coordinated assessments roadmap: selecting & prioritizing indicators july 8, 2015

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?






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


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


Hydro Data

Resident Trout





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.)


Note: pHOS discussion to follow

Second priority was hatchery fish, but what indicators?

Hydro Data

Resident Trout


Habitat Data






Habitat Data


Hydro Data

Resident Trout





0 2 4 6 8 10 12


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



Eggs Taken

Number Spawned


Juveniles released









Other High-ranking Hatchery Indicators Proportion of Natural Origin fish in a hatchery broodstock

(pNOB)




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


Habitat Data






Habitat Data


Hydro Data

Resident Trout





0 2 4 6 8 10 12


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*


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


Habitat Data






Habitat Data


Hydro Data

Resident Trout





0 2 4 6 8 10 12


Highest Priority resident trout indicators?

Diversity

Artificial Production for Mitigation Purposes

Productivity


Abundance

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Number ranked "most important"


Diversity

Productivity


Abundance


#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










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


Diversity


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


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


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






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?






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)?






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

coordinated assessments roadmap: selecting & prioritizing indicators july 8, 2015

Documents

ca project

additional indicators

assessments roadmap

ca priorities

previous indicators

year focus

habitat indicators preference

ca work groups