The
Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon focuses on conservation strategies
associated with the “four Hs” — habitat, hatcheries, harvest and hydropower, in
the context of a dynamic natural environment. There is much we do not
understand about fish and how they interact with their ecosystems, and how well
our individual and collective conservation actions will produce the intended
effects in each watershed and region. Therefore, the strategy uses a
science-based approach to assess how well strategy elements are working and to
make changes based on new information. This science-based approach will
deliberately shape management actions to generate needed information.
The
strategy is also based on adaptive management. This approach sets deliberate
courses of action in the face of uncertainty to address critical questions. It
also generates information needed to make improved decisions about what works
and what doesn’t. This will provide a continuous management system where
specific objectives are identified, actions monitored and evaluated, and
direction affirmed or changed based on new results. This will improve the
overall quality and efficiency of management decisions and actions over time.
A
comprehensive monitoring program is a critical element of the Statewide
Strategy to Recover Salmon that allows us to determine trends in fish
populations, to determine how well the elements of the strategy are working, to
test key assumptions, and to implement an adaptive management approach. In
terms of importance, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has
identified monitoring, along with substantive conservation actions and
implementation certainty, as essential ingredients of conservation plans
prepared in response to listings under the Endangered Species Act.
Monitoring
is currently performed by agencies and others, but it is typically not well
coordinated and integrated, nor is it clearly focused on key salmon strategy
components and questions. Examples of obstacles that exist include inadequate
communication and coordination, conflicting or non-complementary agency
interests or mandates, underlying technical issues, data integration and
sharing, and funding.
The
purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of general approaches,
relationships and issues for consideration in development of the comprehensive
adaptive management and monitoring component of the Statewide Strategy to
Recover Salmon. Most components of the strategy focus on individual
conservation elements (e.g., instream flow, agriculture, fish harvest, forest
practices), which may individually contain adaptive management and monitoring
systems. However, development of the adaptive management and monitoring component
for the strategy cuts across all elements and sectors.
·
Develop and implement a decision-making system that is
guided by the best available science and that uses new information generated
from conservation actions.
·
Accurately assess the responses in salmon, steelhead and
trout populations and their habitats to specific strategies undertaken.
·
Establish a scientific foundation for the Statewide Strategy
to Recover Salmon and the monitoring component.
·
Develop and promote the use of appropriate analysis and
assessment tools, monitoring plans and guidance to support the strategy and
related watershed and regional responses.
·
Develop and promote complementary, integrated and flexible
approaches for the collection, analysis and sharing of monitoring information
within and across sites, watersheds and regions.
·
Provide leadership, coordination and technical assistance to
agencies and other Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon partners.
·
Provide information needed to prepare the biennial “State of
the Salmon” report.
Development
of the comprehensive adaptive management and monitoring program will be
difficult. There are few examples where adaptive management systems have been
successfully implemented and sustained. As stated above, there is much we do
not yet understand about how to best help salmon recover. There are many
differences between salmon species and stocks, and between regional and
watershed conditions. Monitoring and evaluation technologies themselves may
often be limited and information from them can be of poor quality. Costs are
always a concern.
The
Joint Natural Resources Cabinet expects that each agency/partner will commit to
monitor the implementation of its respective conservation actions. Through the
development of the comprehensive monitoring program, needs and priorities will
be clarified, and a phased approach will be developed to direct available
funding and cooperative partnerships. At a minimum, the Joint Natural Resources
Cabinet stresses the need for coordination, integration and, where possible,
reprioritization of existing agency/partner monitoring activities to meet
priority needs.
The
1999 legislature passed, and the Governor signed, 2E2SSB 5595 which recognized
the need for development of a coordinated and integrated monitoring process to
track and assess the effectiveness of salmon habitat projects and recovery
activities. That legislation identified a role for the Independent Science
Panel to provide recommendations related to various aspects of monitoring and
data quality, and to summarize their findings in a report to the legislature
and the Governor by the end of the year 2000.
As
work continues on the specifics of the adaptive management and monitoring
“solution,” the following key components have been identified:
·
Conservation actions should use best available science to
recognize uncertainty and address salmon recovery needs. This will include
ocean conditions, estuaries and nearshore marine areas, large freshwater rivers
and smaller streams in urban, rural and upland areas. It will also take into
account the appropriate scope and scales and timeframes (e.g., at the site,
watershed, or region level; short vs. long-term).
