Download capg_20151014a_mike_presentation

Presentation by Mike Banach at the October 15, 2015 CAPG meeting for agenda item 3c.
Recent DDT activity
 New DES adopted June 19, 2015.
 DDT met Sep. 11 to discuss 3 issues that were noticed once data started coming in.
1. Whether the definition/description of the TRTmethod field should be modified.
 The TRTs are no longer active, and the intent of this field is to flag the method used in NOAA status
reviews. Not all populations of interest have TRT-sanctioned methods, but most populations will
have data submitted for status reviews.
2. Clarifying expectations for inter-agency (NOAA/state/tribal) coordination for designating the
"status review" data set for each population.
 We had a few surprises where more than one data set for a population arrived with the TRTmethod
field set to "Yes". Our understanding is that everyone knew who is to submit the single data set
destined for NOAA's status reviews.
3. The MethodNumber field was not always used consistently or as expected.
 The ContactAgency and MethodNumber fields allow sharing of more than one data set for a
population. But the MethodNumber was not being used as envisioned.
1
 Decisions made at 9/11 DDT meeting:
1. Whether the definition/description of the TRTmethod field should be modified.
 Changed field description:
Old: "Flag indicating whether the methods ... are ... by the TRT."
New: "Flag indicating whether the methods ... are ... for Endangered Species Act status reviews."
2. Clarifying expectations for inter-agency (NOAA/state/tribal) coordination for designating the
"status review" data set for each population.
 This issue had largely been addressed before the meeting through inter-agency coordination once it
was pointed out. We will watch for future problems but don't expect any. No DES change was
needed.
3. The MethodNumber field was not always used consistently or as expected.
 This issue had already been addressed before the meeting. We did reconfirm that the ability to
submit more than one data set per agency is of value to multiple people and agencies.
2
 1 additional DES topic discussed at 9/11 DDT meeting:
4. Having 3 fields for "populations" is a pain. (PopID, CBFWApopName, CommonPopName).
PSMFC would like to move to using only PopID, and making it required.†
 We currently have 3 non-required fields to identify the population:
 PopID
 CBFWApopName
 CommonPopName
 Instead, values for a new PopID would be sent before it is used in data tables (using Appendix E).
 Population name(s)
 Species
 Run
 Geographic extent

†
Everyone agreed we should work toward this goal.
SAR table also has PopAggregation field which slightly complicates this.
3
 Other DES adjustments in the draft for the next version:
1. Adjustments / corrections made for when PopFitNotes is required
 based on value of PopFit in the various tables .....
 and also on value of PopAggregation in SAR table.
2. Several small corrections / inconsistencies addressed regarding things such as:
 required fields
 values in lookup tables
 minimum values for confidence limits.
 Final DES note:
We are implementing DES-based validation rules for when data are sent to us.



The mechanism will provide useful plain English feedback to data submitters in real time if there's a
problem.
Minimizes QC effort on our side.
ODFW got the rules so they could test their data before trying to submit. Available for anyone if
you want to try. Contact Bill Kinney.
4
Proposed Process For Selecting The Next Indicator(s) To Pursue
1. (Done ?) Mike Banach researches/discusses data needs with NMFS, BPA, maybe PUDs and others. Also
examines SPS database to see what we don't yet provide.
2. Broad C.A. team determines for each possible new indicator:
a. priority
b. if it's possible
c. how much data are available, with what levels of work.
3. This information brought to CAPG and StreamNet Executive Committee meeting for decisions on which to
pursue.
 Today we are addressing # 2a. Then I'll work with everyone on # 2b and 2c.
 We don't want to go too fast – just get this in the queue for the 5-year plan.
5
Potential next indicator(s) to pursue
Sources consulted:








