Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

20
Integrated Status & Trend (ISTM) Project: An overview of establishing, evaluating and modifying monitoring priorities for LCR Steelhead Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

description

Integrated Status & Trend (ISTM) Project: An overview of establishing, evaluating and modifying monitoring priorities for LCR Steelhead. Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW). Lower Columbia River Pilot Project. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Page 1: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Integrated Status & Trend (ISTM) Project: An overview of establishing, evaluating and modifying monitoring priorities for LCR Steelhead

Jeff Rodgers (ODFW)&

Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Page 2: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Lower Columbia River Pilot Project

• Chum, coho, fall Chinook, late fall Chinook, spring Chinook, winter steelhead, summer steelhead – ESA listed

• Multi-jurisdictional

• State recover plans need integrated & coordinated monitoring

Page 3: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Five basic objectives of ISTM

1. Identify & prioritize decisions, questions, and objectives

2. Review existing programs and designs and identify gaps

3. Identify monitoring designs, sampling frames, protocols, and analytical tools

4. Use trade-off analyses to develop recommendations for monitoring

5. Recommend implementation and reporting mechanisms

Page 4: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Objective 1: Identify & prioritize decisions, questions, and objectives

Page 5: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

• State Recovery Plans• Statewide Monitoring Documents• NOAA ESA Monitoring Guidance• NPCC Columbia River MERR Plan• Two workshops

Guidance

Objective 1: Identify & prioritize decisions, questions, and objectives

Page 6: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Winter Steelhead VSP Indicator Relative Priorities

Young

s Bay

Big Cre

ek

Clatsk

anie

Scapp

oose

Grays

Elocho

manM

ill

Clacka

mas

Sandy

L Cow

litz

U Cow

litz

Cispus

Tilton

SF Tou

tle

NF Tou

tle

Cowee

man

Kalam

a

NF Le

wis

EF Le

wis

Salmon

Was

houg

al

Lower

Gor

ge

Upper

Gor

ge

Hood

Spawner &adult recruitabundance;

adult age, sex,origin, anddistribution

JuvenileMigrants

Migration/Spawn Timing

Fry/Parr Index& Distribution

0

1

2

3

Lo

w

Mo

de

rate

H

igh

Page 7: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Winter Steelhead Prioritization “Filters”

Young

s Bay

Big Cre

ek

Clatsk

anie

Scapp

oose

Grays

Elocho

man

Mill

Clacka

mas

Sandy

L Cow

litz

U Cow

litz

Cispus

Tilton

SF Tou

tle

NF Tou

tle

Cowee

man

Kalam

a

NF Le

wis

EF Le

wis

Salmon

Was

houg

al

Lower

Gor

ge

Upper

Gor

ge

Hood

RecoveryPriority

CurrentNaturalOrigin

Abundance

In/OutPotential

SpecialCases

0

1

2

3

Lo

w

M

od

erat

e

Hig

h

Mark recapture being conducted

Productivity testing.

Page 8: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Total Species Population Score = (ΣAll indicator Scores for a Species & Population) x ((2 x Recovery Priority Score) + Current Natural Origin Abundance Score + In/Out Potential Score + Special Cases Score)/5)

Total Score for Winter Steelhead - Adults and Juveniles

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mill

Big C

reek

Cispus

Clacka

mas

Clatsk

anie

Cowee

man

Kalam

a

NF Tout

le

U Cow

litzHoo

d

Sandy

Scapp

oose

Young

s Bay

Gra

ys

SF Tou

tle

EF Lew

is

Lower G

orge

Eloch

oman

NF Lew

is

Wash

ougal

Tilton

L Cowlitz

Upper G

orge

Salm

on

Coast Cascade Gorge

Page 9: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Objective 2: Review existing programs and designs and identify gaps

Page 10: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

• Build off the indicators developed in Objective 1

• Develop criteria to assess bias and precision of indicators derived from different monitoring approaches

• Identify the monitoring gaps (difference between priority and current monitoring)

• Outline specific monitoring needs based on the gaps

Objective 2: Review existing programs and designs and identify gaps

Page 11: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Scoring Criteria Developed For:

Fry/parr abundance using snorkeling &/or electrofishing Abundance of juvenile migrants using mark-recapture Juvenile migrant abundance using weirs Adult recruitment based on CWT program Adult recruitment based on Columbia River fisheries monitoring Adult spawner abundance using the Petersen mark-recapture Adult spawner abundance using weirs Adult spawner abundance using the Jolly-Seber adult spawner abundance using periodic live counts area-under-the-

curve (AUC) adult spawner abundance using the peak count expansion adult spawner abundance using redd counts Age structure Migration/spawning timing Sex ratio Origin Juvenile distribution Spawner distribution

Page 12: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Quantitative Criteria• Unbiased estimates are important so we

emphasize assumption, selectivity, and goodness of fit testing of methods.

• Precision for abundance (CV < 15%) for adults and juveniles, except an adult CV < 25% for populations with low recovery priority. These standards are 95% CI +30% and + 50%

• Precision standards for age, origin, and sex are 95% CI + 5% for high priority recovery populations and + 10% for other populations.

