Technical Memorandum 2000-1
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF ISSUES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A STATEWIDE SALMON RECOVERY MONITORING PROGRAM
January 12, 2000
Independent Science Panel[1]
Monitoring is the fulcrum for salmonid recovery. The balance of
science, effective use of resources, and policy decisions that will recover
salmonids depends on scientifically valid
monitoring to measure success and reduce uncertainty. To this end, the
Independent Science Panel (ISP)[2]
is responsible for preparation and submittal of a report on monitoring to the
Governor and Legislature that recommends specific indicators and data quality
guidelines necessary to monitor the recovery of salmonids in a scientifically
sound fashion. This report will be completed by December 31, 2000.
Effective monitoring must address complex ecological and institutional
issues. Some of these are outlined
below. We believe that scientific and institutional coordination is essential.
As we begin our tasks, we recognize that monitoring activities and programs are
presently underway, and others are to be initiated before our report will be
completed. Consequently, we wish to
keep interested parties informed of our thinking as it progresses. This
document describes our preliminary ideas regarding the characteristics of a
scientifically valid monitoring program. We are interested in what other
parties are doing with respect to monitoring in the State of Washington and
intend on keeping all who are interested informed of our progress in future ISP
memoranda.
BRIDGING SCIENCE AND POLICY
Adaptive Management: The statewide monitoring
program is being designed to detect changes in salmon abundance resulting from
both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) actions. Such a program must be
developed within an adaptive management framework in which monitoring results
are used to guide future actions.
Adaptive management provides a direct feedback loop between science and management such that management/policy decisions can be modified based on new information. It assumes that management actions (we include recovery actions under this heading) are experiments, and therefore the results of such experiments can be used to alter present actions and guide future actions necessary for successful recovery of a species.
Adaptive management works most efficiently as large-scale experiments
in which alterations/modifications are made to some factor, or combination of
factors (e.g., physical habitat, harvest regulations, hatchery management) that
are believed to be negatively impacting fish abundance. Once the actions are
effected, the statewide monitoring program must be able to detect responses
within a reasonable time frame, with the results providing a feedback loop used
for defining necessary future actions.
In a general sense, policy statements and directions are the hypotheses
that are being tested. This means that policy commitments must be large in
order to effect detectable signals of biological change. For adaptive
management to be effective in salmonid recovery, it will require a substantial
commitment to build and maintain a credible assessment and monitoring program.
It will also require the institutional arrangements to compel the use of
information generated from the monitoring program.
SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
1. Types of Monitoring: The statewide monitoring program will require
different types of monitoring depending on the recovery objectives. Specific
types may include: (1) implementation and compliance monitoring (used to assess
whether conservation actions occurred as planned, and the degree to which
regulated actions are in compliance with regulatory permits, laws, etc.), (2)
validation monitoring (used to test/evaluate hypotheses and conceptual models
used to predict relationships between/among variables), and (3) effectiveness
and trend monitoring (used to assess degree to which a given measure or
activity is achieving stated objectives and changes in key
conditions/parameters over long temporal scales). However, such types are not
mutually exclusive, nor are they independent, and the statewide monitoring
program must provide linkages between them to ensure overall coordination in
data collection and dissemination of information.
2. Species Differences: Because salmonid species differ in their life history
requirements and strategies, the statewide monitoring plan must be developed
with consideration for and understanding of these differences.
3. Regional Differences in Monitoring Needs: Although the monitoring
program will be statewide, specific monitoring elements (e.g., parameters or
variables to be monitored) will likely differ regionally.
Factors limiting stock recovery will be based on differences in
species and stocks, watershed/habitat types, type and degree of anthropogenic
influences, and resource management. The statewide monitoring plan must be
flexible and sensitive to these and other regional differences, and yet be
capable of detecting biological responses over a wide range and diverse
assemblage of landscapes and species of concern.
