**November IC-TRT meeting**

November 8-10, 2004

CRITFC

Portland, OR

TRT attendees: R. Carmichael, T. Cooney, F. Mutter, P. Hassemer, D.
McCullough, C. Petrosky, H. Schaller, P. Spruell, M. McClure, P. Howell

Other attendees: C. Baldwin, E. Tinus, D. Martin, D. Holzer, M. Morita,
E. Seminet, D. Matheson

**Monday, November 8^th^**:

I. Business

A. Current schedule- is the current routine for meetings okay? Yes.

a\. Portland- 3 days, half day (pm), all day, half day (am)

b\. Boise- 2 days, start at 10am, finish at 2 pm the next day

B. Upcoming meetings:

a\. December

1\. Work group meeting on Dec 7^th^

i\. Genetics group meet in Seattle

ii\. Viability group meet in Portland

2\. TRT meeting December 20-21 in BOISE.

b\. January 18-20, Portland

c\. February 22-23, Boise

d\. March 28-30, Portland

e\. April 25-26, Boise

C. Historic population conference call December 6^th^, 1:00pm PST

a\. Historic handout was passed out at meeting

b\. Supplemental information will be sent.

II\. Work groups from last meeting met for the 2.5 hours, goal is to
update July viability draft for the Washington recovery meeting on
November 16^th^.

A. The purpose of this draft is clarification of Spatial Structure and
Diversity.

a\. Spatial Structure: branches, patches, MSAs work group

b\. Diversity: natural habitat processes

c\. Diversity: phenotype, genotype, geneflow

III\. Work group progress reports

A. *Spatial Structure MSA group* (see 2 handouts for this group)

> a\. Damon Holzer created a program in GIS to find branches and MSAs
> based on a moving window (200m increments) that identifies areas of
> high intrinsic potential. The selection criteria used for branches and
> MSAs is from T.Cooney's handout from the previous meeting.
>
> 1\. Calculates intrinsic potential for each window
>
> 2\. IDs windows that rate at least moderate
>
> 3\. IDs branches, then finds MSAs
>
> b\. New definitions:
>
> 1\. Major Spawning Area (MSA):
>
> i\. Steelhead spawning area \>250,000 m^2^
>
> ii\. Chinook spawning area \>100,000 m^2^
>
> 2\. Minor Spawning Area (mSA): areas (lumped together) with spawning
> but don't add up to an MSA due to \>5 km break .
>
> c\. Damon and Paul met last week to run a few populations through the
> new program to find any errors.
>
> 1\. Lochsa Steelhead
>
> 2\. Walla Walla Steelhead
>
> 3\. Wenatchee Chinook
>
> 4\. Asotin Chinook- only came out to be 0.4 of an MSA (b/c
> high-gradient system \-- \<1.5% gradient needed to meet Chinook
> criteria)
>
> d\. Issues to be resolved
>
> 1\. There is a bias for mainstem habitat because it is counting the
> entire mainstem. Needs to be corrected for, maybe use edge habitat
> only.
>
> 2\. Should habitat rated as low get any weight when defining branches?
> No.
>
> 3\. Does it matter how minor areas are distributed? Maybe not --
> probably won't shift a pop to a lower risk classification.
>
> 4\. Change "branched" terminology to something more clear, such as
> "linear" and "non-linear."
>
> 5\. Intrinsic potential vs. current potential vs. current expressed
> capacity. This issue was tabled for discussion in a work group
> tomorrow.
>
> 6\. It was suggested that this group might be overlapping a bit with
> distribution- to be discussed later.

e\. Further discussion

> 1\. How do we determine current spatial structure? Very problematic.
>
> 2\. Disconnect -- 2 scenarios are possible where fish were not present
> in the historic distribution. 1) no fish, but habitat is good and
> available; or 2) no fish, but habitat is bad.
>
> i\. Which scenario is higher risk? Perhaps #2, because in the case of
> #1, fish can populate accessible areas during good years. This option
> is not available in scenario #2.

**Tuesday, Nov 9^th^:**

III\. Work group progress reports continued...

B. *Geneflow, Phenotypic and Genotypic variation* work group (see
handout)

> a\. See handout. In category 2, the 10% refers to stray impact, not
> stray rate.
>
> 1\. How does a hatchery program in one MSA affect the other MSAs?
>
> 2\. How do we define "substructure?" (genetics, etc.)

b\. Metric for measuring change in a phenotypic trait

1\. evidence of loss or change in traits

2\. requirement of statistical evidence

i\. adjusted for lack of confidence in data (high variability)

3\. Why do we have the same criteria for all pops?

> i\. can we put very different pops into the same risk category?

