Get documents about "AMMdraftplan_dec2006
Shared by: 9lz7oSwi
-
Stats
- views:
- 2
- posted:
- 11/11/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 105
Document Sample
Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan for Puget Sound
December 2006
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank and acknowledge members of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Steering
Committee (AMM Steering Committee), many of whom spent considerable amounts of time providing
guidance, comments, and input to this draft adaptive management and monitoring plan. A number of them
also helped to write significant portions of this draft document.
The AMM Steering Committee, in addition to meeting regularly and attending a two-day workshop in
January of 2006 to help shape this plan, was divided into sub-committees organized around the plan’s
chapters to enable them to dive more deeply into specific topics according to their expertise and interest.
Sub-committee members provided detailed comments and edits to their respective chapters.
The AMM Steering Committee was guided by the work of Steve Yaffee and Sheila Schueller, University
of Michigan, Ecosystem Management Initiative (EMI). The framework for this plan is based on the EMI
model and we are grateful to Steve and Sheila for planning and facilitating two workshops and being
available for consultation over phone and email numerous times.
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Steering Committee
(Sub-committee assignments and contributions to plan sections are shown in parentheses)
Elizabeth Babcock, NOAA Fisheries (Overall plan comments)
John Barr, Independent Consultant, formerly Nisqually Tribe (Hatchery)
William Beattie, NW Indian Fisheries Commission (Harvest)
Susan Bishop, NOAA Fisheries (Hatchery, Harvest, H-Integration, and Verification & Accountability)
Richard Brocksmith, Hood Canal Coordinating Council (Habitat)
Alan Chapman, Lummi Nation (Overall plan comments)
Treva Coe, Nooksack Tribe (Habitat)
Ken Currens, NW Indian Fisheries Commission and Puget Sound TRT (Hatchery, H-Integration)
Jeanette Dorner, Nisqually Tribe (H-Integration)
Jim Erckmann, Seattle Public Utilities (Overall plan comments, habitat focus)
Kurt Fresh, NOAA Fisheries (Overall plan comments, habitat focus)
Andy Haas, Snohomish County (Habitat)
Paul Hage, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (H-Integration)
Michael Kern, Long Live the Kings (H-Integration)
Sara LaBorde, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (H-Integration, Verification & Accountability)
Kirk Lakey, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (H-Integration, Habitat)
Steve Leider, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (Habitat, State Status and Trends Monitoring focus)
Gino Lucchetti, King County (H-Integration, Habitat)
Sara McKearnan, Seattle Public Utilities (Habitat)
Lloyd Moody, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (Overall plan comments)
Brian Murray, King County WRIA 8 (Habitat)
Erik Neatherlin, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (Verification & Accountability, Habitat)
Steve Ralph, Stillwater Sciences (Habitat)
Kit Rawson, Tulalip Tribes (Harvest, H-Integration)
Mary Ruckelshaus, NOAA Fisheries and Puget Sound TRT (Habitat, H-Integration)
Russell Scranton, NOAA Fisheries (Overall plan comments)
Michael Schmidt, Long Live the Kings (Hatchery, H-Integration)
Jim Scott, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound TRT (H-Integration)
David St. John, King County (Verification & Accountability primary author, H-Integration)
Gordon Thomson, King County WRIA 9 (Habitat)
Laurie Vigue, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Habitat)
Chris Weller, Point No Point Treaty Council (Harvest)
i
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan
Goals and objectives for the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan ........ 1
Goal......................................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2
General structure of the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan .............. 4
Goals and objectives ............................................................................................................... 5
Strategy to achieve those goals and objectives ....................................................................... 5
Monitoring plan to assess progress toward goals and objectives .......................................... 5
Sequencing Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan implementation ........ 7
Example timeline ..................................................................................................................... 7
Verification and Accountability (V&A) System......................................................................... 9
V&A System Design Drivers .................................................................................................... 9
Context .................................................................................................................................... 9
Purposes ................................................................................................................................ 11
Principles for V&A System Development and Implementation ............................................ 12
Anticipated Audience and Users............................................................................................ 13
Including Multiple Species Recovery Efforts ........................................................................ 13
The Role of Independent Review ........................................................................................... 13
Key V&A System Elements.................................................................................................... 14
Focus Questions .................................................................................................................... 14
Indicators and Metrics .......................................................................................................... 16
Benchmarks and Triggers ..................................................................................................... 18
Reporting Progress ............................................................................................................... 20
Implementing Effectiveness Approaches .............................................................................. 21
Action 1: Verifying Recovery Action Implementation .......................................................... 21
Action 2: Establishing Accountability .................................................................................. 22
Action 3: Adapting Recovery Strategies ............................................................................... 23
Action 4: Improving the V&A System ................................................................................... 24
Information Access and Management .................................................................................. 25
Timeline for V&A System Development and Implementation ........................................... 26
Habitat Protection and Restoration .......................................................................................... 27
Goals and Objectives for Regional Habitat Protection and Restoration ........................... 27
Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 27
Habitat protection and restoration strategy ......................................................................... 28
Habitat protection ................................................................................................................. 29
Nearshore.............................................................................................................................. 29
Water quality ......................................................................................................................... 30
In-stream flows...................................................................................................................... 30
Forests and fish ..................................................................................................................... 30
Farms and fish ...................................................................................................................... 31
Organizing framework for monitoring habitat actions ....................................................... 31
Short and long-term results from habitat management actions............................................ 32
ii
Monitoring habitat protection and restoration actions ....................................................... 33
Project-level effectiveness summarized for a regional monitoring program ....................... 42
Baseline, status, and trends monitoring of regional habitat metrics .................................... 47
Harvest Management.................................................................................................................. 55
Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 55
Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 55
Harvest management strategy ............................................................................................... 56
Monitoring harvest management actions ............................................................................. 58
Hatchery management................................................................................................................ 65
Goals and objectives for hatchery management .................................................................. 65
Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Hatchery management strategy ............................................................................................. 66
Monitoring hatchery management actions ........................................................................... 73
H-integration ............................................................................................................................... 79
Goals and Objectives for Regional H-integration ................................................................ 79
H-integration strategy ............................................................................................................ 80
Monitoring H-integration actions.......................................................................................... 81
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A: Strategy Map for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery......................................... 97
Appendix B: The Puget Sound Protection Initiative ........................................................... 98
iii
Glossary
Action
A specific program, project, or change in behavior intended to achieve one or more
outcomes.
Benchmark
An intermediate target to measure progress after a given period of action implementation
using a certain indicator; a reference point or standard against which to compare
performance or achievements (see Verification and Accountability System section for
link to definition source).
Critical uncertainties
Uncertain relationships or conditions that are critical to making good decisions.
Effectiveness monitoring
Evaluating whether actions produced the hypothesized physical change (this document
does not consider biological change part of effectiveness monitoring, see validation
monitoring).
Goals
High-level statements about overall aims or purposes.
H-integration
The coordinated combination of actions among all the H-sectors — harvest, hatchery and
habitat (inclusive of hydro) — that together work to achieve the goal of recovering self-
sustaining, harvestable salmon runs.
Implementation monitoring
Evaluating whether agreed to actions were performed as promised.
Indicator
An aggregation and synthesis of related metrics
Metric
A metric is the condition or activity of interest that is actually measured or counted (see
Verification and Accountability System section for link to definition source).
Objectives
Specific statements that describe elements of a goal in measurable terms and break the
goals down into more specific pieces.
Status monitoring
Characterizing the immediate condition of a specified metric; in this document status
monitoring refers to the immediate condition of habitat attributes.
iv
Strategy
Describes how we will achieve our goals and outcomes; includes the methods or
approaches that set the path from current conditions to the desired future state and guide
the creation of actions.
Trend monitoring
Characterizing changes in conditions of a specified metric over time.
Trigger
A predetermined value of an indicator that helps to think about whether and when action
is needed; trigger points activate thought and/or action (see Verification and
Accountability System section for definition source).
v
Introduction to the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Plan for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
This document contains draft content for the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan. Some language in this document is from the
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and other related documents produced by Shared
Strategy for Puget Sound. Members of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Steering Committee made contributions to this draft. This plan is an evolving document
that will change as needs and new knowledge arises.
A. Goals and objectives for the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Plan for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Purpose and use. The primary purpose of this adaptive management and monitoring plan
is to facilitate the Puget Sound region in meeting its goal of recovering self-sustaining,
harvestable salmon runs in a systematic and informed manner. This plan is not intended
for a lay audience, but for the people implementing recovery actions and responsible for
making salmon recovery decisions in the Puget Sound region. This includes state, tribal,
federal, and local levels of governments and other regional stakeholders that have an
interest in and responsibilities for achieving salmon recovery. The monitoring plans
contained in this document are not intended to be comprehensive for individual
watersheds, but are considered as guidance for the information needed to make informed,
adaptive decisions for salmon recovery at the ESU level and to gain knowledge that can
inform local decision-makers. A regional perspective has the capacity to consider
questions for the entire ESU in a way that may also have implications for individual
salmon populations. The reporting and analysis from the monitoring results are also
intended to maintain long-term support for recovery efforts. This plan strives to be
consistent with evolving state and federal monitoring and adaptive management programs
as well as to respect the unique needs of local watershed areas. The amount and type of
information needed to make decisions will evolve as our knowledge changes.
Goal
The overall goal of the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan for Puget
Sound Salmon Recovery is to:
Create a system that will enable us to learn from the results of salmon
recovery activities and to create a structure that will adjust decisions
accordingly to ensure that ESU and population based recovery goals are met
efficiently and effectively.
The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, released in June 2005 by Shared Strategy for
Puget Sound needs a strong adaptive management component. Adaptive management is
the process of making decisions, implementing them, learning from the results of
implementation and new science, and adjusting decisions as necessary in order to
improve the certainty of achieving goals. The Recovery Plan is based on thousands of
1
hours of technical and policy work. And although the work is based on the best available
information on salmon recovery, the adaptive management process recognizes that the
Recovery Plan’s key political and biological assumptions will need to be tested and
adjusted as recovery efforts move forward.
Objectives
Considering the stated goal and intended audience, this adaptive management and
monitoring plan has several specific objectives:
Create a transparent information system (the Verification and Accountability
System) that will enable the region to learn more about effective salmon recovery
from the results of current recovery activities and update interested parties on the
status of salmon recovery
Create a regional adaptive management decision-making structure with a timeline
that is as coordinated as possible between habitat, harvest, and hatchery sectors
Support the NOAA endangered salmon delisting framework by providing data on
Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters and the status of listing factors
Provide watersheds with guidance on the minimum set of regional metrics needed
to assess salmon recovery
Design and implement monitoring and research that tests the critical uncertainties
(technical and policy) behind our recovery strategies and actions
To develop an adaptive framework that will achieve the goals and objectives above,
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound adopted the Ecosystem Management Initiative (EMI)
approach to ecosystem-based adaptive management developed at the University of
Michigan. This four-stage approach is represented by the Evaluation Cycle (see Figure
1). Please note that some of the language used in the following description of the EMI
approach comes from their document, Measuring Progress: An Evaluation Guide for
Ecosystem and Community-based Projects (Version 3.1, 2004,
http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/).
2
Figure 1. A simplified representation of the Evaluation Cycle developed by the University of
Michigan Ecosystem Management Initiative.
This process of evaluation is an iterative process that can be repeated as more information is gained
through monitoring and research. Completing Stage A answers, ―What are you trying to achieve?‖
By defining how a project will be known as a success, it is possible to develop goals and objectives
that will guide the strategies and actions of that particular project. Nested within the strategies are
threats that need to be minimized and assets that need to be exploited to achieve the stated goals and
objectives. This linked picture representing how goals/objectives, threats/assets, and
strategies/actions relate is known as a Situation Map, and has been drafted for Puget Sound salmon
recovery (see Appendix A). The Puget Sound Situation Map is the general framework that introduces
the specific strategies for salmon recovery and supports the text that makes up the regional adaptive
management and monitoring plan.
Completing Stage B answers, ―How will you know you are making progress,‖ and involves creating
a framework for measuring progress. This framework defines evaluation questions and metrics (also
known as ―metrics‖) and lead to the development of indicators that inform the decision-making
process by describing how well strategies are progressing towards achieving stated goals and
objectives. In each of the following monitoring sections, evaluation questions, metrics, and indicators
are displayed in parallel to clearly demonstrate this logic. It should be remembered that this is
specifically a regional adaptive management and monitoring plan. Thus, the recommended metrics
and indicators inform decision-making and learning at a regional level. There continues to be a need
for individual watersheds in Puget Sound to develop their own adaptive management and monitoring
plans that link up with regional monitoring needs outlined in this plan and also address watershed-
specific needs.
Completing Stage C answers, ―How will you get the information you need,‖ and describes how data
will be collected, who will collect it, where it will come from, and how it will be analyzed. When
3
evaluation data are analyzed, Stage D answers, ―How will you use this information in decision-
making,‖ and describes what responses will prompt consideration of changing the course of actions
or reconsidering overall strategies. This version of the adaptive management and monitoring plan will
not answer these questions completely, so there is still technical work that needs to be done to evolve
this document and fully implement adaptive management for Puget Sound salmon recovery.
This evaluation process focuses on passive adaptive management but also allows for active
(experimental) adaptive management and evolutionary problem solving. The different management
agencies, governments, and organizations that operate amongst the harvest, hatchery, and habitat
sectors typically coordinate aspects of planning and share information, but management is not totally
centralized.
Active adaptive management often involves implementing large-scale experiments with scientific
designs that if implemented could compromise local needs and commitments.
This tension is not surprising considering the spatial scale of Puget Sound and its different
stakeholders and governments with different obligations related to salmon recovery. In contrast,
passive adaptive management uses the best available scientific information to make local and
regional decisions initially but also specifies multiple, future decision points where new information
is analyzed and the best apparent decision is chosen at each point.
