Comparing Current and Desired Status: Comparing Current and Desired Status:

Gaps AnalysisGaps AnalysisBrief overview: ICTRT Viability CriteriaBrief overview: ICTRT Viability Criteria

Abundance/Productivity Gaps: Concepts and Abundance/Productivity Gaps: Concepts and CalculationsCalculations

Considering Uncertainties – future Considering Uncertainties – future environmental conditions, continued direct hydro environmental conditions, continued direct hydro survival improvements.survival improvements.

Results Summaries: Snake Basin Chinook and Results Summaries: Snake Basin Chinook and SteelheadSteelhead

General TRT TasksGeneral TRT Tasks

1.1. Define goalsDefine goals• Population identificationPopulation identification• Viability criteria (ESU & population levels)Viability criteria (ESU & population levels)• Example ESU ScenariosExample ESU Scenarios

2.2. How far do we have to go to get there?How far do we have to go to get there?• Current status assessmentCurrent status assessment• Defining “gap” between status and goalDefining “gap” between status and goal

3.3. Choosing and implementing actionsChoosing and implementing actions• Limiting factors analysesLimiting factors analyses• Evaluating the effect of proposed actionsEvaluating the effect of proposed actions

TRT Hierarchical CriteriaTRT Hierarchical Criteria

Pop Attributes

Pop Status

Stratum/Geographic Unit/Major Population Group Status

ESU Status ESU

Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3

ICTRT Viability CriteriaICTRT Viability Criteria

ESU level criteriaESU level criteria– Major Population Groupings Major Population Groupings

Minimum number of viable populations in eachMinimum number of viable populations in eachMajor life history patterns representedMajor life history patterns representedHistorical population size representationHistorical population size representation

Population Level CriteriaPopulation Level Criteria– Abundance/ProductivityAbundance/Productivity– Spatial Structure/DiversitySpatial Structure/Diversity

What Are the ICTRT Criteria Designed ForWhat Are the ICTRT Criteria Designed For??

Providing benchmarks forProviding benchmarks for::

Setting planning goals and objectivesSetting planning goals and objectivesStarting point for delisting criteria, recovery goalsStarting point for delisting criteria, recovery goals

– Assessing the current viability of an ESUAssessing the current viability of an ESU

– Formulating protection and/or recovery strategiesFormulating protection and/or recovery strategies

– Designing monitoring/evaluation effortsDesigning monitoring/evaluation effortsTo assess changes in population status, contributions To assess changes in population status, contributions from recovery and/or protection effortsfrom recovery and/or protection efforts

Purpose of MPG CriteriaPurpose of MPG Criteria

General VSP recommendation: An ESU General VSP recommendation: An ESU needs multiple spatially distinct and needs multiple spatially distinct and diverse populations to be viable.diverse populations to be viable.

– 1) To protect against catastrophic loss of 1) To protect against catastrophic loss of any one population.any one population.

– 2) To ensure maintenance of long-term 2) To ensure maintenance of long-term meta-population processes meta-population processes

– 3) To ensure that AMONG population 3) To ensure that AMONG population diversity is maintaineddiversity is maintained

Snake River Spring Summer Chinook Major Population Groupings & Populations

Lower Snake Tribs Group

Tucannon R.Asotin R.

South Fork Salmon Group

South ForkEast Fork/Johnson Cr.

Secesh R.

Grand Ronde/Imnaha GroupImnaha R. Big Sheep Cr.Wenaha R. Minam R.

Lostine/Wallowa R.Catherine Cr.

Upper Grand Ronde

Middle Salmon R. GroupBig Cr. Bear ValleyMarsh Cr . Sulphur Cr.Loon Cr. Camas Cr.

Chamberlain Cr.Upper Mainstem & tribsLower Mainstem & tribs

Upper Salmon R. Group

Lemhi R. Pahsimeroi R.North Fk Panther Cr Valley Cr. Yankee Fk

East Fk Upper SalmonUpper Salmon tribs.

Above Hells Canyon

(Ext)

Clearwater(Ext.)