4\. Weight demonstrated change in a trait more heavily

> 5\. Issues that need to be resolved

i\. Consider evaluating pop as a whole, or just MSAs

> ii\. Scale metric to the number of life history patterns w/in a
> population
>
> iii\. Define "significant loss" of a trait (ex. Loss of 1 in 2 in more
> significant than the loss of 1 in 6)
>
> iv\. Which traits are most important (consider ranking traits)
>
> v\. How do we measure loss (or change) of a trait? Compare to historic
> or current?
>
> vi\. Is it possible that change in a trait could be positive?
>
> c\. Genetic influences
>
> 1\. Need to define a baseline because bottlenecks could have
>
> caused exaggerated differences between populations.
>
> 2\. Timeframe of measurements is generation to generation
>
> 3\. Higher risk as hatchery alleles replace wild alleles
>
> 4\. Issues that need to be resolved
>
> i\. What measure to use (allelic distinction, heterozygosity, FST, or
> CSE)?
>
> a\. Choose one and be consistent
>
> b\. Justify one measure or be more general?
>
> ii\. Even with no genetic change measured, the existence of an outside
> MPG hatchery program should be a higher risk situation (don't wait
> until you can measure introgression to flag a high risk pop)
>
> iii\. Use an "if/then" approach---if introgression or genetic info
> exists, follow one path; otherwise follow a different path
>
> iv\. What level of change in a trait indicates risk?

C. Diversity Metric

> a\. Selective process -- some disturbances disproportionately affect
> pop. components.
>
> 1\. Must ask questions to determine selectivity:

i\. How much of the pop. is affected?

ii\. How specific is the effect?

iii .How severe is the effect on individuals?

2\. Limiting factors analysis would assign these values

> i\. Originally thought that we would just add them up but maybe they
> neet to be weighted?
>
> ii\. Need to deliberately separate the fact that temperatures are
> changing. How to stocks adapt to global climate change?
>
> 3\. Could some selective processes be beneficial?

D. Historic vs. current distribution

a\. How do you define occupancy (presence & absence)?

1\. year to year vs. a 10-year span

> b\. Occupancy may not be a "yes" or "no," but rather a frequency over
> time
>
> 1\. "Extended" habitat (as opposed to "index") may only be occupied
> during good years. This may be a mechanism for increased diversity.
>
> c\. Include a paragraph in the document that explains current
> potential vs. current expressed potential.

1\. Revisit this with a later factors analysis

IV\. New work groups formed to work on the following for 1 hour. Goal: a
written draft

of discussions.

A.  Paragraph about potential vs. realized potential (Fred, Charlie,
    Michelle)

    a.  Historical distributions

    b.  Current potential distributions

    c.  Currently realized distributions

B.  Appropriate metrics for Occupancy (Howard, Pete, Casey, Eric)

> What is measured: spawners and spawning habitat
>
> Time: must be occupied for 6 of 15 yrs (Chinook) or 9 of 12 years
> (Steelhead).
>
> a\. What proportion of capacity needs to be present in order to be
> "occupied?" What must be present in an MSA?
>
> i\. Use a healthy example for a model for other pops. What exists in a
> healthy system could help determine occupancy criteria.

b\. How do we ID distribution w/in an MSA & w/in a VSP?

i\. look for occupancy across the range of each parameter

a\. elevation

b\. stream width

c\. hydrograph

d\. \# of ecoregions

e\. order

c\. Temporal and Spacial occupancy

i\. Temporal -- look at 3 brood cycles

a\. Chinook -- 6 in 15 years of occupancy

b\. Steelhead -- 9 in 12 years of occupancy

ii\. Spatial -- how many MSAs met temporal conditions

> a\. Compare historic range to current range (in terms of habitat
> parameters). What reduction in range constitutes what risk level?
>
> d\. To be resolved:

i.  How many fish count as being occupied

ii. At what scale are we talking about? MSA? Branch? 200 m segments?

iii. Define branch structure vs. capacity

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  Task List (Tom, Phil, Dale, Paul)

> a\. What proportion of capacity needs to be present in order to be
> "occupied?" What must be present in an MSA?
>
> i\. Use a healthy example for a model for other pops. What exists in a
> healthy system could help determine occupancy criteria.

b\. How do we ID distribution w/in an MSA & w/in a VSP?

i\. look for occupancy across the range of each parameter

a\. elevation

b\. stream width

c\. hydrograph

d\. \# of ecoregions

e\. order

c\. Temporal and Spatial occupancy

i\. Temporal -- look at 3 brood cycles

a\. Chinook -- 6 in 15 years of occupancy

b\. Steelhead -- 9 in 12 years of occupancy

ii\. Spatial -- how many MSAs met temporal conditions

> a\. Compare historic range to current range (in terms of habitat
> parameters). What reduction in range constitutes what risk level?
>
> d\. What kind of examples to include in draft

i.  Wenatchee

ii. Walla Walla

iii. Tucannon

iv. Yakima

e.. Other issues for the group:

i\. Reconcile concept of spatial distribution and habitat

ii\. Include updated version of MSAs

a\. consider quantity -- does it make a difference?