B. General structure of the Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan for Puget
Sound salmon recovery
This introductory section of the plan will be followed by a description of the Verification and
Accountability System that provides context for decision-making related to salmon recovery in Puget
Sound. Once the guiding principles, information needed for effective decision-making, and a
decision-making structure are described, the plan continues by detailing monitoring needs for various
sectors of salmon recovery that fit into the Verification and Accountability System framework.
Monitoring Puget Sound salmon recovery. This section of the plan divides salmon recovery into six
separate sections. The division of these sections parallels the general strategies developed for salmon
recovery in the Puget Sound Regional Situation Map (Appendix A).
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Harvest Management
Hatchery Management
H-integration
Education, Outreach, and Community Engagement*
Capacity-Building*
Regional Research Strategy*
* Sections to be developed in 2007
Within each of these salmon recovery sections are three common elements that make up part of an
adaptive management and monitoring plan. The first two elements, ―Goals and objectives‖ and
―Strategy to achieve goals and objectives‖ nest within Stage A of the EMI Evaluation Cycle. The last
element, ―Monitoring plan to assess progress toward goals and objectives,‖ nests within Stages B
4
and C of the Evaluation Cycle. Stage D, using the information for decision-making, will be covered
by the section describing the Verification and Accountability System.
Goals and objectives
By stating the goals and objectives for each salmon recovery section, we set the stage for the types of
recovery strategies needed to achieve the stated goals and for the types of monitoring and research
necessary to assess recovery progress. More detailed descriptions of each salmon recovery strategy
can be found in the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.
Strategy to achieve those goals and objectives
Stating the overall strategy within a salmon recovery section after the goals and objectives have been
stated serves two purposes. Firstly, a strategy sets the stage for the type of actions needed to
successfully execute that strategy. These actions will be the foundation of the monitoring plan in each
section. Secondly, by stating the current strategy the critical assumptions behind it will be exposed.
These critical assumptions will be described in the research section of this plan, which will follow the
salmon recovery sections.
Monitoring plan to assess progress toward goals and objectives
A monitoring plan, in concert with ongoing research, is the foundation for assessing progress.
Monitoring metrics are specifically designed to answer management questions that will inform
decision makers and other stakeholders on the effectiveness of current strategies at achieving salmon
recovery goals. Four different categories of monitoring will be utilized:
Implementation monitoring. This type of monitoring answers the question, ―Are the strategies and
actions outlined in the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan getting done?‖ Results from
implementation monitoring show progress in short-term time frames, and can contribute to annual
reporting. In general, implementation monitoring metrics inform the public and funders how
efficiently salmon recovery actions are being implemented. These metrics help decision-makers
determine where and why we see implementation successes and failures.
Implementation monitoring metrics should answer the following specific management questions:
How well are we implementing our proposed actions?
Based on our expectations (affected by funding, permitting, landowner access, etc.) did we
complete the number of projects we thought we could?
Are the strategies detailed in the Recovery Plan being implemented at a pace that will achieve
the desired milestones?
How many key uncertainties are being assessed through specific research plans?
Effectiveness monitoring. This type of monitoring relates to the expected physical response of a
recovery action and answers the question, ―Did recovery actions produce the desired physical
changes?‖ Results from effectiveness monitoring show progress in mid-term time frames,
approximately five- to ten-year periods.
5
Effectiveness monitoring metrics should answer the following specific management questions:
What is the overall effectiveness of recovery actions? (e.g., are negative trends in habitat
quality being reversed? Is quality habitat being restored faster than it is being lost?)
To aid assessment of effectiveness, are actions linked to a detailed hypothesis that is based on
credible science and includes expected physical change, expected biological response, and a
time frame to see each expected change?
Are there certain categories of salmon recovery actions that are consistently failing or
succeeding?
Status and trends monitoring. For the purposes of this document, ―status and trends monitoring‖
refers to the status and trends of regional habitat conditions. This type of monitoring asks whether
recovery actions are cumulatively resulting in an increase of regional habitat quality. It is essentially
a portion of effectiveness monitoring, but it is called out separately to show its relation to statewide
monitoring efforts (this is described in more detail in the Habitat Protection and Restoration section).
In addition, some regional habitat conditions can describe the general health of habitat-forming
processes, which have been identified by the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team as essential to
the long-term health of salmon habitat.
For all of the monitoring types that have been presented in this section, it is recognized that baseline
monitoring data will be essential. Baseline data helps establish current conditions and historical
trends within a watershed or other spatial scale. For some of the specific monitoring metrics
described in future sections, baseline data may already exist or is currently being collected. Before
this adaptive management and monitoring plan is implemented, an effort should be made to collect
and summarize existing monitoring data that will help guide our regional expectations on the efficacy
of our salmon recovery actions.
Validation monitoring. This type of monitoring relates to the expected biological response of a
recovery action and answers the question, ―Did recovery actions cause the desired biological
changes?‖ Validation monitoring will determine the status of VSP parameters for individual
populations, which is the ultimate scale of response this plan aims to improve. Data response should
only be expected on the order of several generations of salmon (20-50 years). This will be reported in
the salmon recovery section titled, ―H-integration,‖ because ultimately an efficient, significant
improvement in VSP parameters requires that all recovery actions be coordinated and sequenced
appropriately. This concept will be described in further detail within the H-integration section.
This plan recognizes that it is a significant conceptual leap to assume that correlating a positive trend
in VSP parameters with the implementation of recovery actions directly proves that our actions are
correct. The nature of ecosystems, which fluctuate based on many variables (including shifting ocean
conditions, human influence, climate change, etc.), makes it inherently difficult to connect our
recovery actions and the biological response of salmon populations to those actions. This again
highlights the need for adaptive management. Researching the uncertainties behind our actions will
allow managers and decision makers to refine recovery actions and act with greater confidence.
6
Greater confidence increases the chance that the biological responses monitored through VSP
parameters are a result of recovery actions.
Validation monitoring metrics at the regional level should answer the following specific questions:
What is the current regional status of the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and
diversity (VSP parameters) of Puget Sound salmon populations?
How does the integrated suite of actions in all of the H-sectors affect each of the VSP
parameters?
C. Sequencing Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan implementation
The different levels of monitoring described above take various amounts of time to demonstrate
results, so it will be necessary to sequence adaptive management and monitoring implementation in
such a way that caters to these different timelines while continuing to report on short-term progress.
An approach similar to the one outlined below will be necessary for successful adaptive management
and monitoring implementation. Timelines for completing tasks will be discussed in the further detail
in the description of the Verification and Accountability System.
Example timeline
First two years
o Refine, finalize, and accept the contents of the Puget Sound Regional Adaptive
Management and Monitoring plan
o Summarize relevant monitoring data that has been collected in the Puget Sound region
as a baseline for future monitoring and trend analyses
o Refine monitoring plans by developing due dates for data reporting at all levels of
monitoring, monitoring collection protocols, and assignments for completing
monitoring tasks
o Begin or continue all three levels of monitoring in the necessary areas
o Report annually on implementation monitoring
After three years
o Begin to evaluate effectiveness monitoring data
o Continue to report implementation monitoring
After five years
o Begin to evaluate status and trends monitoring data
o Report all levels of monitoring
Annual products
7
o New science workshop to present:
New and/or updated scientific tools (analytical models, data collection
protocols, etc.)
New research findings that pertain to current uncertainties around recovery
strategies and actions
Regional monitoring results
Content and research deemed valuable by watersheds within Puget Sound
o Regional status reports (see section describing the Verification and Accountability
System)
8
Verification and Accountability (V&A) System
Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan
This document contains draft content for the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Adaptive
Management and Monitoring Plan. Some language in this document is from the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan and other related documents produced by Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Members
of the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Steering Committee made contributions to this draft.
This plan is an evolving document that will change as needs and new knowledge arises.
Prepared by the Verification and Accountability Work Group and the Adaptive Management Steering
Committee
This draft is intended to support discussion by the All-H Leadership Group, the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Council, watershed groups, recovery plan implementers and other interested and affected
parties, toward an a agreement on the content, structure, roles and responsibilities, and decision-
making elements of the Verification and Accountability (V&A) System for Recovery Plan
implementation. This document does not reflect formal, final decisions on any element of the V&A
System. The content reflects current knowledge of recovery plan goals and actions to move toward
them; regional and watershed adaptive management and monitoring programs; ESA-driven
demands for tracking the status of listed salmonid stocks; and ongoing discussions within the Puget
Sound Partnership regarding regional coordination to achieve natural resource protection and
restoration goals.
A. V&A System Design Drivers
Context
Recovering salmon will be a decades-long endeavor, relying on sustained and focused action by
governments, organizations, and individuals that contribute to the improved health of salmon
populations and their habitat. The work toward salmon recovery is being guided by completed or
pending plans that were developed to meet the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). These plans incorporate the results of other ESA-related planning processes, for
example salmon harvest planning under Section 4(d) of the ESA, that are expected to contribute to
salmon recovery. These plans also rely heavily on detailed watershed-based recovery strategies and
3-year work plans to put each salmon population on a recovery trajectory. These strategies and work
plans are being moved ahead by community-based watershed planning groups that play an essential
role in maintaining a focus on recovery priorities. The conservation work of harvest, habitat, and
hatchery managers, historically undertaken without coordination and a common understanding of
salmon goals, is incrementally being integrated to ensure effective use of resources toward achieving
recovery goals. All of this activity, which will be key to returning our populations to good health and
keeping them there, has established a significant need for funding through annual and biennial budget
processes at the local, state and federal levels.
Puget Sound is blessed with a diversity of contributors, each doing their part in different ways using
different resources and authorities. The challenge is to keep our efforts coordinated and directed
toward the most important needs while maintaining support by funders and the public. Given the
9
long-term nature of the salmon recovery effort, the region will need tools to help sustain focus on
priorities as conditions change and recovery strategies are adapted in response. Given the novelty of
integrating efforts across habitat, harvest, and hatchery sectors (the Hs) and the need for that
coordination to grow, the region will need tools that help build trust and confidence. Finally, with the
significant, ongoing demand on public and private funding to sustain action on recovery priorities,
the region will need tools that provide information to funders and the general public that resources
are being used effectively and we are getting closer to our recovery goals.
The explicit application of concepts like verification and accountability takes on great importance in
this setting. The term ―Verification and Accountability System‖ was coined at an initial meeting of
the All H Leadership Group1, which was convened to advance efforts to integrate the recovery
actions of habitat, harvest and hatchery managers and further build trust among them. This group’s
direction to staff was to work with all appropriate parties to develop and implement a system that
would allow users to see if implementation commitments were being met and necessary results were
being achieved. The system should support accountability actions that would keep the region on a
clear path to salmon recovery.
Efforts to conceptualize, develop, and implement this system are also being informed by guidance
from United States Congress’ Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO recently
completed assessments of three large ecosystem restoration programs around the country: the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the Great Lakes Initiative, and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Program. These assessments included evaluation of how effectively their restoration work is
coordinated and the progress they have made toward achieving their goals and objectives. The GAO
report offers four ―lessons learned,‖ concluding that the effectiveness of large restoration efforts is
more likely if their organizational structure includes mechanisms to ensure that:
1. Funds received and spent are tracked and accounted for
2. Partners can be held accountable for fulfilling assigned commitments
3. Reports on results and progress are independently reviewed to ensure credibility and are
formatted in a way that they can help track overall progress, and
4. A decision-making process is in place that resolves conflicts and helps set overall direction
and priorities for the effort
Implementing a system as information rich and potentially complex as this one will be logistically
and technically challenging. Making and maintaining this system as an asset to recovery efforts will
entail sustaining close working relationships among watershed and regional groups, state and federal
agencies, the co-managers, and decision-makers who will rely on it to support policy decisions. The
timeline for implementing the system incorporates periodic assessments of its effectiveness at
meeting its purposes. This ensures that it continually adds value to effective recovery efforts.
1
The All H Leadership Group was convened in early 2006 as an advisory group to the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Council. Its members include John Crull, Billy Frank, Mike Grayum, Bob Kelley, Randy Kinley, Jeff
Koenings, Bob Lohn, Bill Ruckelshaus, Larry Rutter, Ron Sims, and David Troutt.
10
Purposes
The following primary purposes must be met by the V&A System.
1. Provide decision-makers, funders and the public with information describing watershed and
ESU-scale progress toward recovery goals
This purpose will be met through the use of metrics and indicators chosen for their usefulness
in assessing progress of implementation efforts; databases; a formalized schedule for drawing
and sharing conclusions about the status of plan implementation and the results from
implemented actions; watershed and regional groups that will receive and respond to progress
information.
2. Contribute to transparency in decision-making across all Hs about recovery strategies,
priorities, and actions
This purpose will be met through the incorporation of habitat, harvest and hatchery
management actions and plans that contribute to recovery; a common system for gathering,
accessing and using information about actions and their results; databases and reports that
provide the information used to develop and adapt strategies, establish priorities, and describe
the scope, schedule and anticipated results of actions.
3. Provide verification that recovery plan actions are implemented, monitored, and evaluated for
results
This purpose will be met through a formalized schedule for reporting the implementation
status of recovery plan actions (e.g., 3 Year work plans), including the implementation of a
monitoring program developed to assess the progress toward recovery goals.
4. Support accountability when plan actions are not implemented as planned and scheduled, and
when benchmarks for results are not reached
This purpose will be met through a formalized reporting system, an accountability framework
for encouraging success in implementing high priority actions, and watershed and regional
decision processes for identifying and implementing accountability actions.