Figure E-2

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESUSpawning Elevation Ranges (Intrinsic)

SN

AS

O

SN

TU

C

G

RW

EN

G

RL

OO

G

RC

AT

IR

BS

H

GR

MIN

IR

MA

I G

RL

OS

G

RU

MA

SR

LS

R

SF

MA

I S

FE

FS

S

FS

EC

MF

LM

A

MF

BIG

S

RC

HA

M

FL

OO

M

FC

AM

M

FU

MA

M

FS

UL

MF

BE

A

MF

MA

R

S

RN

FS

S

RP

AN

S

RP

AH

S

RL

MA

S

RL

EM

S

RE

FS

S

RY

FS

S

RV

AL

SR

UM

A 300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

Populations

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

Population Level:Population Level:Abundance/Productivity CriteriaAbundance/Productivity Criteria

Abundance should be high enough that:Abundance should be high enough that:

– In combination with intrinsic productivity, declines to In combination with intrinsic productivity, declines to critically low levels would be unlikely assuming recent critically low levels would be unlikely assuming recent patterns of environmental variabilitypatterns of environmental variability

– Compensatory processes provide resilience to the Compensatory processes provide resilience to the effects of short-term perturbationseffects of short-term perturbations

– Subpopulation structure is maintained (e.g., multiple Subpopulation structure is maintained (e.g., multiple spawning patches, etc)spawning patches, etc)

– Status estimates should consider statistical uncertaintiesStatus estimates should consider statistical uncertainties

Parameters contributing to risk Parameters contributing to risk (Abundance &Productivity)(Abundance &Productivity)

trend Variance (& autocorrelation)

abundance

time

N

Population Level: Population Level: Spatial Structure and DiversitySpatial Structure and Diversity

Three interrelated categoriesThree interrelated categories– Structure – spawning aggregations, spatial Structure – spawning aggregations, spatial

relationshipsrelationships

– Maintaining Natural VariationMaintaining Natural Variation

– Habitats and Natural ProcessesHabitats and Natural Processes

Integrating Across SSD CriteriaIntegrating Across SSD Criteria

Simple Weighted scoring Simple Weighted scoring

A population would be rated at HIGH risk A population would be rated at HIGH risk if:if:– Average rating across spatial distribution Average rating across spatial distribution

criteria is HIGH RISK orcriteria is HIGH RISK or– Rating for life history or direct genetic criteria Rating for life history or direct genetic criteria

at HIGH Risk orat HIGH Risk or– Average rating across Life history, genetics, Average rating across Life history, genetics,

habitat and selectivity criteria is HIGHhabitat and selectivity criteria is HIGH

Assessing Population Viability: Integrating Across VSP Criteria

SS/D ratingSS/D ratingVery LowVery Low LowLow ModerateModerate HighHigh

A/P

rating

A/P

rating

Very Low Very Low (<1%)(<1%) highly viablehighly viable

                

maintainedmaintained               

Low (<5%)Low (<5%)     

viableviable           

                 

Moderate Moderate (<25%)(<25%)

           maintainedmaintained

     

                 

HighHigh                 

high riskhigh risk

                 

ICTRT Viability CurvesICTRT Viability Curves

Expressed in terms of a simple hockey Expressed in terms of a simple hockey stick model (can generate curves for other stick model (can generate curves for other functions)functions)Used a constant Quasi-extinction risk level Used a constant Quasi-extinction risk level of 50 spawners of 50 spawners Incorporated minimum abundance Incorporated minimum abundance thresholds (function of historical spawning thresholds (function of historical spawning area of the population)area of the population)Modeling includes average age structure, Modeling includes average age structure, estimated autocorrelation/variance in estimated autocorrelation/variance in brood year productivity ratesbrood year productivity rates

Viability Curve: Basic PrinciplesViability Curve: Basic PrinciplesIntrinsic ProductivityIntrinsic Productivity