A science-based foundation has been
drafted that will provide the necessary context for design and implementation
of effective monitoring plans. This foundation will support identification and
assessment of factors affecting salmon productivity, capacity and diversity at
the watershed and regional levels.
·
Trends in escapement and overall abundance of salmon stocks
must be tracked over time.
Monitoring the status of fish stocks over
time is the responsibility of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) and tribal fishery co-managers. Information is obtained from both new
and ongoing juvenile and adult fish monitoring activities. A statewide Salmon
and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) was prepared by WDFW and western
Washington treaty tribes in 1993. A similar inventory (now termed SaSI, or
Salmonid Stock Inventory) was prepared by WDFW for the state’s bull trout and
Dolly Varden char in 1998 and another is currently being prepared for coastal
cutthroat trout. These efforts will continue to provide a foundation of
information for stock status assessments.
·
Types of comprehensive monitoring include:
o
Implementation — determining whether we did what we said
we’d do, and do it correctly.
o
Effectiveness — how well actions taken achieve their
objectives.
o
Validation — research and evaluations to examine key
assumptions associated with conservation actions, especially to learn more
about cause-and-effect relationships.
Implementation monitoring of conservation and related regulatory actions should be tracked over time; agencies and partners will provide this function.
Strong strategy effectiveness and validation monitoring plans require clarification about the scope and objectives of the strategies. As specific target conditions or benchmarks are identified, scientifically sound monitoring approaches can be developed and implemented. Monitoring of trends in key resource measures (e.g., fish populations, habitat characteristics) provides essential information for effectiveness monitoring.
All three types of monitoring are needed for adaptive management to be effective. Strategy effectiveness monitoring is the most technically complicated but it is essential. Knowing whether conservation actions achieved their targeted objectives or benchmarks is critical to understanding the usefulness of strategies and actions.
·
Some effectiveness questions (e.g., barriers to fish
passage) can be answered relatively straightforwardly, but most questions will
be difficult to answer. Questions about how habitat conditions are responding
to implemented strategies in watersheds will be difficult because of the
complexity of interacting factors, and the long assessment timeframes required
to separate effects of strategy implementation from natural variation.
Therefore, it will not be practical or possible to monitor the effectiveness of
all strategy elements in all watersheds.
A system of index or representative
watersheds among regions will be identified where coordinated and integrated
long-term validation monitoring and evaluations will be performed. An approach
to identification of these systems has been outlined which builds on existing
efforts and which addresses needs to monitor fish and habitat parameters. The
departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources, along with
Indian tribes and other partners, will participate in cooperative monitoring to
collect the necessary data in these systems.
·
Priority fish and habitat “indicators” will be identified
and monitored to track trends.
Similar to the ongoing efforts to track
long-term trends in fish stock abundance on a statewide basis, a system of key
indicators is needed to assess trends in quality and quantity of salmon
habitat.
·
A monitoring planning structure is needed to resolve general
direction, technical issues, and needs and approaches for integrating and
sharing information.
A means of encouraging communication and
cooperative planning is needed to simplify coordination of monitoring among
agencies and partners. A steering committee could guide statewide monitoring
policy planning and identify priorities for the salmon strategy in coordination
with the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet. A technical committee could provide
support and coordination for implementing the monitoring strategy, seek resolution
of issues, and coordinate with monitoring steering committee on unresolved
issues. A data/GIS support services committee could provide guidance and
support for developing and implementing integrated information systems,
facilitate interagency/partner standardization, data sharing and retrieval, and
long-term synthesis. It is not intended that these committees would force
burdensome new layers of planning, but that they would draw together involved
agencies and interested parties to add value and assistance to monitoring
programs.
·
The monitoring program should track and integrate
information on priority performance measures for all three types of monitoring
(implementation, effectiveness, validation).
Performance measures need to be developed
for each element of the salmon strategy that would be rolled into a
comprehensive set reflecting the entire strategy. Examples of performance
measures have been drafted. Additional details will be added as refinement of
the strategies and the framework to address performance measures continues.