5. Inform and support decisions to adapt H-integrated recovery strategies and priorities based on
progress toward recovery goals
This purpose will be met through a monitoring and reporting system that describes the status
of implementation of high priority actions, habitat, salmon populations, and watershed and
regional decision processes for evaluating and adapting recovery strategies on a timely basis.
11
Principles for V&A System Development and Implementation
The development and implementation of this system are taking place following a number of activities
or processes that are integral to recovery plan implementation. These activities or processes offer
opportunities to ensure the system is economical and effective. The following are principles related
to these activities or processes guide the finalization of the system framework and that will influence
actions undertaken to maintain or improve the system.
Build on what is working: Each watershed in the ESU has mobilized to develop and implement
salmon recovery, and many have given consideration to how they will track and communicate
implementation progress and results. Multiple databases or data management tools, for example
Managing for Success, the Habitat Work Schedule, or the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
(PCSRF) database, that could help meet system purposes are being used or are in development.
Several watersheds actively maintain web pages that are dedicated to providing information about
how they are advancing plan implementation. Several watersheds have also taken significant steps
toward implementing Adaptive Management and Monitoring programs that include collection of data
that will be integral to this system. By building on existing tools and processes that can help meet its
purposes this system will make the most efficient use of resources directed toward assessing and
ensuring progress toward recovery goals.
Leverage NMFS/USFWS’ status review task: NMFS and USFWS are required to track and report, on
a regular basis, on the status of species for which Recovery Plans have been developed and how
many of the actions in the Plans have been implemented. The information these agencies will need
for this task, for example escapement and completion of actions addressing Listing Factors, will also
be useful to watersheds and the region in assessing progress.
Connect the Hs: Significant progress has been made in improving the coordination of the work by
habitat, harvest, and hatchery managers in support of achieving recovery goals. This system will
encourage and enable continuing coordination by employing progress metrics that are cumulative
across the Hs and reporting of results in a timely manner that will be reviewed jointly by managers
from each H.
Engage implementers at multiple levels: Users of this system will connect to it for a variety of
reasons, ranging from a desire to see a graph showing the trend of natural origin escapement in
neighboring watersheds to a need to assess how effectively federal and state funding are being put to
use in the region. The system should be responsive to the need for information at watershed and
regional scales, across the Hs, and across technical and policy issue areas.
Communicate “on time”: The frequency at which different types of information are gathered and
disseminated should be responsive to critical biological, management, and fiscal cycles. For
example, population abundance data can be gathered annually but can only be reported as reflecting a
trend after multiple generations. Also, project implementation data can be monitored and updated
almost continuously but it will be of greater importance to report on implementation status in relation
to major funding cycles like the state biennium budget cycle.
12
Anticipated Audience and Users
The overall V&A System should be responsive to the needs of the following parties as they
implement actions, prioritize expenditures, and maintain a constituency for achieving recovery goals.
The System should also capitalize on the unique authorities and expertise of these parties in building
and connecting the elements of the System and funding and fostering its use.
General public
Watershed planning groups and the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council
Individual implementing entities: tribes, state and local governments, federal agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and others
Puget Sound Partnership (or the regional governance body it results in)
Federal-level elected officials
Governor and state legislature
NOAA Fisheries
USFWS
Pacific Salmon Commission
Including Multiple Species Recovery Efforts
Most if not all of the Puget Sound basin is affected by Endangered Species Act listings – for summer
chum, bull trout, orcas, and others – or is engaged in conservation planning and action for species
other than Chinook. While the V&A System is primarily geared toward supporting implementation
of the Chinook Recovery Plan, the concepts and tools it employs may be similarly advantageous for
other recovery or conservation efforts. To the extent that these other efforts have a comparable need
for the concepts and tools, the V&A System may be modified to incorporate other species.
The Role of Independent Review
An independent review of the proposed V&A System will be implemented prior to its finalization
and implementation. A third party will be hired to conduct a directed review of the System and
provide recommendations on how to ensure it meets its stated purposes. After a period of
implementation of the system, decision-makers may choose to conduct another round of third-party
review using information gained during the implementation period.
Decision-makers also have the option to employ independent review to validate the conclusions
drawn from the indicators and metrics employed within the System. Given the timeframe for
collecting data of sufficient breadth and depth to draw defensible conclusions regarding population
13
response (i.e., Viable Salmonid Population measurements), such a review would likely only be
possible and appropriate after at least one full salmon generation from the start of data collection for
the full set of metrics and indicators. The actual timeframe would be influenced by the conclusions
under scrutiny in the review.
B. Key V&A System Elements
The V&A System incorporates and connects a variety of tools that contribute to meeting its intended
purposes (see Figure 1). These tools include, for example, data, information synthesis meetings,
published annual reports, and watershed-specific web pages that will provide access to summary
information on the progress of recovery efforts. In some cases a main function of this system will be
to connect tools already in use, potentially with minor modifications to optimize their effectiveness,
in support of system purposes.
Focus Questions
As with any program intended to assess the effectiveness of strategies to achieve a specific outcome,
it is critical for this system to be driven by a clear understanding of what we need to know to make
credible assessments. Establishing a clear picture will offer several important benefits, not least of
which are efficient and cost-effective data collection programs and guidance for planning how to use
communication tools to their best effect. One established means for building a clear, shared
understanding is to identify a short list of questions that the V&A System must address to ensure its
ultimate purposes are met. Through discussion with decision makers and staff from Recovery Plan
implementers, staff developed the following list of eight focus questions that are guiding system
development and implementation. From the answers to these questions, System users should be able
to judge whether we are on the track to recovery and have the information to identify where
improvements to recovery strategies are needed.
1. Are priority actions being implemented on the anticipated timeline? Are there obstacles to
implementation?
2. Are the implemented salmon recovery actions effectively addressing the listing/limiting
factors identified in the Federal Register Notice and individual watershed plans?
3. Are the populations and ESU responding positively and as we anticipated to our actions and
strategies? Are the VSP parameters of individual salmon populations in the ESU improving
and on a recovery trajectory?
4. Are watershed, nearshore/marine, and ocean habitat conditions improving for salmon in the
Puget Sound ESU?
5. Have we reached any of our established benchmarks or trigger points that call for considering
changing strategies?
6. Are the key issues identified in the plan being addressed?
7. Are the key assumptions identified in and guiding the plan accurate?
8. Are new factors emerging as limiting for populations and/or the ESU?
14
Figure 1. Elements of the V&A System
WRIA Technical Watershed
Committee(s)* Status
Report(s)
• annual
• successes
• challenges and
uncertainties
Focus Watershed • actions needed
Questions Council(s) to improve
strategy
• executive
summary/user
friendly
supplement
Agreement on the
Indicators and metrics data that
will be used to Collaboration on Audience Activate
Metrics •
guide strategy developing NOAA Fisheries Effectiveness
Info/Data •
improvement watershed and USFWS Actions
• action
regional
Common • Federal Delegation • verification assessment
implementation messages •
WRIA Technical conclusions from Governor & Legislature • implement
• limiting factors of • accountability measures
• Committee(s) metrics – Implementing Entities
VSP status
Benchmarks/
progress • “H” Managers • adjust recovery
• habitat status and
Co-managers • Co-managers strategies
trends triggers reached or •
• key plan issues approached? • General Public adjust V&A system
NMFS/
• key plan
NWFSC
assumptions
• new limiting factors
TRT
Regional
Status
Report
• biannual
• successes
Watershed Regional
• challenges and
and Regional Body uncertainties
Databases • (regional)
actions needed to
improve strategies
• executive
summary/user
friendly
TRT supplement
• technical support
15
Indicators and Metrics
Indicators and metrics will be used to track the extent to which recovery actions are being
completed and the contribution they are making toward the achievement of near and
long-term recovery goals. For the purposes of this system, metrics and indicators are
defined as follows:
Metric: A metric is the condition or activity of interest that is actually measured or
counted. A meaningful metric is one that changes as a result of human influence, in this
case the influence of the implementation of a recovery plan.2
Indicator: An indicator is an aggregation and synthesis of related metrics (see Figure 2).
An indicator provides an indication of whether desired results or conditions have been
realized after actions have been implemented. Indicators allow comparison of actual
conditions with ideal or desired conditions and illustrate the additional progress that must
be made to reach stated goals.3 Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative. Unlike
metrics, indicators are not measured or counted directly. A common example of an
indicator is the score from a Benthic Index of Biological Integrity assessment.
Figure 2. Illustrative relationship between indicators and metrics
Total [other]
escapement
Indicator:
Population
Abundance
Fish in Fish out Metric
2
www.pca.state.mn.us/gloss/glossary.cfm
3
www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/ost_terms.html
16
The primary indicators used to track recovery actions will be drawn from the first four
focus questions driving this system. Based on the focus questions listed in the preceding
section, an example of a primary indicator would be the percentage of actions from 3 year
work plans that were completed in the reporting period and in the time period from the
start of plan implementation.
A consistent set of primary indicators will be tracked in every watershed and for every
population. These indicators will facilitate tracking progress at the watershed, regional
(i.e., the five regions within the ESU) and ESU scales. The indicators set should
incorporate relevant metrics from established programs and management objectives. One
example of this is the monitoring program for the Puget Sound Chinook harvest plan.
Watersheds or H managers can augment the primary indicators at their discretion to meet
their needs. To the extent that they are different, technically credible methods exist to
generate the metric data for an in-common indicator; watersheds will have the option to
choose the method that works best for them.
The use of comparative indicators and metrics – those that are intended to show the
change in a condition that existed prior to plan implementation – to gauge progress
entails establishing a baseline value for each metric. An example of this type of indicator
or metric would be productivity. An example of an indicator that is not comparative, and
would not have a baseline, would be the number of projects implemented. Baseline
values are the reference against which future indicator values will be compared to assess
progress toward the desired condition. The ability to make these comparisons
consistently across areas is critical in developing credible summaries of results and
progress at the watershed and regional scales. Some indicators lend themselves more to
qualitative than quantitative assessments. Quantitative metrics should be used only
where numerical metrics are appropriate and meaningful and the data are credible.
Monitoring plans should include improved data collection and evaluation to turn metrics
that are currently qualitative due to data limitations, and that would have more value as
quantitative metrics, into quantitative metrics.
No single indicator will provide enough information to draw conclusions about progress.
Except where data is conclusive, for example where gauges record that a lethal
temperature threshold has been passed, indicators and metrics will generally be painting a
weight-of-evidence picture rather than conveying a causal connection between discrete
actions and habitat/population conditions. Each indicator will tell one piece of the story
and may serve to support or refute the evidence provided by other indicators. For
example, qualitative indicators describing the results of actions addressing limiting
factors may show progress, but an indicator of population health may show population
conditions are declining. Conflicting signals like this should lead to consideration like
―Are our efforts enough?‖ or ―Is there another factor limiting the recovery of this
population/ESU?‖
Drawn from the focus questions, the following are placeholders for the short list of
primary indicators. This list will be finalized through further discussion with plan
implementers and stakeholders. Metrics that will be tracked to provide data for each
17
indicator are identified and described in detail in other chapters of the regional Adaptive
Management and Monitoring Plan.
1. Actions planned and implemented during the reporting period
2. Progress addressing limiting factors
3. Status of VSP parameters for individual populations
4. Habitat condition and habitat processes status and trends
5. Status of key plan issues
6. Status of key plan assumptions
7. Emergence of new limiting factors
Benchmarks and Triggers
An essential aspect of employing an indicator-based system for assessing the
implementation and effectiveness of recovery efforts is identifying desired conditions in
terms of the indicators. At various points in time, implementers, funders and
stakeholders of salmon recovery will all have an interest in understanding if investments
have advanced the watershed and region far enough toward long-term goals.
Benchmarks, which put indicator values in the context of goals, are one way to formalize
desired conditions as guides for strategy implementation and adaptation. For the
purposes of this system, a benchmark is defined as follows:
Benchmark: An intermediate target to measure progress, after a given period of action
implementation, using a certain indicator. A reference point or standard against which to
compare performance or achievements4. A benchmark must reflect an understanding of
what is possible to achieve from a certain type of action over a certain timeframe.
Another aspect of indicator-based systems that can be employed to guide program
assessments is establishing indicator values that require a specific response from program
implementers. These values would serve as ―trigger‖ points. For the purposes of this
system a trigger is defined as follows:
Trigger: A predetermined value of an indicator that helps to think about whether and
when action is needed. Trigger points trigger thought and/or action. Trigger points show
what level of an indicator is acceptable, and what is not. Trigger points specified at the
outset of evaluation provide a framework for future discussions and help avoid conflicts
about when action is needed. Triggers are generally associated with specific actions to be
taken if the trigger value results and the parties responsible for taking those actions5.
4
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/ost_terms.html
5
from EMI, “Measuring Progress”. P. 90
18
Trigger points can be same as benchmarks, i.e. not fully reaching the benchmark would
trigger a response.
Benchmarks and trigger values for indicators signal the need to re-evaluate strategies to
ensure sufficient progress is made (see Figure C). Benchmarks and triggers reflect an
expectation for the rate of progress over a specified timeframe. Reaching the trigger
value would prompt an evaluation of the recovery strategies and actions related to the
trigger. The up-front development and agreement on benchmarks and triggers helps
avoid rash decisions and ineffective use of resources in response to data. A benchmark
and trigger construct can serve as an early-warning system, providing timely signals that
would call for a range of responses, for example, raised attention, new action within
normal plan update processes, or urgent action.