Parent Spawners

NextGenerationSpawners

Replacement1 spawner for every1 parent spawner

At CapacityBelowCapacity

R=a*SR=a*Smax

Spring ChinookViability Curves (Hockey Stick)

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20

250

500

750

1000

70:30

1600260036004600

Hi Risk

Low Risk

Mean R/S

Sta

rtin

g P

opul

atio

n S

ize

Spring ChinookViability Curves (Hockey Stick)

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20

250

500

750

1000

70:30

1600260036004600

Hi Risk

Low Risk

Mean R/S

Sta

rtin

g P

opul

atio

n S

ize

Parent Spawners

NextGenerationSpawners

Population Size ThresholdsPopulation Size Thresholds

Populations with fewer than 500 individuals are Populations with fewer than 500 individuals are at higher risk for inbreeding depression and a at higher risk for inbreeding depression and a variety of other genetic and demographic variety of other genetic and demographic concerns.concerns.

Increased thresholds for larger populations Increased thresholds for larger populations promote the full range of abundance/ promote the full range of abundance/ productivity objectives.productivity objectives.– Avoid Allee affectsAvoid Allee affects– Ensure compensatory processesEnsure compensatory processes– Provide for spawning in multiple sub-areasProvide for spawning in multiple sub-areas

Viability CurveViability Curve

Example Viabil i ty Curve

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

50001% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Basic

Low RiskHigh

Risk(> 25%)

Very LowRisk (<1%)

Productivity Measure (Example - geomean Return/Spawner)

Spa

wne

rs

Comparison to Viability CurveComparison to Viability Curve

– Abundance: 10-year geomean Abundance: 10-year geomean Natural Origin ReturnsNatural Origin Returns

– Productivity: Geomean of spawner Productivity: Geomean of spawner to spawner return rates most recent to spawner return rates most recent 20 years, parent escapements 20 years, parent escapements below 75% of the threshold. below 75% of the threshold. Indexed to annual marine survivals Indexed to annual marine survivals to improve estimate of rate under to improve estimate of rate under average conditions.average conditions.

– ConclusionConclusion: Wenatchee Spring : Wenatchee Spring Chinook population is at Chinook population is at HIGH HIGH RISKRISK based on current abundance based on current abundance and productivity. The point and productivity. The point estimate for abundance and estimate for abundance and productivity is below the 25% risk productivity is below the 25% risk curve.curve.

Wenatchee RiverWenatchee RiverCurrent abundance & productivity

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Productivity (geomean R/S)

10-y

ear

geom

ean

abun

danc

e

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Oval: +/- 1 standard error

Lines: +/- 2 standard errors

Observed A/P GapsObserved A/P Gaps

Quantitatively gauging the relative change in survival/capacity required to Quantitatively gauging the relative change in survival/capacity required to move a population from current status to alternative viability levels (e.g., 5% move a population from current status to alternative viability levels (e.g., 5% or 1% risk over 100 years).or 1% risk over 100 years).

Expressed terms of return/spawner. Expressed terms of return/spawner.

Gaps can be reduced by improved survival at any life stage from parr to Gaps can be reduced by improved survival at any life stage from parr to returning adult. returning adult.

Assume recent (post-1980) climate, hydropower system, hatchery and Assume recent (post-1980) climate, hydropower system, hatchery and harvest influences harvest influences

For a given population, more formal limiting factors analyses should be For a given population, more formal limiting factors analyses should be used to evaluate the potential for change at any given life history stage. used to evaluate the potential for change at any given life history stage.

Caveat: All four VSP parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure and Caveat: All four VSP parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity) contribute to population viability. The ICTRT uses a series of metrics to diversity) contribute to population viability. The ICTRT uses a series of metrics to assess current risk with respect to these factors. Comprehensive risk assessments assess current risk with respect to these factors. Comprehensive risk assessments are included in population specific status reports.are included in population specific status reports.

