Transcript Extinction risk—SSM (RWWD, DI, QET = 50, 100 yr)

interim
Developing^viability criteria for
threatened Puget Sound steelhead
Jeff Hard and Jim Myers (for the PSSTRT)
Conservation Biology Division
NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Seattle, WA 98112
West Coast Steelhead Management Meeting
Redmond, OR
9-11 March 2010
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
• 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
East Puget Sound steelhead
Abundance
Tolt SSH
Green WSH
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
P(extinction)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
100.00%
100.00%
90.00%
90.00%
80.00%
80.00%
70.00%
70.00%
60.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
QET = 50
40.00%
QET = 50
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
20
40
Threshold
60
80
100
Years
0
20
Threshold
40
Q1
60
Q4
80
100
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
• 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
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
• 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
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
Neighbor-joining tree
C-S-E distances
13 μsat loci
Includes 2008 and
2009 collections
Dosewallips
77
Duckabush
15
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Elwha wild05
87
Dungeness all
West Hood Canal
DuckSmlt08
23
50
7
7
Hamma smlt
HammaSmlt08
Skamania Hat
45
Minter Mx
Nisqually all
5
Puyallup
33 62
South/Central Sound
WhiteR all
58
GreenR wild06
90
Cedar all
15
Samish all
59
Nooksac
100
21 29
Nook2
North Sound
Stillagua smlt
100
Skag Mansr
Snow all
39
BigBeef all
100
90
BeefSmlt08
100
91
100
100
0.1
Dewat all
DewatSmlt08
Tahuya all
TahuyaSmlt08
Skokom all
SkokSmlt08
East Hood Canal
Historical WDF steelhead catch data
High precip, snow pack
(and SSH)
Skokomish
Wider,
more
spawnable
area
White
Rain dominated,
generally
smaller
Eld
Sequim Bay
Discovery Bay
Deschutes
Puyallup
Pilchuck
Lake Washington
Samish
Dakota
Hammersley
Totten Inlet
Tahuya
Union
Dewatto
East Kitsap
Case_Carr
0.1
Morse
Snohomish_Skykomish
Nisqually
Mainstem_North Fork Nooksack
Green
Carbon
Dungeness
Duckabush
Dosewallips
Stillaguamish
South Fork Stillaguamish
Tolt
South Fork Nooksack
Snoqualmie
Deer
Finney
Canyon
Hamma Hamma
Elwha
South Fork Skykomish
Cascade
Middle Fork Nooksack
North Fork Skykomish
Baker
0.0
Height
Sauk
0.2
0.4
Mainstem_Skagit_Tribs.
0.3
0.5
Dendrogram of Gower SI of habitat characteristics
Dendrogram of agnes(x = daisy(dat[, varNames1], metric = "gower"))
SJF
How can we combine these data in a
way that helps to identify DIPs?
Population
dynamics
(PD.1)
W
W
Adult
number,
etc.
(PD.1.A...)
Recent demographic
independence
(PD)
Migration rates
(PD.2)
W
W
Tag
recoverie
s, etc.
(PD.2.A...)
Life history
traits
(EP.1)
W
W
W
W
Run
timing,
etc.
(EP.1.A...)
Ecological
distinctiveness
(ED)
Ecophenotypic
differences
(EP)
Biological
distinctiveness (BD)
Genetic
distinctiveness
(GD)
Habitat
characteristics
(EP.2)
W
Genetic
distance,
etc.
(GD.1.A...
)
W
Geographic
isolation
(GI)
W
Geograph
ic
distance,
etc.
(GI.1.A...)
Stream
gradient,
etc.
(EP.2.A...)
(from a concept by K. Currens, NWIFC)
Population
independence
(IP)
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
Truth value for proposition
Uncertain
False
True
“Population will persist
= TRUE”
“I am completely
uncertain whether the
population will persist”
1
y = 20x - 19
0.5
0
y = 6.6667x - 6.3333
-0.5
-1
0.8
1-P(extinction)
“Population will persist
= FALSE”
0.95
1.0
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
Lk Washington WSH
Green WSH
-0.48642
MS Puyallup WSH
Nisqually WSH
East Kitsap WSH
0.132319
0.490463
0.301333
0.164813
0.168309
0.056166
-0.178016
-0.002167
Green WSH
-0.48642
MS Puyallup WSH
0.132319
0.164813
Nisqually WSH
0.490463
0.168309
-0.178016
East Kitsap WSH
0.301333
0.056166
-0.002167
0.1435
0.1435
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 Chinook salmon
ESU viability:
All MPGs must be viable
MPG viability
1 viable population from each
major genetic and life-history
group.