b\. clarity range

> c\. table -- how do we assess current potential (decision tree?)

iii\. Highly separated MSAs vs clumped MSAs

i\. do we quantify the relative risk of each situation?

iv\. How do we deal with a lack of information?

v\. Issue of widespread reduction in quality

**Wednesday Nov 10^th^,**

V. What to have in the revised summary

> A. A table for each ESU by MPG using size categories (so that people
> can analyze how their pops fit into the viability criteria)

B. Provide clearest examples of each population category. Include:

a\. x-factor (size)

b\. index value

c\. diversity metric (potential to express diversity)

d\. life history types

C. Another table showing diversity of habitat across ESUs.

D. Include at least one viability curve

E. Table showing range of factors across each MPG

F. Instead of a comprehensive review of all ESUs, do a portion that
represent a

range of examples that can be reviewed.

a.  Upper Columbia Chinook

b.  Middle Columbia Steelhead

c.  Snake River Chinook

VI\. What is the timeline and priority of status assessment vs. limiting
factors analysis?

A.  Before status review

    a.  Draft viability curve materials

    b.  Get examples out for review:

        i.  Upper Col. Spring Chinook

        ii. M.C. Steelhead

        iii. Snake Fall Chinook

B.  Current Status Review: end of February or March

    a.  Describe current conditions of [A]{.underline}bundance,
        [P]{.underline}roductivity, [S]{.underline}patial
        [S]{.underline}tructure, and [D]{.underline}iversity.

    b.  Determine difference between current and goal APSSD and
        integrated.

    c.  Consider data indices quality.

C.  To be done later (might fall under limiting factors analysis)

    a.  Determine magnitude, intensity, and selectivity of each factor.

    b.  Rank factors by m,s,i for each VSP

    c.  Rank factors by m,s,i across all integrated VSP parameters.

    d.  To the web: Wenatchee & Wenaha as examples

VII\. Finalizing the Viability Criteria

A. Population level ind. Parameters

B. Integration

C. Application to examples

D. Develop justification (technical approaches)

> a\. Viability curve
>
> b\. Habitat diversity index
>
> c\. MSA
>
> d\. Other?

E. MPG criteria

F. Justification (technical approaches)

G. ESU Criteria

H. Justification (technical approaches)

> a\. Catastrophe Analysis

VIII\. For a specific population

A. Current assessment

a\. describe current conditions (VSP parameters)

b\. determine change between current & goal across VSP parameters

c\. how far do you have to go?

d\. determine presence/absence of anthropogenic factors

B. Limiting factors

a\. determine magnitude, intensity, selectivity of each anthro. Factor

b\. rank factors by M, S, I for each VSP parameter

c\. rank factors by M, S, I across all (integrated) VSP parameters

VII\. Integration

A.  We need to integrate with regards to

    a.  Short-term: abundance and productivity (Demographic Risk)

    b.  Catastrophes: spatial structure

    c.  Long-term: diversity, natural variation

B.  The short-term (A & P) must be met in order to consider the other
    two parameters

    a.  Are there conditions within each parameter that would
        automatically put a population into a high risk category?

C.  Two ways to integrate across all 4 viability factors

    a.  Integrate across Abundance and Productivity, Spatial structure,
        and Diversity using a metric or categories.

    b.  Hierarchical

        i.  Integrate all metrics for natural variation and catastrophic
            risk separately.

        ii. Then integrate the two for S.S. and diversity metric.

D.  How to integrate factors within and between populations?

    a.  Number distributed

    b.  Mean

    c.  Identify key components

    d.  Weight factors OR have "ifs", "ands" format

VIII\. Long Term Goals

A.  January

    a.  Go through criteria we've laid out

    b.  Make a list of metrics for matrix column

B.  At the end of the February 22,23 TRT meeting

    a.  An updated MPG, ESU criteria (Viability Criteria Draft).

    b.  2-3 examples of status review assessment

C.  Current assessment will be done at a week-long workshop in March.

D.  A complete viability report with all justifications by the end of
    March

IX\. Goals for the next meeting (December)

A.  Dale will work on identifying the "big hitter" factors in the
    integrated matrix

> that would cause a population to automatically get put into a risk
> category.

X. Short-term goals for next Friday (November 19^th^)

A. A first shot a the matrices with all the viability parameters
combined (Rich)

a\. combine the diversity work groups tables.

b\. try to eliminate duplicative factors

B. A paragraph describing the risk levels

a\. address total risk metric across all 4 factors and how there may be

cases where one factor automatically puts a population in a risk

category.

C. A factor table integrated into the original table (Phil)