ICTRT Gaps ReportsICTRT Gaps Reports

Two componentsTwo components– Observed Gaps: Generic assessment of a/p gaps for Observed Gaps: Generic assessment of a/p gaps for

populations with sufficient abundance data seriespopulations with sufficient abundance data series

– More detailed stochastic matrix modeling for selected More detailed stochastic matrix modeling for selected populations with sufficient datapopulations with sufficient data

Incorporates alternative climate scenariosIncorporates alternative climate scenariosImprovements to life stage survivals (e.g., current vs Improvements to life stage survivals (e.g., current vs historical hydro)historical hydro)Can incorporate more detailed (life stage specific) analyses Can incorporate more detailed (life stage specific) analyses of recovery strategiesof recovery strategies

– projected improvements in survival or effective capacity projected improvements in survival or effective capacity Matrix Model PopulationsMatrix Model Populations

– Yearling Chinook: Wenatchee, Marsh Cr., South Fork and Yearling Chinook: Wenatchee, Marsh Cr., South Fork and Catherine Cr. Catherine Cr.

– Steelhead: Umatilla River, Rapid River (subarea of Little Steelhead: Umatilla River, Rapid River (subarea of Little Salmon River population). Salmon River population).

A/P GapsA/P Gaps

Observed Gap: Quantitative change required to Observed Gap: Quantitative change required to meet ICTRT A/P viability criteriameet ICTRT A/P viability criteria

Simple Algebraic approachSimple Algebraic approachStarting Point – Population Current Status draft Starting Point – Population Current Status draft abundance/productivity summaries. Calculated using data abundance/productivity summaries. Calculated using data from 1978-1999(2001) brood yearsfrom 1978-1999(2001) brood years

Most populations: Shortest distance from point defined by Most populations: Shortest distance from point defined by current status (abundance & productivity) to a selected risk current status (abundance & productivity) to a selected risk curve.curve.

Alternative calculations for higher productivity populations – Alternative calculations for higher productivity populations – capacity considerationscapacity considerations

Wenatchee Spring Chinook (Estimated Adult Spawners)

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Run Year

Co

un

t (E

xpan

ded

fro

m r

edd

su

rvey

s)

Total Spawners Natural Origin Spawners

Figure 1. Example of current spawner/spawner relationship (Wenatchee spring Chinook population). Dashed line represents equilibrium replacement. Solid line represents derived stock/recruit function where:. Intrinsic productivity (a = 0.74) calculated from 1978-1999 brood data set (solid diamond symbols); Spawner level at which capacity is reached (SP@cap = 2050) calculated from 1960-99 brood data set (open diamond symbols represent 1960-77 brood data pairs); SPcur = recent 10 year geomean natural escapement. Data compiled in draft ICTRT Wenatchee Spring Chinook Current Status chapter.

Wenatchee Spring Chinook

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Escapement

Pro

duct

ion

(to

spaw

ning

)

SPSPcurcur SPSP@cap@cap

Wenatchee Spring Chinook

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Escapement

Pro

duct

ion

(to

spaw

ning

)

SPSPcurcur SPSP@cap@cap

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Productivity

Ab

un

da

nc

e

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Productivity

Ab

un

da

nc

e

Figure 4. Illustration of approach for calculating gap between current status (abundance/productivity) and a selected viability curve. Basic sized population (minimum abundance threshold of 500 spawners). The 5% viability curve (line) represents minimum combinations of abundance (at equilibrium) and productivity (expected spawner/spawner ratio from spawning levels below capacity for the population) projecting to no more than a 5% risk of extinction over 100 years. Square represents estimates of current (1978-99 brood geomeans) abundance and productivity. Circle represents combination of abundance and productivity on the viability curve that is the shortest linear distance from the current status point

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Parent Spawners

Rec

ruit

s (S

paw

ner

s)

Current Best Fit (SAR adj) Replacement

Min to meet objectives

A/P Gap

Figure 3a&b: Current abundance and productivity estimates for Upper Columbia and Snake River yearling type chinook (a) and steelhead (b) populations. Estimates from ICTRT draft Current Status Reviews expressed as proportions. Current abundance relative to the threshold value, productivity relative to the minimum productivity value on the viability curve corresponding to threshold abundance

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Proportion of Productivity at Threshold

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

bu

nd

ance

at

Th

resh

old

SR Chinook

UC Chinook

A

B C

Table A1. Equations for calculating relative population survival gaps as a function of current abundance/productivity estimates.