Figure C. Relationship of Baseline, Benchmark, and Trigger
Range of potential values
Values Values
representing representing
insufficient sufficient
progress progress
Indicator Indicator Trigger Indicator
Baseline Value Benchmark Value
Value
One illustration of how indicators, benchmarks and triggers are related, using information
from the existing recovery plan, could involve as an indicator the percentage of 3 Year
Work Plan actions that are completed after three years of plan implementation. The
benchmark could be set at the average project completion percentage of major 6-year
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) programs in the watershed or some other relevant
reference at a certain time before the 6 years pass. The benchmark would likely be less
than 100% completion but higher than 75%. The trigger could be set at a level that
implementers feel would signal significant program-level (i.e., not specific to one project
or a few projects) problems, for example a 50% completion level after three years. A
19
completion level of 50% would trigger implementers to examine factors like capacity to
implement projects, general adequacy of project scoping, or efficiency of making project
funding available. This indicator would not have a baseline value, at least in the initial
phase of implementation, because there would be no relevant comparison point from the
pre-implementation period. While looking at just the percentage of 3 Year Work plan
actions completed doesn’t measure actual gains, it does provide an early appraisal of
whether the plan is on track.
Reporting Progress
Watershed and regional levels will share responsibility for reporting on the status of
recovery plan implementation and the results that have been generated. A formalized
reporting task will provide value by establishing a predictable schedule and format for
distilling a diverse array of data and information about recovery efforts into a short set of
powerful conclusions about successes and where additional work is needed.
Agreement on Information for Reporting. The precursors to producing actual reports
include fundamental activities like identifying the metrics and indicators that will be
tracked, building databases to hold and provide access to raw data, and collecting data.
With these activities advancing effectively, implementers will be building toward a
comprehensive and compelling view of their recovery efforts. One additional essential
action in regards to metrics and indicators that will ensure reports are credible and
informative is reaching agreement up front on what data and information will be used in
the reporting process. This agreement will provide assurance that the data and
information are of sufficient quality to be used in drawing conclusions and will provide
implementers and the audience for the reports an early sense of what topics and issues
will be addressed in the report.
An example of a reporting process that employs this agreement step is harvest
management. Early in the process of evaluating the effectiveness of the current harvest
management regime technical staff from the co-managers and the Services review the
available data and information describing the outcomes from the management regime and
determine which data and information is technically adequate to inform management
decisions. Employing this step in what can be complex and controversial decision-
making processes can help ensure decisions are based on good information and minimize
―surprises‖ that can derail important improvements to recovery strategies.
This agreement step will primarily involve technical staff from the co-managers,
watershed technical committees, the NMFS Science Center, and the NMFS Regional
Office.
Drawing Conclusions from Information. The process of turning data and information into
conclusions about progress that will guide strategic improvements and future investments
will entail the close coordination of implementers at the watershed and regional levels.
This system incorporates information synthesis processes at both the watershed and
regional levels, and a significant degree of coordination between watersheds and the
20
region to avoid duplication of efforts and to encourage an open, learning environment.
Drawing conclusions will likely be an iterative process within watersheds and at the
regional level, and then between watersheds and the region. This iteration will help
ensure that conclusions are well vetted before they are final and that as a whole the
conclusions are internally consistent.
Watershed and Regional Reporting. Once conclusions have been distilled, the reporting
process can move to conclusion. The reporting task will likely generate products
including written reports and other materials that can be shared with funders, the public,
and other recovery plan implementers. Initial expectations are that watersheds will
provide reports on an annual basis and regional reports, rolling up watershed level work
and describing work on regional issues, will be completed bi-annually. Implementation
metrics that describe how well actions are completed will show changes annually, while
longer-term metrics (e.g. habitat action effectiveness monitoring) will only show change
over longer periods (every 5-10 years). The first round of reporting is expected to be
completed by the fall of 2008, in time for communicating key conclusions to state and
federal budget-makers. The content and structure of these reports will be determined in
discussions during 2007 toward finalizing the overall V&A System.
Developing Common Messages of Progress. The final step in the reporting process is to
pull the key messages from the completed watershed and regional reports into a single
product that can communicate to a wide audience at a high level. This will be an
important tool to use with funders and the interested public. Developing this short list of
key messages will be facilitated by preceding steps that make the reporting process fully
transparent. To the extent that these steps are effective and participants are engaged from
the start, key messages should be readily apparent.
C. Implementing Effectiveness Approaches
This system will support three approaches to provide assurance that commitments to
implement recovery actions are being met, create a positive and encouraging environment
in which implementation will proceed, and foster creative and strategic recovery actions
that respond to new information. Overall, these actions will help augment and sustain
trust among implementers, H managers, funders and the public that our salmon recovery
investments across the ESU and in watersheds are sited, sized and scoped to get the
necessary results. A fourth type of effectiveness approaches will be taken to ensure that
this system is meeting its intended purposes and in doing so is providing value to
implementers and the salmon recovery community at large. Each of these effectiveness
approaches, as described conceptually in this section, is geared toward implementation
following the completion of progress reporting by watersheds and the region. The scope
of these approaches will be finalized through discussions and agreement at regional and
watershed salmon recovery tables.
Action 1: Verifying Recovery Action Implementation
21
One assumption underlying recovery efforts is that implementers are proceeding in good
faith with efforts to implement the recovery actions called for in the Recovery Plan or 3
Year Work Plans, and are sustaining their commitment to the achievement of recovery
goals. This system supports several avenues that will allow interested parties to learn
about how well these commitments are being met. These avenues can be thought of as
―Levels of Verification.‖ These levels roughly correspond to the amount of additional
work – beyond reporting task previously described – each would entail. The Levels of
Verification currently being considered include the following:
Level One Verification: watersheds, co-managers, and other plan implementers
(local, state, federal, non-governmental, etc.) report annually on actions
implemented and scheduled; comparison points for gauging follow-through will
include 3 Year Work Plans, the Puget Sound Harvest Plan, Hatchery Genetic
Management Plans, and other appropriate and formal recovery action lists
contributing to recovery strategies; regional-scale programs/projects, report on an
annual or multi-year timeframe
Level Two Verification: funders report to the region and watersheds, on an
appropriate timeframe, on the implementation rate of actions they have contracted
to fund;
Level Three Verification: overall review of plan implementation that looks at
long-term effectiveness and success of integrated strategies every 5-10 years
Action 2: Establishing Accountability
Accountability – for following-up on commitments to implement recovery actions and,
over time, producing the desired and necessary results – will be a useful tool for keeping
the region focused on achieving near- and long-term goals. It builds trust among
implementers that they are all being held to the same expectation for doing their part in
contributing to recovery. It also builds confidence among funders that their investments
are worthwhile and are being supported by the investments of others. An accountability
framework will be established and activated in ways that embrace the existing
community-based, collaborative structure for recovery plan implementation. Through
this framework implementers will be accountable to each other, funders, the general
public, and NOAA Fisheries in their ESA administration and enforcement role.
This framework will work in unison with existing accountability mechanisms established
to meet specific needs under the Endangered Species Act, specifically plans or programs
that have been developed to meet section 4(d), 7, or 10 standards and that have active
reporting requirements.
The accountability framework will incorporate accountability mechanisms for the
following specific results. In some cases the accountability mechanisms may already be
prescribed in a regulation, for example uplisting a threatened species under the ESA.
22
Expending conservation dollars on priority actions
Meeting commitments to implement actions, as expressed in letters, resolutions,
state budgets, watershed 3-year plans
Integrating the Hs and maintaining that integration as a strategy is adapted
Adapting recovery strategy in response to implementation and results status
assessments and new, credible information
Getting populations on a sufficiently steep recovery trajectory, accounting for
uncontrollable environmental factors
Eventually, reaching watershed goals (population goals from Puget Sound
Technical Recovery Team (TRT) or watershed approved goals that use TRT goals
as reference)
The accountability framework incorporates, and will rely primarily upon, actions for
publicly rewarding those that are doing a good job in meeting implementation
commitments and seeing results. The framework also incorporates, but will employ
sparingly, actions that are more pointed in specifying the need for corrective actions.
The following list includes options for accountability measures, and presents a rough
progression of measures from reward-based to corrective. This list is for discussion
purposes at the All-H Leadership Group and Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council, is
not exhaustive, and may include measures that these groups would choose not to employ.
Publicly rewarding implementers who meet their commitments and show results
Not being among those that are rewarded for their efforts and results
Peer and public awareness that commitments aren’t being fulfilled
Reduced flexibility from funders for project delays and shifting funds to
alternative projects
Loss of state funding for broader range of projects than salmon projects (e.g.,
transportation, economic development)
Federal agencies take over recovery efforts and prescribe recovery actions
Loss of federal funding for recovery efforts
Action 3: Adapting Recovery Strategies
23
This system is intended to work within an adaptive management program that is
integrated across regional and watershed levels and across the Hs. Its purposes strongly
emphasize core concepts of adaptive management, including transparency and the use of
measures geared toward showing progress toward stated goals. The final purpose of this
system is intended to recognize that it plays a critical role in the adaptation and
improvement of recovery strategies based on new information.
As currently envisioned, this system assumes that recovery strategy adaptation processes
will be put in place at the regional and watershed scales. These processes will employ
the tools and products of this system to consider and decide on actions that are necessary
to ensure recovery efforts keep populations on a recovery trajectory as 3 year work plans
or 10 year watershed plans are completed or become dated. This system will also support
watershed or regional scale responses to new information on populations, management
opportunities or constraints, or habitat conditions that will influence the effectiveness of
current recovery strategies.
Several key aspects of adapting recovery strategies that should inform the final structure
of the V&A System, and that will need specific discussion as it is finalized, include the
degree of change in a strategy that warrants producing a revised watershed or regional
plan; the frequency and magnitude of changes in strategy that can be accommodated
within key budget and policy making processes; and maintaining the validity of the
indicator set as conditions change.
Action 4: Improving the V&A System
Implementing this system will require a careful balance between ensuring reliable and
consistent access to credible information and keeping enough flexibility to improve how
well the system meets its purposes. At least two important factors will drive the need for
flexibility. Firstly, this system is an initial attempt at addressing a complex set of
technical and programmatic challenges inherent in efforts as broad and information rich
as salmon recovery. An important and beneficial phase of learning and testing will take
place as it is put in place and used. It is very likely that during this phase system
managers and users will identify specific changes that would improve its effectiveness.
Secondly, the focus of the system – salmon and their environment – is rich with
variability and unpredictability, over the relatively short timeframe of a 10-year
watershed plan and certainly over the decades it will take to reach recovery goals. In this
context a rigid, static system will quickly become obsolete and would be a costly and
ineffective investment.
Several tools will be used to ensure that necessary improvements are identified and
implemented in a timely way. These tools entail maintaining a close working
relationship between those managing the system, those providing information, and those
who turn to it for information. These tools include:
Seeking feedback from users. This can be done in several ways, including
providing a contact name on system web pages, conducting surveys of users, and
24
convening discussions of users to critique and troubleshoot elements of the
system
Monitoring the extent to which the system and its products are used. This could
involve, for example, tracking the number of web page hits, or the number of
documents requested through the system
Establishing performance measures for the system and reporting them as part of
regional reporting
Conducting periodic independent reviews of system performance
D. Information Access and Management
The information management elements of the V&A System will ensure
1. Easily accessible and user-friendly avenues for getting information about how
recovery efforts are progressing at the population, watershed and regional (ESU)
scale
2. Continuous, ―real-time‖ access to reported data that describe the status of
implementation efforts and progress toward recovery goals
3. Access to published reports that distill metrics data into conclusions about where
recovery efforts have moved watersheds and populations and where these efforts
are headed in the future
In order to meet these objectives the V&A System will employ an interactive, web-based
communication framework.6 This framework will be regional in scale but will have a
strong emphasis on, and will be a tool to promote, watershed-based recovery actions. A
web-based framework is appropriate for this task because the technology is widely
accessible to implementers and those interested in tracking and understanding recovery
efforts. The web-based framework offers useful flexibility for responding to the unique
needs and circumstances across watersheds and the region, and would require a modest
capital and operating investment to be effectively deployed and maintained. Scoping and
building this web-based framework will be a significant focus of work over the next two
years. Key issues to address will include the extent to which existing watershed and
regional web pages and databases will be incorporated into the framework and the
support (capacity and expertise) watersheds and implementers will need to tie their work
into the framework.
Watershed groups and co-managers will be the primary coordinator and compiler of the
metrics data and indicator information needed for reporting. Information addressing
6
A separate discussion document and “dummy” web page presenting concepts to consider for
this framework are being prepared as a complement to this document.
25
regional questions unique to issues of implementation and effectiveness of actions across
the Hs will be compiled by a regional body and co-managers.
Building, operating and maintaining a responsive and current information management
system are critical roles in meeting transparency and accountability objectives. Those
performing these critical roles must show a strong appreciation of this responsibility,
exhibit expertise in managing complex information management systems for natural
resource decision-making, and have the capacity to make a long-term commitment to
performing these roles. In turn, they must be supported by funding and other resources
sufficient to perform these roles.
E. Timeline for V&A System Development and Implementation
This document presents the current, most complete view of a V&A System that meets the
verification and accountability needs of the Chinook Recovery Plan. Building,
implementing and refining this system will entail a series of steps that will involve
connecting and adapting existing tools and processes and creating new tools, processes
and relationships (see Figure D). The current expectation for the implementation of this
system is that it will be operational by the first quarter of 2008 and will support the initial
round of coordinated, region-wide reporting in the Fall of 2008. Even in meeting that
deadline the V&A System will be in its infancy. Implementers should expect to find that
portions of the System should be improved to facilitate ease of use and meeting its
purposes. Ideas for improvements will be sought and collected on an ongoing basis and
will be used to guide evaluation and adaptation of the V&A System at regular intervals.
26
Habitat Protection and Restoration
This document contains draft content for the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan. Some of the language in this document is
taken from the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and other related documents
produced by Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Members of the Adaptive Management
and Monitoring Steering Committee made contributions to this draft. This section, like all
other sections of the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Adaptive Management and
Monitoring Plan, is an evolving document that will change as needs change and new
knowledge arises.
