyaSmlt08100

91

90

39

Skokom all

SkokSmlt08100

21

Neighbor-joining treeC-S-E distances13 μsat loci

Includes 2008 and 2009 collections

East Hood Canal

West Hood Canal

Strait of Juan de Fuca

South/Central Sound

North Sound

Historical WDF steelhead catch data

Dendrogram of Gower SI of habitat characteristics

Ba

ker

No

rth

Fo

rk S

kyko

mis

h

Mid

dle

Fo

rk N

oo

ksa

ck

Ca

sca

de

So

uth

Fo

rk S

kyko

mis

h Elw

ha

Ha

mm

a H

am

ma

Ca

nyo

n

Fin

ne

y De

er

Sko

kom

ish

Sn

oq

ua

lmie

So

uth

Fo

rk N

oo

ksa

ck

To

lt

So

uth

Fo

rk S

tilla

gu

am

ish

Stil

lag

ua

mis

h

Do

sew

alli

ps

Du

cka

bu

sh D

un

ge

ne

ss

Sa

uk

Ca

rbo

n

Wh

ite

Gre

en

Ma

inst

em

_N

ort

h F

ork

No

oks

ack

Nis

qu

ally

Sn

oh

om

ish

_S

kyko

mis

h

Ca

se_

Ca

rr

Ea

st K

itsa

p

De

wa

tto

Un

ion

Ta

hu

ya

To

tten

Inle

t

Ha

mm

ers

ley

Eld

Da

kota

Sa

mis

h

La

ke W

ash

ing

ton

Pilc

hu

ck

Pu

yallu

p

De

sch

ute

s

Dis

cove

ry B

ay

Se

qu

im B

ay

Mo

rse

Ma

inst

em

_S

kag

it_T

rib

s.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Dendrogram of agnes(x = daisy(dat[, varNames1], metric = "gower"))

Agglomerative Coefficient = 0.81daisy(dat[, varNames1], metric = "gower")

He

igh

t

High precip, snow pack(and SSH)

Wider, more

spawn-able area

SJFRain dominated,

generally smaller

How can we combine these data in a way that helps to identify DIPs?

Recent demographic independence

(PD)

Ecophenotypic differences

(EP)

Ecological distinctiveness

(ED)

Biological distinctiveness (BD)

Population independence

(IP)

Population dynamics

(PD.1)

W

W

Migration rates(PD.2)

Habitat characteristics

(EP.2)

Life history traits(EP.1)

W

Genetic distinctiveness

(GD)

Geographic isolation

(GI)

W

W

Stream gradient,

etc. (EP.2.A...)

W

Run timing,

etc. (EP.1.A...)

W

Tag recoverie

s, etc. (PD.2.A...)

W

Adult number,

etc. (PD.1.A...)

W

Geographic

distance, etc.

(GI.1.A...)

W

Genetic distance,

etc. (GD.1.A...

)

W

(from a concept by K. Currens, NWIFC)

Why a Decision Support System (DSS) framework?

• “Fuzzy logic” system systematically incorporates degree of uncertainty into decision making

• Almost any relevant criterion can be considered• Employs truth membership functions to evaluate the

degree to which propositions are true• Uses logical operators (e.g., “AND”, “UNION”,

“MEDIAN”, “AVERAGE”) and weighting factors to combine criteria

• Provides a transparent, systematic, and repeatable framework to reach decisions supported by the available data

A truth membership function

Fals

e

U

ncer

tain

T

rue

“Population will persist= FALSE”

“Population will persist= TRUE”

Trut

h va

lue

for p

ropo

sitio

n

1-P(extinction)

“I am completely uncertain whether the population will persist”

Some DSS DIP model inputs• Historic populations identified from WDF

steelhead catch statistics (1946-1970) and habitat-based intrinsic potential estimates• Minimum historic size (e.g., > 500 natural spawners/gen)• Minimum suitable habitat (e.g., > 20K m2 IP habitat)

• Recent demographic data estimated from spawner escapements and selected age structure data (1970s-present)

• Geographic distances, hydrographic data, and habitat features estimated from GIS data layers

• Genetic distances based on pairwise FST values from 13 microsatellite loci

Matrix of potential PS steelhead DIPs(Central/South Puget Sound WSH)

Lk Washington WSH Green WSH MS Puyallup WSH Nisqually WSH East Kitsap WSH

Lk Washington WSH -0.48642 0.132319 0.490463 0.301333

Green WSH -0.48642 0.164813 0.168309 0.056166

MS Puyallup WSH 0.132319 0.164813 -0.178016 -0.002167

Nisqually WSH 0.490463 0.168309 -0.178016 0.1435

East Kitsap WSH 0.301333 0.056166 -0.002167 0.1435DRAFT

Outline







ESU viability:All MPGs must be viable

MPG viability

1 viable population from each major genetic and life-history

group.

2-4 viable populations

Phenotypic and genotypic variation at population level

Distribution of spawning

aggregations

Suggested population size

range

Historical Abundance SimSam Habitat-based

PVA (EDT)

CatastropheESU: Overall risk with distribution of pops and life histories in each MPG

Pop: % of affected by given catastrophe

Puget Sound Chinook salmon

DSS viability criteria:

• population• stratum/MPG• entire ESU/DPS

AND

ES

ES-2

AND

ED-3ED-1

U

ED-1a ED-1b ED-1c ED-1d

ED-2

SF

32

PF1

. . .