Oregon 10-Year Plan
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. June 2000. (VSP report)
NMFS's SPS database. (Salmon Population Summary)
Various HSRG and HGMP documents. (Hatchery Scientific Review Group; Hatchery Genetic Monitoring Plans)
WDFW (various online sources)
CAPG direction from last meeting
SalmonRecovery.gov, AMIP document
Tony Grover at July 2015 StreamNet Exec. Comm. meeting
Two tables are on the following pages. In the first table I start with potential indicators that, for various
reasons, I think are not candidates to be the next one to pursue. (I could of course be wrong.) This will
help give an overview of where we currently stand before we delve into what I think are more likely
potential new indicators, which are shown in the second table. In both tables, row colors alternate unless
consecutive rows are related concepts. In the second table the ideas expressed at this meeting are
recorded, and rows are rearranged with those felt most likely at the top of the table.
6
INDICATOR
SOURCE
NON-CANDIDATES
URL / NOTES
Table 1.
These are either already being done, or I think are not likely to be done.
Mari 10/5/15 says CA really already covers everything currently used in SPS. Unused SPS fields
(in struck-out red text below) are things that were proposed/considered for SPS but never used,
and these were generally from Puget Sound. But there are new needs being discussed. Those are
shown in the next table. For example, number of returning fish rather than only the number that
spawn. Mari can speak to these more if desired.
Current SPS
database needs
NMFS SPS
database
Adult returns
adjusted for
mean SAR
NMFS SPS
database
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=261:1:0 Proposed/considered for SPS but never
used; from Puget Sound.
NMFS SPS
database
NMFS SPS
database
NOAA Tech.
Memo.
NMFSNWFSC-42.
June 2000.
(VSP report)
CAPG
7/2014, in
CA 5-year
plan
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=261:1:0 Proposed/considered for SPS but never
used; from Puget Sound.
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=261:1:0 Proposed/considered for SPS but never
used; from Puget Sound.
Ln R/S
Ln R/S adjusted
for mean SAR
VSP
parameter:
Abundance
Stage-specific
survival rates
Range
Oregon 10Year Plan
Distribution
Oregon 10Year Plan
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6190_06162004_143739_tm42.pdf
Covered by NOSA and juvenile population and juvenile outmigration tables.
Identified as highest priority by CAPG at July 2015 meeting.
Mari Williams on 10/5/2015 said this item is already adequately covered by our existing RperS
and SAR tables.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/06%20OCS%20Monitoring
%202015.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/06%20OCS%20Monitoring
%202015.pdf
7
INDICATOR
SOURCE
Barriers and
Oregon 10passage facilities Year Plan
URL / NOTES
Table 1.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/02%20OCS%20Key%20Co
nservation%20Issues%202015.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/02%20OCS%20Key%20Co
nservation%20Issues%202015.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/02%20OCS%20Key%20Co
nservation%20Issues%202015.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/02%20OCS%20Key%20Co
nservation%20Issues%202015.pdf
Diversions and
screens
Oregon 10Year Plan
Land use
changes
Oregon 10Year Plan
Invasive species
Oregon 10Year Plan
Effectiveness
monitoring
(Response to a
particular mgt.
action )
Oregon 10Year Plan
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/06%20OCS%20Monitoring
%202015.pdf
Specific limiting Oregon 10factors
Year Plan
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/06%20OCS%20Monitoring
%202015.pdf
8
INDICATOR
SOURCE
Table 2.
URL / NOTES
9
INDICATOR
SOURCE
CANDIDATES