A. Goals and Objectives for Regional Habitat Protection and Restoration
The goals and objectives listed here are specifically for the role of habitat protection and
restoration in Puget Sound salmon recovery. They set the stage for the types of strategies
needed to achieve the stated goals and for the type of monitoring that will be necessary to
assess habitat protection and restoration progress.
Goals
Protect existing functioning fresh and saltwater habitat and habitat-forming
processes
Restore and reconnect critical fresh and saltwater habitat and habitat-forming
processes by preserving restoration options and addressing key habitat factors
reducing or limiting salmon populations in estuaries, mainstem areas, upper
watersheds, freshwater tributaries, and nearshore marine areas
Objectives
Improve the certainty of results from the suite of habitat protection tools available
to the region (i.e. regulatory, voluntary and incentive-based)
Address habitat factors that limit the recovery of salmon populations and create
bottlenecks in their lifecycle
Improve the certainty of results from habitat recovery actions
Contribute through habitat protection and restoration actions to an increase in
Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters that eventually achieve the
individual population goals identified in the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan
Protect and restore essential habitat at a rate faster than essential habitat is lost
Leverage existing tools and programs such as the Forest and Fish rules, the U.S.
Forest Service Plan, the State’s water quality program, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission programs, etc.
Support the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
delisting framework for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) by providing information on the status and trends of
factors limiting the recovery of salmon populations
27
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Contribute to improving conditions for other listed species such as bull trout and
Hood Canal summer chum salmon
Key uncertainties and assumptions related to habitat protection and restoration that
need to be addressed and tested by this adaptive management and monitoring plan
include:
• Do the combined suite of existing protection programs and tools effectively
prevent further habitat degradation and allow habitat restoration to improve
baseline habitat conditions and processes?
• Can this region recover the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) in conjunction with projected population growth?
• Are the correct and most important factors limiting salmon population recovery at
various lifecycle stages being addressed?
• Are the hypotheses related to habitat strategies and actions correct and helping the
ESU and individual populations move toward recovery?
B. The habitat protection and restoration strategy
The overarching habitat strategy calls for a combination of habitat protection and
restoration actions. Both categories of actions are considered essential to the
improvement of VSP parameters of individual Chinook salmon populations in Puget
Sound. This strategy emphasizes protecting existing habitat functions, because habitat
restoration alone can only stem or slow salmon declines. This is particularly important
when considering the increased population growth in the Puget Sound region (an
estimated 1.4 million more people by 2020) and its associated land use impacts. Further
reductions in habitat quality and quantity would require more restoration at greater cost to
achieve recovery goals. Therefore, protection is necessary to keep habitat quality and
capacity at current levels and provide a foundation on which restoration actions can
increase habitat capacity and productivity. Protection also preserves the potential for
future restoration options. Restoration of habitat complexity and connectivity is necessary
to ultimately achieve a sustainable increase in VSP parameters. The habitat protection
and restoration strategies are assumed to provide benefits to other listed species such as
bull trout and Hood Canal summer chum salmon.
The habitat protection and restoration strategy is carried out at both the local watershed7
and regional ESU scales:
Protect existing habitat
• Watershed. Assess effectiveness of protection efforts and make improvements
where needed with community leadership and stakeholder input; update and
7
For purposes of this document, watershed is defined according to the fourteen Puget Sound planning areas
as indicated on the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound map
(http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/images/maps/planning.pdf)
28
Habitat Protection and Restoration
implement protection programs (e.g. Critical Areas Ordinances and Shoreline
Master Program)
• Regional. Provide technical and political support to improve (where needed)
regulatory, incentive-based, voluntary, and educational protection programs at
local, state and federal scales
Restore and reconnect habitat and habitat-forming processes
• Watershed Implement priority and appropriately sequenced restoration actions
from the uplands, the mainstem, and key tributaries to the estuaries and
nearshore marine areas.
• Regional. Provide technical and political support to refine and implement
tribal, state, and federal programs that support watershed efforts and affect all
watersheds and the ESU (e.g. water quantity and quality); develop incentive-
based programs; refine and improve cross-watershed strategies; develop
strategies for risks such as climate change.
The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan identifies six specific cross-watershed habitat
strategies that merit particular attention or additional effort to increase the certainty of
achieving individual watershed recovery plan outcomes and of contributing to overall
ESU recovery (Vol. I, Chapter 6). These components of the Recovery Plan are common
to all watershed areas and need both regional and local attention to resolve. Due to their
importance, these specific cross-watershed strategies will have metrics tailored to them in
the habitat monitoring plan described later in this section. The general aspects of each are
presented below along with a short description of near-term steps that have been
identified to advance these issues since submission of the Draft Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan to NOAA in June 2005.
1. Habitat protection
Improve the certainty of results of the various protection efforts by conducting
an analysis of the effects of existing programs on habitats and fish
Improve existing regulatory and voluntary protection programs and continue
implementation at the local, state, and federal levels of government
Coordinate regulatory and voluntary protection actions at the appropriate scale
to ensure protection objectives are met
Near-term steps. Implement the Protection Initiative in San Juan County (see
Appendix B for detailed description) and several other watershed areas in
2007 (specific number to be determined); in 2007, form a Recovery Council
task force to work with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to
make improvements to the Hydraulic Permit Applications (HPAs).
2. Nearshore
29
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Protect and restore key fresh and saltwater processes and habitats from
physical or biological disruptions
Reduce the risk from non-indigenous species and other changes to food web
dynamics
For the purposes of this document, nearshore is defined as the waters
extending up rivers and streams to the upstream limit of tidal influence, along
the marine shoreline at the line of extreme high water, and out to 20 meter
depths (those areas that receive sufficient sunlight to potentially support the
growth of attached algae). The nearshore also includes upland and backshore
areas that directly influence conditions in the aquatic region described in the
first sentence (adapted from the Puget Sound Action Team’s report, ―Regional
Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery,‖ June 28, 2005).
Near-term steps. Work with the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership and local
watersheds to improve the region’s ability to prioritize nearshore protection
and restoration actions that help salmon.
3. Water quality
Effectively implement water quality protection tools at the local, state, and
federal levels
Ensure water quality by adhering to the policies of the Clean Water Act:
o Establish and periodically review and revise water quality standards
o Perform water quality assessments to identify water bodies that are not
meeting the standards, and to list such water bodies every two years
o Develop cleanup plans (―total maximum daily loads,‖ or TMDLs) for
listed water bodies
Near-term steps. Coordinate with Puget Sound Partnership efforts to achieve
these objectives.
4. In-stream flows
Develop a schedule and approach for setting flows
Develop an approach for improving the science that connects flows to salmon
needs
Develop a ten year plan to achieve flows that support salmon recovery
Near-term steps. The Washington State Department of Ecology will establish
flows for identified watersheds by 2009 (i.e. Skokomish-Dosewallips,
Quilcene-Snow, Elwha-Dungeness and Samish), and is expected to complete
a strategy for achieving flows in 2007.
5. Forests and fish
30
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Increase coordination between forest managers and salmon recovery managers
within existing regulatory frameworks to:
o Share lessons learned from monitoring and research activities
o Request specific and strategic adaptive management projects for
consideration by the Forest Practices Board
o Communicate monitoring and research needs and the studies underway
for habitat functions covered by Forest and Fish, and communicate
about monitoring and research needs and programs that will be
covered by other groups
o Coordinate restoration efforts such as sequencing of fish passage
barrier projects from the lower to upper watersheds
o Work together on legislation and fundraising where mutually
beneficial
o Work together to help small forest land owners implement fish-
friendly practices without undue economic hardship
Near-term steps. Start with a focus on small forest landowners; host a forum
in 2007 to advance the issues and seek mutual solutions.
6. Farms and fish
Protect and restore fish habitat on farmlands
Keep farmland in farming
Improve farming’s bottom line
Near-term steps. Strengthen and expand relationships with agricultural
community; support additional funding for expanding incentive programs that
help farmers protect and restore fish habitat on their lands; seek partners to
help meet the economic objectives that improve farming’s bottom line.
C. Organizing framework for monitoring habitat actions
The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team stated the importance of linking the means
through which landscape processes produce habitat conditions, and how these in turn
affect salmon populations (Ruckelshaus et al. 2003). Therefore, the habitat monitoring
plan in this chapter is organized to look at habitat management actions as they relate to
factors limiting population recovery and the actions’ effects on habitat conditions and
habitat-forming processes (see Figure 1). The effect on salmon populations as measured
by the Viable Salmon population (VSP) parameters is discussed in the H-Integration
chapter since it is ultimately the coordination of management actions across all H-sectors
(habitat, hatcheries, and harvest) that combine to achieve recovery.
31
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Figure 1. Conceptual model showing how the effects of habitat management actions
addressing limiting factors link to habitat-forming processes and habitat conditions, and
in turn how improvements in those processes and conditions link to changes in salmon
population status.
Habitat protection and restoration actions related to factors
limiting the recovery of salmon populations
Habitat-forming Habitat conditions
processes
• Stream bank erosion
• Sediment transport & storage • Gravel and substrate
• Hydrology • Water quantity & quality
• Organic matter inputs • Insects and food supply
• Temperature and light • Temperature and shade
• Floodplain function • Channel roughness
• Riparian function • Marshes, eelgrass & kelp beds
• Nearshore function
Salmon population status
• Abundance
• Productivity
• Spatial structure
• Diversity
Short and long-term results from habitat management actions
To appropriately use the data and analysis generated from monitoring habitat protection
and restoration activities, it is important to understand what results can be expected over
different time intervals. Actions performed within the habitat protection and restoration
strategy have short (5 to 10 years) and long-term (more than 10 years) results.
In the short-term, there should be an improvement in the status of factors potentially
limiting salmon population recovery resulting from improved habitat conditions.
The following habitat factors that potentially limit recovery of salmon have been
identified for the Puget Sound region:
Floodplain and in-river channel structure
32
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Nearshore and estuarine conditions
Riparian area and in-river large woody debris
Sediments in spawning gravels
Water quality and temperature
Instream flows
Barriers to fish passage
It is important to note that factors reducing or limiting population recovery need to be
understood in the context of the salmon lifecycle. Bottlenecks may occur and need to be
addressed at particular stages in the salmon lifecycle. These bottlenecks may change over
time as restoration efforts improve conditions for one stage, highlighting issues at
another. New scientific information resulting from monitoring and research efforts may
also identify different sets of factors that become important to address in the future.
In the long-term, to the extent they are habitat-limited, we should see an improvement in
the VSP parameters of individual salmon populations as a result of increased habitat
quality and quantity. It is important to remember that this plan is not only trying to assess
habitat improvement, but is also trying to make sure that the salmon recovery steps taken
lead to the ultimate goal of biological improvement of salmon populations, measured by
the VSP parameters.
D. Monitoring habitat protection and restoration actions
The regional habitat protection and restoration monitoring plan will look at the
implementation and effectiveness of both watershed and regional scale strategies and
actions. At the watershed scale, it will monitor the specific actions tailored to local
conditions as detailed in the individual watershed plans and subsequent 3-year work
programs. At the regional scale, it will monitor issues common to all watersheds and
requiring both local and regional attention to resolve as highlighted in the regional
strategies described above.
The three types of monitoring for the habitat component of the adaptive management and
monitoring plan are:
Implementation. Did we do what we said we were going to do? How well are we
implementing our habitat protection and restoration strategies?
Effectiveness. Did our actions produce the desired physical habitat changes?
Status and trends. In what direction are trends going for each metric in relation to a
baseline?
Trend monitoring described in this plan will not only inform regional decision-makers,
but also local, state, and federal decision-makers. To do this it is necessary to define
common habitat metrics to be monitored across the state so they can be integrated into a
statewide picture of salmon recovery progress. The metrics used for this level of
33
Habitat Protection and Restoration
monitoring are described at the end of this section. The process of determining statewide
indicators is ongoing, the ultimate goal being that high-level indicators used for statewide
progress monitoring are also informative and meaningful to regional and local decision-
makers.
Each of the monitoring categories above is described in more detail in this adaptive
management and monitoring plan’s introduction. Validation monitoring, a fourth type of
monitoring that looks at VSP parameter status, is described in the H-Integration chapter
of this plan.
Each watershed recovery planning area will be reporting monitoring data for regional
purposes. To enable watershed data to be summarized meaningfully at a regional level,
regional monitoring metrics must be related to recovery goals. This is different from
some examples of single-system (e.g. one watershed) adaptive management plans, where
metrics are often based on units like ―acres restored‖ or ―number of fish‖. While these
types of units will still be informative to individual watersheds, a different approach will
be needed to transform these unit-based metrics into meaningful data for regional
decision-makers.
As a hypothetical example, it is relatively vague to report for the Puget Sound region that
1,000 acres of estuary were restored in 2006. It might be possible that one watershed
restored 900 of those regional acres and the remaining thirteen watersheds restored 100
acres. So from the perspective of trying to restore every estuary within the Puget Sound
region, not much happened, but that isn’t evident based on a metric reporting only
acreage. For this example, regional estuarine restoration should be related to goals within
each watershed, and then each watershed’s average progress toward their goal should be
reported regionally. This concept is simple, but has meaning, and is described in further
detail below.
The following pages describe the specific management questions and associated metrics
organized by the three monitoring types.
34
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Implementation monitoring. Results from implementation monitoring show progress in short-term time frames, as little as annually. Implementation monitoring is basically an
accounting tool that tells us how well we are performing the recovery actions we said we were going to perform. As years progress, trends for each of these metrics can be
developed.
Table 1. Summary of implementation metrics for local and regional habitat protection and restoration strategies. The Xs in the right hand columns denote for which scales and
categories (WS = watershed; R = regional) these metrics will need to be reported.