Zones Abundance Productivity Survival Gap Calculation Notes

A Below Threshold

Very Low to Moderate

Survival Gap = Prodgap = (Prodthreshold/Prodcurrent) - 1

Assume that density dependent effects are secondary at these levels.

B Below Threshold

Low to Moderate

Survival Gap = (Prodgap+ Capgap) / 2

Added gap component reflecting potential capacity limitations

C Below Threshold

Exceeds minimum at Threshold

Survival Gap = Capgap =(Threshold/Avg. Equil. Spwners). – 1 Where Avg. Equil. Spwners = Average of EQcapacity and Current Abund.10 yr gm)

Assume strong density dependent effects. Equal weight to calculated equilibrium, recent performance

D Above Threshold

Exceeds Viability Curve

Negative survival gap = proportion current exceeds viability curve

Focus on risk given uncertainty of productivity estimate.

Figure 3a&b: Current abundance and productivity estimates for Upper Columbia and Snake River yearling type chinook (a) and steelhead (b) populations. Estimates from ICTRT draft Current Status Reviews expressed as proportions. Current abundance relative to the threshold value, productivity relative to the minimum productivity value on the viability curve corresponding to threshold abundance

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Proportion of Productivity at Threshold

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

bu

nd

an

ce

at

Th

res

ho

ld SR Steelhead

UC Steelhead

MC Steelhead

AB C

(2.03,4.26)

Key ConsiderationsKey Considerations

Productivity affected by mortality and survival at Productivity affected by mortality and survival at all life stages.all life stages.The gap analyses themselves do not identify or The gap analyses themselves do not identify or target a particular life stage – A/P gaps can be target a particular life stage – A/P gaps can be addressed by improvement opportunities at any addressed by improvement opportunities at any life stage.life stage.Gap calculations can be sensitive to Gap calculations can be sensitive to assumptions regarding relative hatchery assumptions regarding relative hatchery effectiveness when parent spawners have high effectiveness when parent spawners have high proportions of hatchery origin fish. proportions of hatchery origin fish.

Considering UncertaintyConsidering Uncertainty

Different ways to consider uncertaintyDifferent ways to consider uncertainty– Checking current status: evaluate the impact Checking current status: evaluate the impact

on projected risks of directly incorporating on projected risks of directly incorporating uncertainty measure uncertainty measure

– Gaps analyses – point estimates of ‘gap’ Gaps analyses – point estimates of ‘gap’ under a range of potential future under a range of potential future climate/ocean scenarios climate/ocean scenarios

– Status assessment approach can be adapted Status assessment approach can be adapted to gaps to gaps

Snake River Steelhead PopulationsSnake River Steelhead Populations

Major Population GroupMajor Population Group # Analyzed# Analyzed Base Gap(5% Risk)Base Gap(5% Risk)

Lower SnakeLower Snake 1*1* 1.231.23

Grande Ronde/ImnahaGrande Ronde/Imnaha 7 of 97 of 9 1.04 (0.59 to 3.09)1.04 (0.59 to 3.09)

South Fork Salmon South Fork Salmon 6 of 86 of 8 0.45 (0.32 to 0.45 (0.32 to 1.33)1.33)

Middle Fork SalmonMiddle Fork Salmon 6 of 86 of 8 1.27 (0.65 to 1.27 (0.65 to 1.70)1.70)

Upper SalmonUpper Salmon 7 of 97 of 9 1.07 (0.44 to 2.28)1.07 (0.44 to 2.28)