·
Coordinated data and information management systems must
support a diversity of adaptive management and monitoring efforts at various
scales (e.g., site, watershed, region or state).
Coordinated data and information
management systems must support the adaptive management and monitoring effort.
A wide range of data systems and standards are currently in use by agencies and
other entities. A key challenge will be to identify, coordinate and develop
systems for managing and sharing information focused on the Statewide Strategy
to Recover Salmon, regional responses, and watershed and project-level efforts.
To at least partially address this
challenge, recent legislation requires that salmon monitoring data provided by
lead entities, regional fisheries enhancement groups, and others shall be
included in the data base of SaSSI and the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat
Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP). SSHIAP was initiated in 1995 by the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and is being cooperatively implemented by
the western Washington Treaty Tribes, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
other partners. The objective of SSHIAP is to assess and document current
conditions and trends of salmon habitat in certain WRIAs, and to incorporate
this data into a GIS-based information management system. Efforts are underway
to expand SSHIAP coverage to the rest of Washington.
To
summarize, key features of the comprehensive monitoring approach proposed by
the Joint Natural Resource Cabinet are listed below.
Activities
and outcomes:
·
Gather and assemble information on the status of fish and
their habitat.
·
Document changes in fish populations and habitat conditions
over time.
·
Produce and synthesize information on current conditions,
and assess cumulative effects on fish resources on a priority basis.
·
Document whether conservation and regulatory compliance
activities were implemented as intended (all agencies).
·
Perform effectiveness monitoring on a priority basis.
·
Coordinate focused validation monitoring efforts on a
priority basis.
·
Analyze information on a set schedule for use in the “State
of the Salmon” report, and for feedback to the adaptive management process.
State
services provided:
·
Technical assistance and study design support to agencies/partners.
·
Standard monitoring methods and protocols.
·
Quality assurance support.
·
Database and information services support.
·
Leadership and coordination for strategy effectiveness,
validation and project monitoring.
·
Synthesis of watershed, regional and statewide information.
Design
elements:
·
Ensure adequate monitoring of fish stock status over time.
·
Complement fish status monitoring with monitoring of key
habitat indicators at regular intervals.
·
Use a system of reference and “index” areas/watersheds for
multi-disciplinary effectiveness and validation monitoring efforts.
·
Coordinate with the Interagency Science Advisory Team and
Independent Science Panel to ensure scientific quality and integrity.
·
Submit monitoring data from habitat projects and other recovery
activities to the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment
Project.
·
Implement sector-oriented adaptive management and monitoring
systems, such as the Forests and Fish Report.
Potential
implementation structure:
·
Monitoring steering committee
·
Technical monitoring committee
·
Data/GIS support services committee
Monitoring
in support of effective decision-making systems is an essential element of the
Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon. An integrated system of monitoring the
performance and effectiveness of each element of the strategy will be
developed. Each agency/partner will be expected to monitor the implementation
of its respective conservation actions.
The
first Biennial State of the Salmon Report will be prepared in December, 2000.
It will emphasize results from implementation monitoring, but will also contain
recommendations on monitoring from the Independent Science Panel. It should
also serve as a platform from which to address key salmon population and
habitat trend information, including key effectiveness and validation
monitoring issues and results. It will help focus on issues and adaptive
responses that might be addressed in subsequent years.
Activities
underway include:
·
Progress and findings from monitoring activities will be
published in the Governor’s Biennial State of the Salmon Report in December,
2000.
·
The Independent Science Panel will develop recommendations
for standardized monitoring indicators and data quality guidelines and will
report its findings on monitoring to the legislature and the Governor by the
end of the year 2000, or in the Governor’s Biennial State of the Salmon Report.
·
The Department of Fish and Wildlife and Treaty Indian
fisheries comanagers will continue to monitor trends in the status of fish
populations as part of SaSI (Salmonid Stock Inventory).
·
Data on salmon projects and recovery activities will be
submitted to the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project
(SSHIAP).
·
A system of index watersheds for integrated effectiveness
and validation monitoring will be implemented.
If
a comprehensive monitoring program is not developed, the default is for the
National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
step in and develop plans. Given the central need for credible and reliable
monitoring and decision-management systems, the state would likely lose support
for its conservation strategies and actions, increasing the risk of federal
intervention and involvement, and reduction in funding support.