Habitat protection Monitoring/
V&A focus question Reporting
and restoration Metric(s) Indicator(s) reporting
o Management questions interval
strategy category parties WS R
Are priority actions being implemented
on the anticipated timeline? Are there Trend line displaying %
% priority actions completed
obstacles to implementation? priority actions completed
Priority actions relative to number proposed (Table Annual X X
o Did the highest priority actions get relative to number
2)
done? (Assumption: three-year proposed (Figure 2)
work plans can be prioritized)
% actions completed in each
o Are actions being implemented for
category of factors that limit salmon Bar chart comparing %
all factors that limit salmon
recovery (in relation to three-year actions completed for
recovery? (See section C; Annual X X
work plans; assumption is that each category over time
degraded floodplain and in-river
actions can be sorted into one or (Figure 3)
channel structure, etc.)
more categories; Table 4)
Tables describing each
watershed’s
understanding of life cycle
o Are the limiting factors being
bottlenecks and how they
addressed linked to bottlenecks in
are being addressed (e.g.
the salmon life cycle? If so, are X X
egg to fry survival is a
actions addressing these specific
bottleneck affected by
bottlenecks?
high flows, so priority
actions involve flow
management)
o Are sufficient resources available to % funding received relative to Trend line displaying %
carry out the actions detailed in funding needs funding received relative
each watershed’s three year work % projects completed relative to % to needs (Figure 2)
Funding and
Resources
plans? (Assumption: three-year projects proposed to stay on a Trend line displaying % Annual X X
work plans reflect the magnitude of recovery trajectory (Table 2) projects completed
projects needed to stay on a % protection actions implemented relative to % projects
recovery trajectory) relative to total number proposed proposed (Figure 2)
35
Habitat Protection and Restoration
% restoration actions implemented
relative to total number proposed
Pie chart organizing
amount of habitat
Amount of contribution from each
o Where is money coming from? protection and restoration Annual X
funding source in the region
contribution by funding
source
Updated as
o Are existing protection programs Descriptions of current
new
(regulatory, voluntary, and protection programs and
Protection regulations
incentive-based) being how they relate to X X
programs arise or current
implemented to protect salmon protecting salmon
regulations
populations? populations
change
o Are regulatory updates (e.g. Critical Description of any
Updated as
Areas Ordinances, Shoreline inconsistencies between
regulations are X X
Master Plans) consistent with regulations and salmon
implemented
recovery plans? recovery needs
Table comparing number
of proposed, completed,
and underway regional Annual (or
strategy actions organized every three
o How many of the cross-watershed by state, federal, tribal, years in
Cross-watershed
habitat strategies (currently 6) are regional, and non- conjunction X
strategies
being implemented? government groups (Table with new 3
3); include description of year work
strategy action plan with plans)
scientific/political
justifications
o How many of the key habitat
Research plans appended
protection and restoration technical
to this document as they
uncertainties (yet to be prioritized)
Assumptions are established X
are being addressed through
Research findings
specific research plans?(See Table
published and distributed
5)
o Are the current protection tools and
Develop future metrics based on Description of Puget
actions maintaining habitat at the
lessons from the Puget Sound Sound Protection Initiative X
same level and allowing restoration
Protection Initiative (see Appendix B)
to build upon that foundation?
36
Habitat Protection and Restoration
GIS data layers
comparing projected
o Considering Puget Sound’s
growth to proposed
populations growing by 1.4 million
habitat protection and
people by 2020, will we actually be X
restoration areas; is there
able to sustain habitat at levels
overlap or do habitat
needed to recovery the ESU?
needs and projected
growth conflict?
% monitoring projects (habitat
implementation and effectiveness)
implemented relative to number Trend line displaying %
o Is the agreed upon amount of monitoring projects agreed upon to monitoring projects
Monitoring Annual X X
monitoring taking place? meaningfully describe habitat implemented relative to
action implementation, agreed upon number
effectiveness, and habitat status
and trends
Progress report describing
existing monitoring Annual (or
programs that relate to every three
o Is coordination across monitoring Cost savings compared to cost if salmon recovery and how years in
X
programs taking place? efforts were repeated they are being utilized; conjunction
descriptions of efficiencies with 3 year
of scale if efforts were work plans)
repeated
37
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Information described in Table 1 should be based on information submitted by
watersheds in their three-year work plans. Storage of this information should be
coordinated with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Habitat Work
Schedule and PRISM database. More detailed work describing this coordinated effort is
still needed. The Verification and Accountability System, which will act as the main
interface for regional adaptive management and monitoring information, will take the
need for this coordination into account during development.
The tables and figures below illustrate how some of the implementation metrics from the
implementation monitoring table (Table 1) could be summarized and displayed. Each
watershed group and all entities reporting information will also need to provide habitat
narratives providing their best reasoned judgment explaining their results.
Table 2. Example table summarizing data on the overall proposed and priority habitat
action implementation by watershed. There is a distinction between priority actions and
overall actions because there may be instances where actions of lesser priority are able to
be opportunistically completed because of landowner willingness, last minute funding, or
other reasons (Note: all numbers are randomly generated and have no relationship to
watershed numbers)
# overall
# priority
proposed % %
Watershed habitat
habitat completed completed
actions
actions
1 60 60 57 34
2 57 5 31 15
3 33 61 57 65
4 32 17 54 62
5 45 28 32 74
6 36 51 31 88
7 36 50 58 87
8 32 13 31 21
9 40 24 48 7
10 41 21 53 39
11 56 16 50 92
12 47 77 46 92
13 47 50 47 81
14 33 59 35 79
REGION* 38% 60%
* Based on average of all watersheds
Table 3. Example table summarizing implementation of projects related to specific cross-
watershed strategies by agencies and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs).
Others
State agency Tribal agency Federal agency (regional body, NGOs,
private parties, etc.)
Cross- # # # #
% % % %
watershed proposed proposed proposed proposed
completed completed completed completed
strategy actions actions actions actions
Habitat
5 40% 2 100% 4 75% 2 100%
protection
Water
4 75% 2 50% 1 100% 2 100%
quality
38
Habitat Protection and Restoration
In-stream
2 50% 3 66% 1 100% 4 75%
flows
Forests
4 50% 5 100% 2 50% 3 66%
and fish
Farms and
1 100% 2 100% 5 80% 3 66%
fish
These previous tables can serve as an annual template that will then be the basis for trend
data that produces this type of graph:
Figure 2. Example of regional trends in implementation metrics for habitat actions. Each
data point represents the average percentage of habitat actions completed in each
watershed.
80
70
Percentage completed
60
50 All habitat
40 actions
30
20 Priority
habitat
10 actions
0
2006 2007 2008
Year
This summary graph, while open to interpretation, would be informative to decision
makers. One possible interpretation of this example is that the implementation of priority
habitat actions is rising steadily, while the implementation of all habitat actions between
2007 and 2008 improved at a better rate than those implemented between 2006 and 2007.
It will be necessary to know whether implementation is effective for each limiting factor
and cross-watershed strategy as well, thus these implementation metrics would also be
organized at those levels to further assess progress.
39
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Table 4. Example table summarizing proposed habitat protection and restoration actions
designed to improve degraded floodplain and in-river channel structure (one of seven
habitat factors that potentially limit salmon populations). This example table would be
repeated for every factor. (Note: all numbers are randomly generated and have no
relationship to watershed numbers)
Watershed # actions to improve floodplain % completed
function and in-river channel
structure
1 19 8
2 56 78
3 30 20
4 41 46
5 33 92
6 47 47
7 50 82
8 35 68
9 39 67
10 56 41
11 52 52
12 34 26
13 33 17
14 58 9
REGION 47%
After this table is filled in for every category, the following graph could be produced:
Figure 3. Example of regional trends in implementation of habitat actions organized by
habitat factors potentially limiting salmon recovery (denoted by numbers 1-7). Each data
point represents the average percentage of habitat actions completed in each watershed.
100
Percentage completed
80
60 2006
2007
40 2008
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Habitat limiting factor
Some interpretations from this example graph could include the following:
1) Implementation of actions meant to address habitat factors 2, 3, and 5 seem to be
progressing well and don’t have any systematic problems, at least regionally.
40
Habitat Protection and Restoration
2) Actions meant to address habitat factors 1, 4, and 6 are being implemented, but at
a lesser rate than others.
3) The implementation of actions meant to address habitat factor 7 seem to have
greatly improved between 2007 and 2008. It might be useful to examine to why
this happened and if explaining this change could help guide the implementation
of actions meant to address habitat factors 1, 4, and 6.
There are other possible interpretations for this graph, but the three examples above
illustrate the usefulness of this type of figure.
It may be determined in future drafts that there are factors identified by watersheds as
critical to salmon recovery that are not included in the main habitat factors list but are
relevant to monitor. It is important to remember that, within the region, not just the
current list of main habitat factors should be improved. The status of other factors should
not be degrading either. A plan to develop a list of these other factors common to
watersheds is underway by Shared Strategy staff.
Implementation monitoring should begin immediately with adoption of the Regional
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan and be reported on an annual basis using the
tables and figure templates described above as a starting point.
Implementation of research projects that examine technical uncertainties and assumptions
in the habitat protection and restoration strategy will be an important part of the adaptive
management process. The table below is composed of research questions that have been
raised during the development of this plan. This table should be refined, added to, and
prioritized in the near-term to help guide future research.
Table 5. Technical uncertainties and assumptions in the habitat protection and restoration
strategy.
Are habitat/population performance model outputs a close approximation of the real world?
How does climate change affect salmon recovery?
What is the extent of selectivity from anthropogenic activities in the population? Are ongoing
anthropogenic activities inducing selective mortality or habitat change within or out of population
boundaries?
Do historical conditions represent a reasonable template for a viable population?
Does spatial structure have permanent or appropriate seasonal connectivity to allow adequate
migration between spawning, rearing, and migration patches? Are patches close enough to allow
the appropriate exchange of spawners and the expansion of a population into underused patches?
How well is juvenile Chinook habitat use understood in freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitat?
How well are juvenile Chinook survival rates understood in freshwater, estuarine, and marine
habitat?
Is there a robust landscape-based process model for determining population growth effects on
freshwater habitat and VSP parameters?
What are avian and piscivore predation rates?
41
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Effectiveness monitoring. Results from effectiveness monitoring show progress in short-
term time frames (approximately five to ten year periods) and inform whether habitat
protection and restoration actions produced the type of physical habitat change predicted
from a hypothesis. This type of monitoring typically takes place at individual project,
stream reach, or watershed scales (Roni 2005), but not usually at scales greater than a
watershed because each watershed has a unique suite of habitat attributes. Thus,
monitoring the effectiveness of habitat management actions at a regional scale is
challenging because it must account for the different needs of individual, unique
watersheds. This adaptive management and monitoring plan proposes collecting a
combination of data that includes both a summary of project-level effectiveness and a
summary of regional trends in habitat metrics (baseline, status, and trends monitoring).
This plan’s definition of effectiveness monitoring does not include biological responses
to habitat protection and restoration actions. Biological responses to management actions
fall under the term ―validation monitoring‖ in this plan and are discussed further in the H-
integration chapter.
Project-level effectiveness summarized for a regional monitoring program
Ideally, each individual habitat action in each watershed should be paired with a
hypothesis that includes expected physical habitat change, expected biological response,
and an expected timeline for realizing each change. This type of hypothesis frames a
specific monitoring plan for that action and allows monitoring results to indicate after a
certain period of years whether the desired physical habitat change was realized. But
considering the realistic availability of resources and individual watershed capacity for
monitoring habitat actions, it is more likely that watersheds will have groups of multiple
actions that are based on a general unifying hypothesis. For example, woody debris
projects may be justified based on the knowledge that they improve channel complexity,
form spawning habitat, reconnect riparian zones to the channel, and improve other habitat
features. All of these benefits potentially increase the productivity of individual salmon
populations.
Therefore, this monitoring plan proposes the following to produce effectiveness
monitoring data for the Puget Sound region, with the expectation that the proposed
approach will be further discussed and refined:
Watersheds organize habitat projects by categories of factors that potentially limit
salmon population recovery (Table 6).
For each category, the watershed develops general descriptions of the physical
habitat changes they expect to happen from their projects (see Table 6 for
examples). When possible, individual projects should define more specific
hypotheses that include project specific measurements (e.g. create a pool:riffle
ratio of X:Y in stream reach Z in 10 years)
42
Habitat Protection and Restoration
o Example — Potential habitat limiting factor: degraded floodplain
and in-river channel structure. These projects are generally expected to
improve flow regime dynamics, reconnect floodplain, riparian, and
channel zones, and increase channel complexity. In turn these
improvements should increase food supply for juveniles, increase
survival of juveniles, provide cover for juveniles and adults, and
increase available spawning habitat. We expect to see physical habitat
changes in 5 years after project implementation.
43
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Table 6. Hypothetical table describing categories of habitat protection and restoration actions. Included for each category of actions
are expected physical outcomes, biological outcomes, timeframe for expected outcomes to be realized, and supporting references
(important note: these examples are condensed for brevity and have not been researched completely; references are not real).