2-4 viable
populations
Suggested
population size
range
Historical
Abundance
SimSam
Distribution of
spawning
aggregations
Habitat-based
PVA (EDT)
Phenotypic and genotypic
variation at population level
Catastrophe
ESU: Overall risk with distribution of
pops and life histories in each MPG
Pop: % of affected by given
catastrophe
ES
DSS viability
criteria:
AND
ESU Criteria
ES-2
ES-1
AND
ED-1
ED-2
• population
ED-3
U
ED-1a
ED-1b
ED-1c
ED-1d
ED-2a
• stratum/MPG
• entire ESU/DPS
U
ED-2b
AND
SSA
Stratum Criteria
B
SS
AND
SD
SF
M
AND
PS1
Final outputs of the
DSS
W-Ju i
PP
ii
iii
PD
PD
AND
Logical operators
PP-2
Data is loaded into the
DSS and evaluated with
a truth membership
function
...
PF
PF
2
3
...
Abundance
PD-1
PD-2
Hatchery influence
PP*
PP
*See Persistence
Criteria
AND
The collection of
results for lower-level
criteria
Criteria evaluated from
lower- level criteria
PF1
3
AND
Watershed
Criteria
EP
2
PS
PS
Population Criteria
Legend
C ...
PD-3
PD-4
U
U
W-Sp1
2
W-Ju1
3 ...
W-Sp
W-Ju
Adult dist’n
Juvenile dist’n
2
3 ...
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
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
Hood Canal
0
-0.340
-0.173
-0.312
Strait of Juan
de Fuca
0
-0.316
-0.876
-0.861
…………..MPG level…………..
DS
-0.805
DP
0.093
…..DPS level…..
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
VSP: Diversity
Summer-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
Proportion smolts from resident spawners
VSP: Diversity
residency & anadromy
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Marine survival
Smolts produced by resident spawners may be
critical in supporting steelhead productivity
during periods of low marine survival
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
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
Stream Habitat Rating Matrix (below natural barriers)
Puget Sound
Stream width (bankfull)
0-3m
3 - 50 m
> 50 m
0.0 - 4.0%
low
high
moderate
>4.0%
low
low
low
Stream gradient
Intrinsic Potential (Interior Columbia River parameters)
Unconfined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width > 4x bank full width)
Stream width
Interior
Columbia
(for
comparison)
Stream gradient
0.0% - 0.5%
0.5% - 1.5%
1.5% - 4.0%
4.0% - 7.0%
7.0% - 15.0%
> 15.0%
0 - 25 m
25 - 50 m
> 50 m
moderate
high
high
low
very low / none
very low / none
moderate
moderate
moderate
very low / none
very low / none
very low / none
low
low
low
very low / none
very low / none
very low / none
Confined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width < 4x bank full width)
Stream width
Stream gradient
0.0% - 0.5%
0.5% - 1.5%
1.5% - 4.0%
4.0% - 7.0%
7.0% - 15.0%
> 15.0%
0 - 25 m
25 - 50 m
very low / none
low
low
very low / none
very low / none
very low / none
low
low
low
very low / none
very low / none
very low / none
> 50 m
very
very
very
very
very
very
low
low
low
low
low
low
/ none
/ none
/ none
/ none
/ none
/ none
Weighted Habitat Area
high = 1.0 x Bank full area
moderate = 0.5 x Bank full area
low = 0.25 x Bank full area
very low / none = 0.0 x Bank full
area
Est. mean ‘historic’ wild run size vs unblocked
stream length
Bo B
un ak
d e
C ary r R
an W iv
C yo a er
as n te
c C rs
D D ade ree
un e R k
ge er iv
ne C er
r
Ea ss eek
R
s
El t K ive
La G wha itsa r
ke re R p
M W en i ve
S as R r
S h iv
N
F M kag ing er
Sk o it to
yk rs Ri n
e
N om C ver
is i r
N qu sh Reek
oo a i
k lly v
Pi sa R er
l c c k i ve
SF P hu R r
u
N y a ck R i ve
oo llu i r
k s p ve
Sa ac Riv r
Se
m k R er
qu
i m S i s h i ve
R r
Sk Ind auk ive
ok ep R r
Sn o en iv
e
m
Sn oho is den r
oq m h R ts
ua ish ive
St
l
illa So mie Riv r
gu uth R er
U
am S i v e
pp
is ou r
er
h n
C
W as To Riv d
es ca lt R er
t H de i v
o R er
W od ive
e Ca r
W st K na
hi its l
te a
R p
iv
er
Potential spawners
Spawner capacity estimates
70,000
60,000
50,000
Assuming:
7.17 parr/100 m2
0.0265 spnrs/parr
(Gibbons et al. 1985)
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Run type
Summer
Winter
Population