4. Issues of Scale: Ecological processes happen over different spatial
and temporal scales, both of which need to be factored into the development of
the statewide monitoring program. Spatial scale
considerations invoke the realization that monitoring needs may differ at
varying levels: reach - stream - watershed -
region - state. Likewise, monitoring needs will
differ in accordance with varying temporal scales of recovery that depend upon
species-specific demographic characteristics, and the time courses for ecological
and geomorphic succession. In addition to data collection and analysis,
allowance needs to be made for the integration of data across these scales,
because certain problems are only detectable at a given scale and no other.
5. Duration of Monitoring Program: Duration of the monitoring period will depend
upon the nature of the recovery period. Important factors are life span
(generation time),
the natural
range of variability in physical habitat conditions, recurrence intervals of
natural disturbances (floods, landslides, fires, drought) resulting in the natural cyclical, and inter-annual fluctuations
that occur in salmon stocks, time needed for ecological and geomorphic
succession. The monitoring program must be of sufficient intensity and duration
to detect and tease out changes in fish abundance resulting from natural (e.g.,
climatic), density independent factors, from those resulting from human
directed actions designed to benefit recovery.
6. Parameters for Monitoring: Monitoring plans should include a suite of
parameters and modeling approaches that will allow an accurate depiction of the
recovery pathway for each of the listed species. Each indicator or parameter
must be related to an ecological process that affects fish survival, growth, and
reproduction.
7. Quality Assurance/Quality Control in the Monitoring Program: The monitoring program must
include separate components for ensuring the quality of the data, including
protocols for data collection, data validation, data processing and analysis,
and data sharing/management. Institutional issues, such as how to administer
and direct this component, to ensure integrity and credibility must be
addressed.
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
1. Monitoring Program vs. Monitoring Budget: Monitoring will be demanding of resources and identified needs will no doubt exceed financial resources available for the program. Monitoring that is finally approved and implemented should be provided with sufficient financial resources to allow it to meet clearly defined goals. Regardless, the program will require a substantial long-term (measured in generation time of salmon) commitment of financial resources.
2. Decentralized versus Central Management of Monitoring Program: The monitoring plan must define management and administrative roles and processes; i.e., data flow and data management responsibilities, reporting relationships and roles of monitoring staff etc.
3. Integration and Coordination of Existing Monitoring: Numerous monitoring programs already exist throughout the state and along the West Coast. Coordination and infusion of ideas and data from these other programs will strengthen the overall effectiveness, efficiency, and technical validity of Washington’s statewide monitoring program.
We are beginning to
outline the tasks that will lead to our preparation of a monitoring report that
will be submitted to the Governor and the Washington State Legislature. In
addition, we are exploring several avenues for identifying, compiling, and reviewing
existing monitoring programs. These include: (1) sponsoring (perhaps jointly
with the Services) one or more monitoring workshop(s) to allow tribes,
agencies, and volunteer groups the chance to describe their programs; and (2)
meeting with representatives from other states, provinces, or regions who are
responsible for coordinating similar programs.
Although the process of identifying recovery goals and
de-listing criteria by state, tribes, and Services is just beginning, we hope
to identify essential components and a framework that will be consistent with
these activities.
We must emphasize that the task before the State of Washington of developing and implementing a monitoring plan that addresses multiple needs at multiple scales across the state is formidable, complex, and wrought with a myriad of both small and large technical and institutional considerations. Although we have not been given the task of developing or coordinating the implementation of such a plan, we intend on making recommendations on how to establish and maintain a credible program. We remain interested in implementation, however, because complications during development may tend to lead to compromises that would jeopardize the technical strength and integrity of an overall program, which would otherwise provide considerable support for decision-makers.
[1] Members of the Independent Science Panel include: Drs. Ken Currens (Chair), Hiram Li, John McIntyre, Dave Montgomery (Vice-Chair), and Dudley Reiser.
[2] The Independent Science Panel was formed by the Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2496, with duties further defined in Second Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5595 (Section 10).