Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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