Category of
Expected
habitat References that support
Examples of actions Expected physical outcome Expected biological timeframe to
protection and expectations (listed references
within each category caused by action outcome realize
restoration are not real)
expectations
actions
Decrease sedimentation
Seeding Improved flow regime Increase salmon
Planting Increase wood available egg survival Physical: 5 years Chambers 1964
Riparian forest
Removal of for recruitment to Increase Sergeant 1978
restoration
non-native channel invertebrate Biological: 10 years Kramer 1984
vegetation Increase growth of production
desirable vegetation
Provide cover for
Large woody aquatic biota
Increase channel
debris Increase Physical: 5 years
Instream complexity Duncan 2000
installation available
restoration Trap debris MacIlroy 1984
Gravel spawning habitat Biological: 10 years
Prevent erosion
addition Provide high-flow
refuge
Levee
Increased
removal Improved flow regime
available rearing
Levee Increased channel Physical: 5 years Perich-Anderson 1981
Floodplain habitat
setback movement Lewis 2001
reconnection Increase
Creation of Increase connection Biological: 10 years Ponzio 2005
available
off-channel with riparian zone
spawning habitat
ponds
44
Habitat Protection and Restoration
(Project-level effectiveness monitoring cont’d)
A watershed determines a subset of projects within each potential habitat
limiting factor that can be intensively monitored for effectiveness. Two
resources provide monitoring guidance for the Puget Sound region:
o Roni, P., editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
o Salmon Recovery Funding Board monitoring documents:
http://www.iac.wa.gov/srfb/docs.htm#monitoring (links active as of 17
December 2006)
These documents discuss the details of designing monitoring projects, specific
protocols, data collection techniques, etc. These two sources are not at all the
only monitoring guidance documents available. More documents should be
added to this list as discussion of this topic continues.
For those intensively monitored projects detailed hypotheses should be
formed that include:
o Hypothesized physical change (detailed description – e.g. size of pool,
area reconnected to floodplain, etc.)
o Hypothesized biological change (detailed description – e.g. fish usage
expectations, increased prey base and utilization by juveniles, etc.)
o Description of how this action sequences with local harvest and
hatchery actions (see H-integration chapter for more detail)
o Time frame for changes (pool formed to expected size within 5 years,
increased prey base in 5 years, etc.)
Monitoring protocols would be based on the information needed to determine
whether the hypothesized physical changes were realized
After the time frames to see expected changes occur for each project, an
analysis of monitoring data would determine whether the hypothesized
physical changes were realized
After the time frames concluded, the initial phase of effectiveness monitoring
for the individual project would be complete
If deemed valuable, after the initial effectiveness time frame, projects would
move into an effectiveness monitoring scheme to determine whether the
realized changes were persisting over time. This would involve less intensive
sampling effort
After monitoring on the initial effectiveness of projects (did the action
produce the hypothesized physical habitat effects?) was complete, watersheds
would produce a report card saying ―yes‖ or ―no‖ that each intensively
45
Habitat Protection and Restoration
monitored project was effective based on the specific criteria from the original
hypothesis
The ―yes‖ and ―no‖ lists would be organized by habitat limiting factor, added
up, and summarized across the region. The final regional product would be a
table of habitat limiting factors with percentages next to them. Each
percentage answers the question, ―out of all the intensively monitored projects
in the region, what percentage within each habitat limiting factor was effective
at producing their expected results?‖ The Verification and Accountability
System would report those percentages and include more detailed information
on specific projects for those interested
Baseline, status, and trends monitoring of regional habitat metrics
The portion of effectiveness monitoring described in the previous section informs
decision-makers on whether our current suite of habitat protection and restoration
actions is successful at achieving desired results. To complete the regional
effectiveness monitoring picture, the following text describes the cumulative effects
of our actions across the region through status and trends of habitat metrics
collected across the region in relation to baseline data. This type of monitoring tries
to answer the questions: Do our habitat protection and restoration actions produce
changes in regional habitat health? If implementation and effectiveness of our
actions is being monitored and deemed successful, does the region see an increase
in regional habitat quality?
As noted earlier, describing regional habitat trends is challenging because of the
unique habitat needs of individual watersheds and their salmon populations. For
example, the density of large woody debris deemed necessary in watershed X is not
necessarily the same density required in watershed Y. To be meaningful, these
regional habitat quality metrics must be collected at a watershed-significant scale
and attached to watershed-specific goals. To continue the example, the density of
large woody debris must have a watershed-based goal, and then the progress toward
the goal in each watershed can be averaged for the entire region (see Table 7 for
examples).
Table 7. Example table illustrating how an individual watershed would report the
status of its habitat quality indicators for regional reporting purposes. This table is
simplified by only using a subset of the metrics that could possibly be reported
(this does not imply that these should be the priority metrics). Also note that all
numbers contained in this table are completely hypothetical.
Metric goal
Regional
Management (year that goal Actual metric Relation to
Metric summary
question should be value metric goal
indicator
realized)
Is floodplain and in- Area side 100 acres 80 acres 80% of goal Average %
46
Habitat Protection and Restoration
river channel structure channels (2009) of goal
habitat improving? across
watersheds
Average %
Is nearshore/marine
% armored 20% Decrease of goal
and estuarine habitat 40%
shoreline (2016) by 50% across
improving?
watersheds
Is riparian and in-river Area Average %
large woody debris mature 5000 acres of goal
3000 acres 60% of goal
(LWD) habitat riparian (2030) across
improving? forest watersheds
Never greater #
Is habitat quality being than 500 NTUs watersheds
Water Never greater Goal
negatively affected by at specified exceeding
turbidity than 400 NTUs achieved
sedimentation? critical times maximum
(2008) temperature
Never greater #
than 18ºC at watersheds
Are water quality Water Never greater Goal
specified critical exceeding
parameters improving? temperature than 17ºC achieved
times maximum
(2007) temperature
Resembles
hydrograph # of
Current
from a specified watersheds
hydrograph does
Are instream flow Annual historical time or Goal not that do not
not resemble
regimes improving? hydrograph hypothesized achieved have an
historical
ideal ideal
hydrograph
hydrograph hydrograph
(2015)
Area of Average %
Is habitat quality being
available 500 acres of goal
negatively affected by 250 acres 50% of goal
spawning (2010) across
fish passage barriers?
grounds watersheds
Intensively Monitored Watersheds
Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMWs), a set of projects funded by the Salmon
Recovery Funding Board, can play an important role in regional effectiveness
monitoring of habitat actions. Partners in IMW research include State Department
of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife, Weyerhaeuser, Lower Elwha
Tribe, Environmental Protection Agency, and NOAA-Fisheries. IMW projects
attempt to intensively monitor certain freshwater and estuarine habitat attributes and
determine their importance to the success of individual salmon populations.
Evaluating fish response to projects designed to improve these monitored habitat
attributes allows managers to extrapolate the results to geographically-similar areas
and justify actions in less-intensively monitored watersheds. Objective seven, from
the report titled, ―Evaluating Watershed Response to Land Management and
Restoration Actions: Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW) 2005 Progress
Report‖ (IMW Scientific Oversight Committee 2005) expands on this topic and
explains how IMW projects can relate to regional habitat monitoring:
Objective 7. Landscape classification and extrapolation of results
Because only a few watersheds can be included in the IMW project, extension of
the results to other watersheds cannot be accomplished by the traditional method
of increasing the sample size (number of watersheds monitored) until a sufficient
47
Habitat Protection and Restoration
level of statistical certainty is achieved. The initial goal of the (IMW)
extrapolation exercise is to classify and group watersheds with similar physical,
biological and anthropogenic impact characteristics in relation to the watersheds
where intensive watershed monitoring will be conducted. Ultimately, the
classification process will indicate the set of watersheds where the results from
the IMW monitoring can be extrapolated, inform the design and distribution of
future restoration and monitoring projects, and support the interpolation or
imputation of data across regions of the state not monitored as intensively as the
IMWs.
Near-term discussion should solidify the role of IMWs for habitat monitoring in
Puget Sound. Tables 8 and 9 should be refined as these discussions progress and
monitoring parties are identified. At this time, monitoring takes place at many
levels and includes watershed, tribal, state, and federal groups. These monitoring
parties should continue to coordinate monitoring efforts and leverage existing
monitoring resources to the extent possible. Currently, the only Chinook salmon
IMW in Puget Sound is in the Skagit River watershed, but future additional
efforts should take place in watersheds that would expand the opportunity to
extrapolate results across the region.
48
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Table 8. Summary of effectiveness metrics for regional habitat protection and restoration strategies. The Xs in the right hand columns denote at which scales (WS = watershed; R
= regional) these metrics will need to be reported.
Habitat
Protection
and V&A focus question Reporting Monitoring/reporting
Metric(s) Indicator(s) WS R
Restoration o Management questions interval parties
Strategy
category
Descriptive table organized by
categories of restoration/protection
Are the implemented salmon recovery actions; for each category include a
% actions supported by a detailed Annual (or
actions effectively addressing the description of expected
hypothesis that is based on credible as
listing/limiting factors identified in the physical/biological outcomes,
science and includes expected hypotheses
Federal Register Notice and individual timeframe for expected outcomes X X
physical habitat change, expected gain or lose
watershed plans? to be realized, and references that
biological response, and a time frame scientific
o Are actions supported by credible support expected outcomes and
to see each change credibility)
hypotheses? timeframe (see Table 6) *
Trend line displaying % actions
supported by a detailed hypothesis
Annual
(begin as
% restoration actions that produced Trend line displaying % restoration soon as
o Are restoration actions effective? hypothesized physical habitat change actions that produced hypothesized regular X X
within specified time frame change effective
information
is available)
% protection actions that preserve the
Trend line displaying % protection
habitat conditions and processes they
o Are protection actions effective? actions that produced hypothesized
are intended to preserve or protect
effect
future restoration options
Trend line displaying % effective
actions where physical changes
persisted
For actions where change did not
o Are the physical changes % of effective actions where physical
persist, include a reasoned 5 years
persisting? changes persisted
description of why hypothesized
changes did not persist and
whether or not this is acceptable
considering current habitat needs
49
Habitat Protection and Restoration
o What is our overall habitat
Rate of habitat destruction versus
protection and restoration X X
rate of restored habitat
effectiveness in the region?
Trend line displaying % habitat
o Is habitat carrying capacity % habitat carrying capacity relative to
carrying capacity relative to 5 years X X
increasing? potential capacity
potential capacity
* This table could be developed at a regional or watershed-level, and should be developed in 2007 (see Table 6)
50
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Table 9. Summary of status and trends metrics that describe regional habitat quality. This data is the second part of regional effectiveness monitoring described above. Metrics
highlighted in yellow may not be collected by the Department of Ecology’s Status and Trends Framework (based on their July 2006 draft plan, page 31, Table 6) or Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (see bullet points below table).
Metric (s)
V&A focus question (Note: These metrics should all be collected at Reporting Monitoring/reporting
Indicator(s)
o Management questions the watershed scale and compared to interval parties
watershed-scale goals)
% pool area
Length channel edge
Length natural bank
Are watershed, nearshore/marine, and Length stabilized bank
ocean habitat conditions improving for Fine sediment load
salmon in the ESU? (all questions below For all metrics in this table,
Substrate embeddedness
are answered relative to a baseline data trends lines will be reported over
Bed scour
set) time
o Is floodplain and in-river channel Stream width-depth ratio
structure habitat improving? Pool-riffle ratio
Thalweg profile
Area side channels
Area off-channel ponds
Area tidal marsh
Area pocket estuaries
Area blind tidal channels
o Is nearshore/marine and estuarine % armored shoreline
habitat improving? % feeder bluff
Area covered by piers and docks
Area eel grass
Area shoreline vegetation
Riparian area vegetated
Area mature riparian forest
o Is riparian and in-river large woody
LWD density
debris (LWD) habitat improving?
LWD jam density
% canopy cover
Fine sediment load
o Is habitat quality being negatively
Substrate embeddedness
affected by sedimentation?
Water turbidity
51
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Water temperature
o Are water quality parameters # of identified chemicals at toxic levels
improving? Dissolved oxygen
Nutrient loads
Annual hydrograph
o Are instream flow regimes
# road crossings
improving?
Area impervious surface
o Is habitat quality being negatively Area of available spawning habitat
affected by fish passage barriers? Area of available juvenile rearing habitat
52
Habitat Protection and Restoration
It is likely that the non-highlighted indicators would be collected by some combination of
the following:
Department of Ecology’s ―Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health
and Salmon Recovery – Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan‖ describes a design
where a significant area of the Puget Sound region could be sampled for some of
the metrics described above. Depending on the level of funding and local
participation, watershed-scale data on each indicator could take up to five years to
collect. As noted in the sections above, though, near-term discussions still must
take place to determine exactly how this information will be informative and
describe habitat health for salmon at a regional level.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will possibly conduct aerial and
satellite surveys that could collect the following metrics: Trends in riparian
vegetation, canopy cover, roads and crossings, newly inhabited spawning
grounds, land use conversion, land cover, and possibly large woody debris. Most
of this information would be collected in a non-random manner for primary
populations in the Puget Sound region. In effect, the surveys would be complete
inventories for the primary populations’ watersheds. The final list of primary
populations to monitor is still being developed.
This plan strives to coordinate with both of these efforts to the full extent possible.
53
Habitat Protection and Restoration
References
Roni, P., editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Salmon Recovery Funding Board monitoring documents:
http://www.iac.wa.gov/srfb/docs.htm#monitoring (links active as of 17 December
2006)
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team. 2003. Integrated recovery planning for listed
salmon: technical guidance for watershed groups in Puget Sound. Draft report
available from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, Seattle,
Washington.
Puget Sound Action Team. 2005. Regional nearshore approach: a regional chapter on
protecting and restoring estuaries, Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/RecoveryPlan.htm#nearshore
The IMW Scientific Oversight Committee. 2005. Evaluating watershed response to land
management and restoration actions: intensively monitored watersheds (IMW) 2005
progress report Submitted to Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board.
http://www.iac.wa.gov/Documents/SRFB/Monitoring/IMW_2005_PROG_RPT.pdf
Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB). All monitoring documents:
http://www.iac.wa.gov/srfb/docs.htm#monitoring
54
Harvest Management
This document contains draft content for the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan. Some of the language in this document is
taken from the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and other related documents
produced by Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Members of the Adaptive Management
and Monitoring Steering Committee made contributions to this draft. This section, like all
other sections of the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Adaptive Management and
Monitoring Plan, is an evolving document that will change as needs change and new
knowledge arises.