pHOS census
pHOS effective
PEHC
Proportion
Effective Hatchery
Contribution
(pEHC)
[a.k.a Proportion
Hatchery Effective
Contribution
(pHEC)]
HSRG
HGMPs
URL / NOTES
Table 2.
More likely candidates toward the top.
pHOS census = pHOSc = % of fish on spawning grounds that are hatchery origin.
pHOS effective = pHOSe = % of fish that actually reproduce
PEHC = Proportion Effective Hatchery Contribution = (Not well defined; can't tell if all hatchery-descended fish
are included (which would approach 1.0 over time) or if only most recent generation or two.)
Proportion of natural spawners that are genetically derived from a [specific (?)] hatchery program; includes both
hatchery-natural origin hybrids and pure natural-origin hatchery-lineage fish. [Slightly modified from July 28,
2014 HGMP for Whitehorse Ponds early winter steelhead (segregated) and from Dungeness River early winter
steelhead hatchery program HGMP from same date.]
10
INDICATOR
SOURCE
URL / NOTES
Identified as highest priority by CAPG.
Table 2.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/steelhead/gene_bank/workshop_files/HatcheryRisksPS_educational_w
orkshop071315.pdf . This July 13, 2015 presentation by Ken Warheit and Joe Anderson of WDFW for steelhead
workshop defines PEHC as "The proportion of the parental population that is of hatchery-origin." It is a measure
of gene flow from hatchery population into a wild population. It is determined genetically and is calculated as:
PEHC
Yes, let’s talk
about PEHC more.
Likely candidate
for next indicator
to pursue.
WDFW
(various online
sources)
and
CAPG 7/2014,
in CA 5-year
plan
PEHC = ( (2 X HH ) + HW ) / 2.
Where:
HH=Proportion of population with two hatchery-origin parents.
HW=Proportion of population with one hatchery origin parent.
PEHC differs from pHOS in that pHOS tells the relative number of hatchery fish that spawned (potentially
reproduced) in the wild, while PEHC tells about the actual reproductive success of those hatchery fish relative to
wild fish. I (Mike B.) suspect the combination of pHOS and PEHC together may make a more powerful tool than
either alone, as a difference between them in either direction may indicate whether and how much hatchery and
wild fish interfere with each other.
Is there a disconnect between the definition (refers to % of parent population) and the equation (refers to % of
offspring population)?
More speculation from Mike: When we get back to hatchery indicators, the converse of this measure (PEWC –
don't say that out loud) may be of interest for hatchery populations. (And maybe a new PNI that takes into
account successful spawning rather than just numbers spawning?)
VSP parameter:
Pop'n spatial
structure
Yes, discuss
further.
NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFSNWFSC-42.
June 2000.
(VSP report)
Described as follows:
 spawning groups sizes, distribution, and connectivity (text description)
 habitat quality and distribution (text description)
 homing propensities of the fish in the population (stray rates, but currently text descriptions)
11
INDICATOR
VSP parameter:
Diversity
Yes, discuss
further.
Mari said that for
all tables, extra info
about age data
would be useful,
such as sample
sizes, aging
methods, and
source(s) of
sampled fish.
Life history traits
Yes, discuss
further.
AMIP trigger
Juvenile fish
migration timing
Yes, discuss
further.
Total adults
returning to spawn
Challenging.
Defined to where?
Adult R/S adjusted
for mean SAR
No opinions
voiced.
VSP parameter:
Pop'n growth rate
No opinions
voiced.
SOURCE


NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFSNWFSC-42.
June 2000.
(VSP report)
Oregon 10Year Plan
SalmonRecover
y.gov, AMIP
document
NMFS SPS
database
Table 2.
URL / NOTES
genetic diversity (Currently text descriptions, but maybe quantifiable?)
diversity of life history traits (Currently text descriptions. Are any quantifiable?)
o anadromy (Applies only to O. mykiss and coastal cutthroat trout?)
o morphology
o juvenile development rate
o fecundity
o migration timing
o spawning timing
o age at smolting
o age at maturity
o etc.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/06%20OCS%20Monitoring%202015.pdf
This is a suggested possible future juvenile AMIP trigger. It is mentioned as being at the local level (stream or
reach), but also perhaps at the population and MPG scales.
Found at link to "Appendix 4" under "AMIP Links" on
http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/BiologicalOpinions/FCRPSBiOp/2010SupplementalFCRPSBiOp/AMIP.aspx.
Mari says actual definition is adult natural spawners excluding jacks, including natural origin broodstock, and
accounting for prespawn mortality. (Prespawn morts have been accounted for.)
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=261:1:0
NMFS SPS
database
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=261:1:0
NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFSNWFSC-42.
June 2000.
(VSP report)
Mostly covered by RperS table.

addition of intrinsic rate of increase, if available, would be good

characterizing density-dependent mortality rates, if available, would be useful
12
INDICATOR
AMIP triggers:
Juvenile fish
1. Size distribution
2. Condition factor
No opinions
voiced.
Habitat: amount;
distribution;
condition; how
much in protected
areas. Relates to
spatial structure of
distribution. Tom
says BPA/BOR
BIOP expert panels
currently working
in this area.
Natural origin
broodstock
(numbers) Move
to hatchery group.
SARs for different
treatments
Not likely
candidate.
SOURCE
SalmonRecover
y.gov, AMIP
document
Table 2.
URL / NOTES
These are suggested possible future juvenile AMIP trigger. They are mentioned as being at the local level
(stream or reach), but also perhaps at the population and MPG scales.
Found at link to "Appendix 4" under "AMIP Links" on
http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/BiologicalOpinions/FCRPSBiOp/2010SupplementalFCRPSBiOp/AMIP.aspx.
Oregon 10Year Plan
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/public_comment.asp
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/public_review/06%20OCS%20Monitoring%202015.pdf
NMFS SPS
database
https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=261:1:0
Tony Grover at
July 2015
StreamNet
Exec. Comm.
meeting
For example:
 transported vs. in-river migrating fish.
 fish released just above/below a dam.
Such harvest data
are the realm of
TAC. We will not
pursue.
13