AND

PF

PP*PD

AND

*See Persistence Criteria

PD-3 PD-4

UU

32

W-Sp1

. . . 32

W-Ju1

. . .

PD-1 PD-2

W-Sp W-Ju

AND

PS

M

SD

32

PS1

. . .

SS

AND

CB

SSA

. . .

AND

ES-1

U

ED-2a ED-2b

ES

U C

riter

ia

Str

atum

Crit

eria

Pop

ulat

ion

Crit

eria

Wat

ersh

ed

Crit

eria

Legend

Final outputs of the DSS

EP

The collection of results for lower-level criteriaiiiii

W-Ju i

Criteria evaluated from lower- level criteria

PP

Logical operatorsAND

Data is loaded into the DSS and evaluated with a truth membership function

PP-2

PP

Adult dist’n

Hatchery influence

Abundance

Juvenile dist’n

PS PF

PD

Some DSS viability model inputs

• Abundance and productivity estimated from spawner escapements and available age structure data (1940s-present)

• Risk of reaching QET estimated with simple PVA models

• Analysis limited to winter-run fish (WSH)• So far, analysis limited to anadromous fish• For future: incorporate iteroparity and relative

abundance of resident fish as VSP factors

DSS applied to PS steelhead viability: MPG and DPS levels

MPG MP MD MF MS DS DP

Strait of Georgia 0 -0.268 1 -0.036

Whidbey Basin 0.93 -0.029 1 0.221

Central/South Puget Sound 0 -0.302 0.689 -0.075 -0.805 0.093

Hood Canal 0 -0.340 -0.173 -0.312

Strait of Juan de Fuca 0 -0.316 -0.876 -0.861

…………..MPG level………….. …..DPS level…..

Persistence

Diversity

Functionality

Sustainabilit

y

Sustainabilit

y

Persistence

DRAFT

Outline







VSP: DiversitySummer-run life history

• Historically at least 12 wild SSH populations existed in DPS

• In 2002 SaSI, 16 SSH populations were identified as extant• Most of “unknown” status; only 2 considered

“healthy” (Tolt, SF Skykomish [non-native])• 7 are monitored: Canyon Cr., Skagit,

Snohomish, Tolt, Stillaguamish, Green, Elwha• Estimates of escapement available for only Tolt

River SSH in northern Puget Sound

Smolts produced by resident spawners may be critical in supporting steelhead productivity

during periods of low marine survival

VSP: Diversityresidency & anadromy

Marine survival

Outline







Outlook• TRT to identify draft viability criteria for Puget Sound

steelhead in 2010• NOAA status review update due in 2010• Recovery planning is underway• Additional analyses planned:

• Genetic samples• Finer-scale intrinsic potential estimates• Archived abundance and life history data• Puget Sound Chinook salmon gap analysis

FIN

Extra slides after this point

Steelhead IP habitat rating metrics

Intrinsic Potential (Interior Columbia River parameters)

Unconfined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width > 4x bank full width)Stream width

0 - 25 m 25 - 50 m > 50 m

Stream gradient

0.0% - 0.5% moderate moderate low0.5% - 1.5% high moderate low1.5% - 4.0% high moderate low4.0% - 7.0% low very low / none very low / none7.0% - 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

> 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

Confined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width < 4x bank full width)Stream width

0 - 25 m 25 - 50 m > 50 m

Stream gradient

0.0% - 0.5% very low / none low very low / none0.5% - 1.5% low low very low / none1.5% - 4.0% low low very low / none4.0% - 7.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none7.0% - 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

> 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

Weighted Habitat Areahigh = 1.0 x Bank full areamoderate = 0.5 x Bank full arealow = 0.25 x Bank full areavery low / none = 0.0 x Bank full area

Stream Habitat Rating Matrix (below natural barriers)

Stream width (bankfull)

0 - 3 m 3 - 50 m > 50 m

Stream gradient

0.0 - 4.0% low high moderate

>4.0% low low low

Puget Sound

Interior Columbia

(for comparison)

Est. mean ‘historic’ wild run size vs unblocked stream length

Spawner capacity estimates

Assuming:7.17 parr/100 m2

0.0265 spnrs/parr(Gibbons et al. 1985)

WinterSummer

Run type

Baker

Rive

r

Bound

ary W

ater

s

Canyo

n Cre

ek

Casca

de R

iver

Deer C

reek

Dunge

ness

Rive

r

East K

itsap

Elwha

Rive

r

Green

Rive

r

Lake

Was

hingt

on

MS S

kagit

Rive

r

Mor

se C

reek

NF Sky

kom

ish R

iver

Nisqua

lly R

iver

Nooks

ack R

iver

Pilchu

ck R

iver

Puyall

up R

iver

SF Noo

ksac

k Rive

r

Samish

Rive

r

Sauk R

iver

Sequim

Inde

pend

ents

Skoko

mish

Rive

r

Snoho

mish

Rive

r

Snoqu

almie

River

South

Sou

nd

Stillag

uam

ish R

iver

Tolt R

iver

Upper

Cas

cade

Rive

r

Wes

t Hoo

d Can

al

Wes

t Kits

ap

Whit

e Rive

r

Population

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Po

ten

tial s

pa

wn

ers

Documents

Developing viability criteria for threatened Puget Sound steelhead Jeff Hard and Jim Myers (for the PSSTRT) Conservation Biology Division NMFS Northwest