Developing viability criteria for threatened Puget Sound steelhead

Jeff Hard and Jim Myers (for the PSSTRT)Conservation Biology Division

NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science CenterSeattle, WA 98112

West Coast Steelhead Management MeetingRedmond, OR

9-11 March 2010

interim^

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Threshold

Tolt SSH

P(ex

tincti

on)

Years

Abun

danc

e

QET = 50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

050

100150200250300350400

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Threshold Q1 Q4

Green WSH

QET = 50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

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

0.1

DosewallipsDuckabush

77

Elwha wild05Dungeness all

8715

DuckSmlt08Hamma smlt

HammaSmlt0850

23

Skamania HatMinter Mx

45

7

Nisqually allPuyallup

WhiteR all62

GreenR wild06Cedar all

9058

33

Samish allNooksac

Nook2100

59

Stillagua smltSkag Mansr

100

29

15

5

7

Snow allBigBeef all

BeefSmlt08100

Dewat allDewatSmlt08

100

Tahuya allTahuyaSmlt08

10091

90

39

Skokom allSkokSmlt08

100

21

Neighbor-joining treeC-S-E distances13 μsat loci

Includes 2008 and 2009 collections

East Hood Canal

West Hood Canal

Strait of Juan de Fuca

South/Central Sound

North Sound

Historical WDF steelhead catch data

Dendrogram of Gower SI of habitat characteristics B

aker

Nor

th F

ork

Sky

kom

ish

Mid

dle

Fork

Noo

ksac

k

Cas

cade

Sou

th F

ork

Sky

kom

ish E

lwha

Ham

ma

Ham

ma

Can

yon

Finn

ey Dee

r

Sko

kom

ish

Sno

qual

mie

Sou

th F

ork

Noo

ksac

k

Tolt

Sou

th F

ork

Stil

lagu

amis

h

Stil

lagu

amis

h

Dos

ewal

lips

Duc

kabu

sh D

unge

ness

Sau

k

Car

bon

Whi

te

Gre

en

Mai

nste

m_N

orth

For

k N

ooks

ack Nis

qual

ly

Sno

hom

ish_

Sky

kom

ish

Cas

e_C

arr

Eas

t Kits

ap

Dew

atto

Uni

on

Tahu

ya

Totte

n In

let

Ham

mer

sley

Eld

Dak

ota

Sam

ish

Lake

Was

hing

ton

Pilc

huck

Puy

allu

p

Des

chut

es

Dis

cove

ry B

ay

Seq

uim

Bay

Mor

se

Mai

nste

m_S

kagi

t_Tr

ibs.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Dendrogram of agnes(x = daisy(dat[, varNames1], metric = "gower"))

Agglomerative Coefficient = 0.81daisy(dat[, varNames1], metric = "gower")

Hei

ght

High precip, snow pack(and SSH)

Wider, more

spawn-able area

SJFRain dominated,

generally smaller

How can we combine these data in a way that helps to identify DIPs?

Recent demographic independence

(PD)

Ecophenotypic differences

(EP)

Ecological distinctiveness

(ED)

Biological distinctiveness (BD)

Population independence

(IP)

Population dynamics

(PD.1)

W

W

Migration rates(PD.2)

Habitat characteristics

(EP.2)

Life history traits(EP.1)

W

Genetic distinctiveness

(GD)

Geographic isolation

(GI)

W

W

Stream gradient,

etc. (EP.2.A...)

W

Run timing,

etc. (EP.1.A...)

W

Tag recoverie

s, etc. (PD.2.A...)

W

Adult number,

etc. (PD.1.A...)

W

Geographic

distance, etc.

(GI.1.A...)

WGenetic

distance, etc.

(GD.1.A...)

W

(from a concept by K. Currens, NWIFC)

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

False

Unc

erta

in

Tru

e

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1f(x) = 20.0000000000004 x − 19.0000000000004

f(x) = 6.66666666666663 x − 6.3333333333333

0.8 0.95 1.0

“Population will persist= FALSE”

“Population will persist= TRUE”

Trut

h va

lue

for p

ropo

sition

1-P(extinction)

“I am completely uncertain whether the population will persist”

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 Green WSH MS Puyallup WSH Nisqually WSH East Kitsap WSH

Lk Washington WSH -0.48642 0.132319 0.490463 0.301333

Green WSH -0.48642 0.164813 0.168309 0.056166

MS Puyallup WSH 0.132319 0.164813 -0.178016 -0.002167

Nisqually WSH 0.490463 0.168309 -0.178016 0.1435

East Kitsap WSH 0.301333 0.056166 -0.002167 0.1435DRAFT

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

ESU viability:All MPGs must be viable

MPG viability

1 viable population from each major genetic and life-history

group.