Page 13: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

0%

5%

10%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage

95

%C

I Ha

lf W

idth

n=50n=100n=200n=300n=400

0%

5%

10%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage

95%

CI

Hal

f W

idth

n=50n=100n=200n=300n=400

0%

5%

10%

15%

0 100 200 300 400 500

Sample Size

95

%C

I H

alf

Wid

th

Effect of proportionon 95% CI

• 95% CI is dome shaped• greatest uncertainty in the 95% CI is when the proportion = 50%

Effect of Sample Sizeon 95% CI

•assuming 50% of the fish are one age, sex, or origin

•need 100 biological samples to meet + 10%, and• 400 samples to meet + 5%

• difficulty in obtaining sufficient sample sizes fromsmall populations especially under high turbid water

Page 14: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

General scoring criteria for VSP indicators and rationale used to assess alignment of monitoring

programs

Score Rationale

1.00 Precision and bias requirements are met AND there are no untested critical assumptions OR monitoring is not needed.

0.75

Precision and bias requirements appear to be met BUT there are some locally untested critical assumptions (assumption tests are available within the population domain or under similar environmental conditions)

0.50 Precision and bias requirements appear to be met BUT there are some completely untested critical assumptions (assumption tests not available)

0.25 Precision OR bias requirements not met AND assumptions may or may not be tested

0.00 Precision AND bias requirements not met AND assumptions may or may not be tested

Page 15: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Criteria for scoring programs that monitor the index of juvenile abundance.

Score Precision Guideline Bias Guideline

1.00 CV met, AND

Representative sample site selection throughout inference domain with abundance estimates obtained by pass-removal or mark-recapture estimates that do not violate critical assumptions.

0.75 CV met, AND

Representative sample site selection throughout inference domain and the use of the Hankin and Reeves method of obtaining abundance estimates (i.e. snorkel counts calibrated to electrofishing estimates). Critical assumptions of removal and mark/recapture estimates not violated.

0.50 CV met, AND

Representative sample site selection throughout inference domain using uncalibrated snorkel counts with quality control re-resurveys conducted to assess repeatability of counts. Critical assumptions of snorkel counts not violated.

0.25 CV met, OR

Representativeness of sample sites unknown with an uncalibrated snorkel counts with no quality control re-surveys. Critical assumptions of snorkel counts may potentially be violated.

0.00 CV not met AND No sampling or unrepresentative sample site selection.

Page 16: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

LCR Winter Steelhead Monitoring GAPS

0

20

40

60

80M

illB

ig C

ree

kC

lats

kan

ieC

lack

am

as

U C

ow

litz

Cis

pu

sN

F T

ou

tleC

ow

ee

ma

nK

ala

ma

Yo

un

gs

Sca

pp

oo

seS

an

dy

Ho

od

Gra

ysS

F T

ou

tleE

F L

ew

isL

ow

er

Elo

cho

ma

nN

F L

ew

isW

ash

ou

ga

lT

ilto

nL

Co

wlit

zU

pp

er

Sa

lmo

n

Population

Tota

l (A

du

lt &

Ju

v) S

core

Monitoring Priorities Implemented

Page 17: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Fry/Parr Juvenile Migrants

Adult Recruits (Harvest) Spawners

Age Stucture

Migration/Spawn Timing Sex Origin

Fry/Parr Distribution

Spawner Distribution

Youngs Bay High 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50Big Creek High 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50

Clatskanie High 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50Scappoose High 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.50Clackamas High 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50

Sandy High 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25Lower Gorge High 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50Upper Gorge Low 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Hood High 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.25

StratumWinter Steelhead

PopulationRecovery

Priority

Abundance Diversity Distribution

Coast

Cascade

Gorge

Oregon Winter Steelhead: Scoring of Current or Planned Monitoring

• Fry/Parr abundance & distribution: Add additional 2 person crew for separate Cascade and Gorge strata inferences. Ways to distinguish StW & StS.

• Recruits: Evaluate creel designs. CWT program using local wild broodstock. CVs for harvest and release mortality rates.

• JOM: Need to reduce potential bias of Clackamas data and improve precision of Sandy and Hood data. Ways to distinguish StW & StS.

• Spawner abundance, distribution, and timing: Test assumptions on redd life, sex ratios, and observation probability. Potential spatial bias in Sandy and Clackamas (visibility and hatchery fish). More effort in Hood.

• Age, sex, origin: Develop programs in most populations, evaluate selectivity and spatial biases. Increase effort in Hood.

Needs:

Page 18: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Fry/Parr Juvenile Migrants

Adult Recruits (Harvest) Spawners

Age Stucture

Migration/Spawn Timing Sex Origin

Fry/Parr Distribution

Spawner Distribution

Grays High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25Elochoman Medium 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25

Mill High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.50L Cowlitz Medium 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00U Cowlitz High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25

Cispus High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25Tilton Low 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

SF Toutle High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25NF Toutle High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50

Coweeman High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25Kalama High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00

NF Lewis Medium 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.25EF Lewis High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25

Salmon Low 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Washougal Medium 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25

Lower Gorge High 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.00Upper Gorge Low 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

StratumWinter Steelhead

PopulationRecovery

Priority

Abundance Diversity Distribution

Coast

Cascade

Gorge

Washington Winter Steelhead: Scoring of Current or Planned Monitoring

• Parr abundance & distribution: Develop parr monitoring program similar to ODFW.

• Spawner abundance, distribution, and timing: Explore ways to decrease variability in females per redd & redd duration to improve precision. Implement new sampling design based on redd modeling and sample frame.

•Recruits: Add periodic angler surveys for each population & collect and analyze steelhead genetic samples from spring Chinook onboard monitoring.

•Age, sex, origin: Few spawners leads to insufficient adult biological samples. Solutions are increase abundance or explore hierarchical modeling. Implement selectivity tests for bias and age sampling at Barrier Dam (Cowlitz).

Needs:

Page 19: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Summary & So What?

• Template that can be used to provide unbiased, repeatable, and documented identification of monitoring priorities and needs

• Graphical output easily understood and communicated

• Allows regional funding decisions to be developed under a common framework

Page 20: Jeff Rodgers (ODFW) & Dan Rawding (WDFW)

Questions?