ResultsResults

Snake Fall ChinookSnake Fall Chinook– One of three historical populations extant, largest One of three historical populations extant, largest

populations extirpatedpopulations extirpated– ConsiderationsConsiderations

Strong upward trend in abundance in recent years BUTStrong upward trend in abundance in recent years BUTRelatively short time series of applicable A/P dataRelatively short time series of applicable A/P dataLack of data to calculate SAR, parr to smolt relationshipsLack of data to calculate SAR, parr to smolt relationshipsChanges in exploitation and hydro/transport over timeChanges in exploitation and hydro/transport over timeIncreased presence of multiple life history patternsIncreased presence of multiple life history patterns

– Observed Gaps dependent on time frameObserved Gaps dependent on time frame– 5% Risk 0.01 to 0.285% Risk 0.01 to 0.28– 1% Risk 0.07 to 0.471% Risk 0.07 to 0.47

Modeling Alternative FuturesModeling Alternative Futures

Matrix modeling:Matrix modeling:– Alternative Future Environmental ScenariosAlternative Future Environmental Scenarios

Historical patterns (50-100 years) Historical patterns (50-100 years)

Recent patterns (25 Years)Recent patterns (25 Years)

– Direct hydro survival improvements Direct hydro survival improvements Continuation of recent observed improvementsContinuation of recent observed improvements

– Modifications from Zabel et al. 2006Modifications from Zabel et al. 2006Population-specific (rather than ESU-level)Population-specific (rather than ESU-level)

Climate function relies on PDO, upwelling, SST Climate function relies on PDO, upwelling, SST and WTTand WTT

Climate scenariosClimate scenarios

Poor

Historic

Insert fig 2 flowchartInsert fig 2 flowchartTable 1.Intrinsic productivity multipliers (return per spawner at low parent escapement abundance) for alternative climate and hydro scenarios. Calculated from matrix model outputs. Expressed as a ratio to recent observed gaps results. Insufficient data for matrix model runs for Upper Columbia steelhead; applied Upper Columbia chinook hydropower scenario results, average of Snake River and Mid Columbia climate scenario multipliers.

Climate Scenario Hydro Scenario

ESU Historical Warm PDO Current Projected BiOp

Snake Spring/Summer Chinook 1.37 0.88 1.12 1.18

Upper Columbia Spring Chinook 1.44 0.97 1.18 1.29

Snake River Steelhead 1.19 0.98

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 1.11 0.98 4 dams Yakima, Walla Walla, Touchet 1.03 1.09 3 dams Umatilla, Rock Cr. 1.02 1.07 2 dams Deschutes, Fifteen Mile 1.01 1.05 1 dam Klickitat 1.01 1.02

Upper Columbia Steelhead 1.15 0.98 1.18 1.29

South Fork ChinookSouth Fork Chinook A/P Gap Example A/P Gap Example

Gap

Gap

Gap

Base Environmental Recent 60 Year Warm PDO Years

Recent Hydro

Recent Hydro

Recent Hydro

SummarySummary

Base gaps for Snake River Spring/summer chinook populations Base gaps for Snake River Spring/summer chinook populations range from 0.32 to greater than 3.00.range from 0.32 to greater than 3.00.

Alternative climate assumptions can substantially affect the absolute Alternative climate assumptions can substantially affect the absolute value of gaps: Assuming that the future would be more like longer value of gaps: Assuming that the future would be more like longer term conditions reduces gaps by 60-70%, assuming consistent poor term conditions reduces gaps by 60-70%, assuming consistent poor survivals (like 1990s) increases gaps by about 20%survivals (like 1990s) increases gaps by about 20%

Survival increases required to meet the 1% risk level would be 1.3 Survival increases required to meet the 1% risk level would be 1.3 to 1.5 times the levels needed to meet the 5% risk criteria.to 1.5 times the levels needed to meet the 5% risk criteria.

For most populations, the survival changes being modeled for For most populations, the survival changes being modeled for hydrosystem actions alone would not be sufficient to meet ICTRT hydrosystem actions alone would not be sufficient to meet ICTRT viability criteria.viability criteria.

Next steps: modeling projected survival benefits of strategies Next steps: modeling projected survival benefits of strategies generated through regional recovery planning efforts.generated through regional recovery planning efforts.