2-4 viable populations

Phenotypic and genotypic variation at population level

Distribution of spawning

aggregations

Suggested population size

range

Historical Abundance SimSam Habitat-based

PVA (EDT)

CatastropheESU: Overall risk with distribution of pops and life histories in each MPG

Pop: % of affected by given catastrophe

Puget Sound Chinook salmon

DSS viability criteria:

• population• stratum/MPG• entire ESU/DPS

AND

ES

ES-2

AND

ED-3ED-1

U

ED-1a ED-1b ED-1c ED-1d

ED-2

SF

32

PF1

. . .

AND

PF

PP*PD

AND

*See Persistence Criteria

PD-3 PD-4

UU

32

W-Sp1

. . . 32

W-Ju1

. . .

PD-1 PD-2

W-Sp W-Ju

AND

PS

M

SD

32

PS1

. . .

SS

AND

CB

SSA

. . .

AND

ES-1

U

ED-2a ED-2b

ES

U C

riter

ia

Stra

tum

Crit

eria

Pop

ulat

ion

Crit

eria

Wat

ersh

ed

Crit

eria

Legend

Final outputs of the DSSEP

The collection of results for lower-level criteriaiiiii

W-Ju i

Criteria evaluated from lower- level criteriaPP

Logical operatorsAND

Data is loaded into the DSS and evaluated with a truth membership function

PP-2

PP

Adult dist’n

Hatchery influence

Abundance

Juvenile dist’n

PS PF

PD

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 DS DP

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 -0.805 0.093

Hood Canal 0 -0.340 -0.173 -0.312

Strait of Juan de Fuca 0 -0.316 -0.876 -0.861

…………..MPG level………….. …..DPS level…..

Persistence

Diversity

Functionality

Sustainability

Sustainabilit

y

Persistence

DRAFT

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: DiversitySummer-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

Smolts produced by resident spawners may be critical in supporting steelhead productivity

during periods of low marine survival

VSP: Diversityresidency & anadromy

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pro

porti

on s

mol

ts fr

om re

side

nt s

paw

ners

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

Intrinsic Potential (Interior Columbia River parameters)

Unconfined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width > 4x bank full width)Stream width

0 - 25 m 25 - 50 m > 50 m

Stream gradient

0.0% - 0.5% moderate moderate low0.5% - 1.5% high moderate low1.5% - 4.0% high moderate low4.0% - 7.0% low very low / none very low / none7.0% - 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

> 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

Confined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width < 4x bank full width)Stream width

0 - 25 m 25 - 50 m > 50 m

Stream gradient

0.0% - 0.5% very low / none low very low / none0.5% - 1.5% low low very low / none1.5% - 4.0% low low very low / none4.0% - 7.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none7.0% - 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

> 15.0% very low / none very low / none very low / none

Weighted Habitat Areahigh = 1.0 x Bank full areamoderate = 0.5 x Bank full arealow = 0.25 x Bank full areavery low / none = 0.0 x Bank full area

Stream Habitat Rating Matrix (below natural barriers)

Stream width (bankfull)

0 - 3 m 3 - 50 m > 50 m

Stream gradient 0.0 - 4.0% low highmoderat

e

>4.0% low low low

Puget Sound

Interior Columbia(for comparison)

Est. mean ‘historic’ wild run size vs unblocked stream length

Spawner capacity estimates

Assuming:7.17 parr/100 m2

0.0265 spnrs/parr(Gibbons et al. 1985)

WinterSummer

Run type

Baker

River

Bound

ary W

aters

Canyo

n Cree

k

Casca

de R

iver

Deer C

reek

Dunge

ness

Rive

r

East K

itsap

Elwha

Rive

r

Green R

iver

Lake

Was

hingto

n

MS Ska

git R

iver

Morse C

reek

NF Sky

komish

Rive

r

Nisqua

lly R

iver

Nooks

ack R

iver

Pilchu

ck R

iver

Puyall

up R

iver

SF Noo

ksac

k Rive

r

Samish

Rive

r

Sauk R

iver

Sequim

Inde

pend

ents

Skoko

mish R

iver

Snoho

mish R

iver

Snoqu

almie

River

South

Sound

Stillag

uamish

Rive

r

Tolt R

iver

Upper

Casca

de R

iver

Wes

t Hoo

d Can

al

Wes

t Kits

ap

Whit

e Rive

r

Population

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Pot

entia

l spa

wne

rs