A. Goals and Objectives
Harvest is important to the Puget Sound region culturally and economically. Salmon are
inherently productive, and when populations are healthy, properly managed harvest will
not jeopardize their sustainability. The goals and objectives listed here are specifically for
the role of harvest management in Puget Sound salmon recovery. They set the stage for
the types of strategies needed to achieve the stated goals and for the types of monitoring
that will be necessary to assess the progress toward achieving those goals.
Goals
Ensure that fishery-related mortality will not impede recovering Puget Sound
Chinook populations to levels that will:
o Sustain fisheries
o Allow for sustained recovery of independent natural populations
o Be consistent with treaty-reserved fishing rights
Objectives
Account for the inherent uncertainty and risk in estimating population sizes and
the impacts of harvest when managing fisheries
Meet the standards of harvest management plan approved under section 4(d) of
the Endangered Species Act and consistent with the harvest management
provisions of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan to insure that harvest does
not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of individual populations and
the ESU
Optimize harvest of abundant Puget Sound salmon (coho, Chinook, sockeye,
pink, chum) while protecting weaker commingled Chinook stocks
Account for all sources of fishery-related mortality, monitor salmon abundances,
and make stock assessments as required for effective harvest management
Assure that harvest management will act in concert with hatchery and habitat
management effects across the region to increase Viable Salmonid Population
(VSP) parameters that will eventually achieve the individual population goals in
the Puget Sound Recovery Plan
Meet the legal mandates and guidelines set forth by:
55
o Endangered Species Act
o U.S. v. Washington (Boldt decision)
o Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan
o 1999 Chinook chapter of Annex IV to the Pacific Salmon Treaty
o Secretarial Orders of federal agencies
o Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan (implementing document for
Boldt decision)
(Background on the mandates and guidelines set forth by the four items above will not be
detailed in this document—a discussion of the major harvest management forums
affecting Puget Sound salmon can be found in Volume I, Chapter 3 of the Puget Sound
Salmon Recovery Plan.)
B. The harvest management strategy
The co-managers submitted a harvest management plan8 under section 4(d)9 of the
Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6); July 10, 2000, 65 FR 42422) and
received authorization for incidental harvest of threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon
under its terms through the 2009 season. The Harvest Management Plan describes the
history, background, risk, benefits, goals, and strategies for harvest management in detail.
The management plan also describes how harvest management guidelines were
developed to meet the goal of not impeding recovery towards population recovery goals.
Currently a complex array of agencies and governments manage salmon fisheries. Puget
Sound fisheries managers are particularly involved with the Pacific Salmon Commission
and North of Cape Falcon processes. The latter governs the harvest regime between Cape
Falcon, Oregon and the international border between Washington and British Columbia.
Since the ocean fisheries forums set the context for all fishing that follows in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, annual fishing regimes for most Puget Sound salmon
populations are negotiated within this forum. These annual regimes must be consistent
with the terms of U.S. v Washington and those negotiated between Canada and the U.S.
under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Together they account for all fishing-related mortality
on listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
To meet the goals and objectives above, the harvest management plan is designed to
assure that there are:
8
Puget Sound Indian Tribes, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. Comprehensive
management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest management component. Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington, USA, 1-247 pages. Download available at
http://www.nwifc.org/fishmgmt/downloads.asp
9
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. A joint tribal and state Puget Sound Chinook salmon harvest
resource management plan submitted under Limit 6 of a section 4(d) rule of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) – Decision Memorandum from Steve Freese, Acting Assistant Regional
Administrator for the NWR Sustainable Fisheries Division, to D. Robert Lohn, NWR Regional
Administrator, March 4, 2005. 5 pages plus attachments
56
Sufficient spawners to maintain population stability if enough productive habitat
is available
Maximum limits on exploitation rates during recovery
Allowances for populations to expand and increase as habitat improves
Effective harvest management actions, in concert with effective hatchery and habitat
actions, will avoid decreasing abundances of wild fish, altered diversity (e.g. return time
and other life history traits), and altered spatial distribution. The harvest management
strategy aims to integrate activities within and across freshwater and marine ecosystems,
and integrate with strategies geared towards habitat and hatchery management so that the
suite of activities will maximize intended effects.
Stock assessment and fishery monitoring are principally the responsibility of the state and
tribal co-managers. In general, population-specific stock assessment data are collected at
the watershed scale and compiled at the regional scale. Fishery monitoring data are
collected at both the watershed and regional scales, and all fishery data are compiled for
use by the co-managers at the regional scale. Stock assessment data collected by non-co-
managers are usually included in co-managers’ databases for completeness and usually
are collected following co-manager protocols. Some of this information is also important
in assessing the effects of other Hs (e.g., escapement, spatial distribution, biological
characteristics, and hatchery contribution). However, because these data are directly
relevant to assessing the effectiveness of harvest management actions and objectives and
primarily the responsibility of the co-managers, they are included in the harvest
monitoring program. These data will also be used where needed to assess implementation
and effectiveness of the other Hs.
The co-managers are responsible for the following:
Watershed-scale activities
o Develop stock assessments and abundance forecasts for stocks that spawn
within the watershed
o Develop regulations for fisheries conducted within the watershed and
nearby marine waters
o Develop, review and revise harvest management objectives and actions for
populations that spawn within the watershed based on available
information.
o Monitor fisheries activities and sample for biological data in terminal
areas
o Share stock assessment information with other watershed entities
Regional-scale activities
o Compile stock assessment information (harvest, tag/mark, and escapement
data) from all populations for use in annual fisheries planning models
57
o Compile locally-developed management objectives into a regional
management plan; adapt the regional plan as necessary to accommodate
updated management objectives and actions for individual populations
o Coordinate among the regional co-managers to develop information and
positions for negotiating with the other parties in the Pacific Salmon
Commission and Pacific Fishery Management Council forums
o Develop comprehensive annual fishery management plans that take into
account all of the management objectives for all the Chinook populations
as well as other management objectives, such as providing opportunity to
harvest abundant stocks where appropriate
o Develop regulations for mixed stock fisheries conducted within the marine
waters of the region (most tribal regulations are developed at the
watershed scale; most WDFW regulations are developed at the regional
scale). This activity is coordinated with development of regulations at the
watershed scale.
o Coordinate data collection protocols among the watersheds in the region;
adapt and change protocols where necessary to further management
objectives (e.g. new protocols for determining the contribution of
hatchery-origin fish to natural spawning populations)
o Carry out broad-scale fishery monitoring activities, especially for mixed-
stock fisheries in pre-terminal areas
o Maintain regional databases of harvest, stock composition, age, and other
information; update databases as necessary to accommodate new
information necessary for management
o Synthesize data collected around the region and translate it for a non-
technical audience
o Report stock and fishery performance on an annual basis
C. Monitoring harvest management actions
Monitoring for harvest management includes catch accounting, biological sampling for
size and age of fish in the harvest, and sampling of harvest for marks and tags to
determine stock origins. It also includes surveys and studies to estimate the amount and
location of fishing effort, encounter rates of gear with fish that are intentionally or
unintentionally released and the mortality rate for fish that encounter gear but are not
landed. The annual post-season report from the co-managers to NOAA-F summarizes
exploitation rates, escapements, and actual harvest numbers by area and time compared
with preseason predicted numbers. Deviations from expectations are analyzed so that
causes of these may be addressed and corrected in subsequent seasons. There is also a
more comprehensive review of attainment of exploitation rate objectives and other
parameters requiring time-consuming data analysis produced approximately every 5
years. The co-managers also monitor juvenile salmon production from freshwater and
nearshore areas, and are considering ways to assess the effect of fisheries on the
availability of marine-derived nutrients and possible resulting effects on salmon
production.
58
As stock assessment databases are updated, key parameters of the Chinook Harvest
Management Plan, such as exploitation rate guidelines, will be reviewed and modified if
appropriate. The Pacific Salmon Commission’s Chinook Technical Committee annually
updates coast-wide exploitation rates for indicator stocks, and the most recent
information will be used in discussing and revising the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook
Annex. In addition, the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Adaptive Management
and Monitoring Committee’s harvest management sub-committee developed the
following implementation and effectiveness monitoring metrics. Future work needs to be
done to finalize and prioritize the metrics and indicators below. Once finalized, they will
be reported according to the process detailed in the Verification and Accountability
System section of this plan.
59
Implementation monitoring. Implementation monitoring for harvest management acts as an accounting tool that tells us if the stated recovery actions are being performed on the
anticipated timeline. As years progress, trends for each of these metrics can continue to be developed.
Table 1. Summary of implementation metrics for the regional harvest management strategy. The Xs in the right hand columns denote at which scales (WS = watershed; R =
regional) these metrics will need to be reported.
Scales
Harvest
V&A focus question Reporting Monitoring/reportin
management Metric(s) Indicator(s) WS R
o Management questions interval g parties
category
Bar chart with % of total
% of total landed catch
landed sampled of each
sampled for biological and
harvest category
genetic information by
Are priority actions being implemented on the anticipated (recreational, etc.) on the
Monitoring and commercial, recreational,
timeline? x-axis; associated error for Annual X X
sampling subsistence, and
o Are terminal and pre-terminal fisheries being monitored? each bar should be
ceremonial sectors and
represented
precision of these
Display trends in the bar
estimates.
chart described above
Table comparing
preseason predictions and
Preseason predictions vs. actual postseason
actual postseason numbers (include
o Is data used to assess management error and robustness to
numbers for catch, explanation for Annual X X
uncertainty being collected?
exploitation rate, and discrepancy actual
escapement numbers are outside the
error bounds of original
estimate)
Estimates of non-landed Pie chart or table
mortality as proportion of comparing total harvest-
o Is non-landed mortality being assessed? Annual X
total harvest-related related mortality to non-
mortality landed mortality
% of populations included Trend line displaying
in the coast-wide DNA cumulative % of
o Is the genetic and biological sampling necessary for baseline populations in DNA
Annual X X
informed harvest management being done? % of populations baseline
adequately sampled for Trend line displaying
age composition and sex cumulative % of
60
and the precision of those populations adequately
estimates (should sampled for age
consider spatial and composition
temporal stratification of Graphs displaying age
sampling) composition of individual
% potential spawner populations
survey area surveyed for Trend line displaying %
spawning activity potential spawning area
surveyed for spawning
activity (until 100% is
realized regularly)
% of natural populations
Trend line displaying %
for which there is an
natural populations with
appropriate coded-wire
appropriate CWT double-
tag (CWT) double-index
index indicator stock
indicator stock, as
Trend line displaying %
determined by the Pacific
hatchery populations
o Are necessary marking and tagging programs for informed Salmon Commission’s
mass marked compared Annual X X
harvest management being implemented as required? Chinook Technical
with goals
Committee
Trend line displaying
% of hatchery populations
average % achievement
that are mass marked
of tagging goals in
% achievement of tagging
individual populations
goals by individual
across the region
population
% of populations
adequately sampled for
coded-wire tags and mass
marks, and the precision
of those estimates
% of commercial harvest Annual report describing
sampled for coded-wire temporal and spatial
o Is the necessary sampling of marks and tags for informed tags by area and week trends in mark/tag
Annual X X
harvest management adequate? % of recreational harvest sampling
sampled for coded-wire Graph of % sampled
tags by area and month compared with target %
% mark/tag sampling
goals developed by the
Pacific Salmon
Commission’s Chinook
Technical Committee
61
being reached
Description of the system
Annual (or
in place for
Fishing regulations are on
forming/adjusting
Regulations complete, understandable, schedule
regulations and its
and harvest o What regulatory mechanisms are in place? issued in a timely fashion, that X X
relationship to legal
actions and consistent with follows
requirements and
management plans? regulation
reporting from US v
changes)
Washington, ESA, etc.
Annual (or
on
Trend line displaying % schedule
% compliance versus
o Are people complying with regulations? compliance in Puget that X
harvesters checked
Sound fisheries follows
regulation
changes)
% of fisheries affecting
Map of which fisheries are
Puget Sound Chinook for
taken into account when
o Is all fishing-related mortality accounted for? Is it consistent which mortality is taken
assessing harvest actions Annual X
with harvest objectives? into account in fishing
Graphics describing stock
planning?
and catch distribution
Table and map
Expected and actual catch
o Is observed catch and stock distribution consistent with comparison of expected
and stock distribution over Annual X
predictions (CAN, PFMC, and Puget Sound)? vs. actual catch and stock
time
distribution
To what extent are resources available to implement the following
priorities:
For all questions, a
o Incorporate improvements in harvest management
progress report that
modeling?
describes the extent of
Resources o Perform cohort analysis and reconstruction where needed?
resources available and Annual X
o Adequately monitor population genetic, demographic, and
future resources still
ecological characteristics?
needed (staff, time,
o Explore alternative technologies for stock assessment?
money, etc.)
o Assess and agree among interested parties on the
composition of mixed stock fisheries?
62
Effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring for harvest management actions basically tells us if our actions produced the hypothesized effects.
Table 2. Summary of effectiveness metrics for the regional harvest management strategy. The Xs in the right hand columns denote at which scales (WS = watershed; R = regional)
this information will need to be reported at.
Scales
Harvest
V&A focus question Reporting Monitoring/reporting
management Metric(s) Indicator(s) WS R
o Management questions interval parties
category
Map displaying spawning
area available and
Are the implemented salmon recovery actions effectively
spawning area used (see
addressing the listing/limiting factors identified in the Federal
% spawning area used by “spatial structure in H-
Register Notice and individual watershed plans?
spawners integration section)
o Are escapements meeting goals?
Stock % escapement relative to Table comparing annual
o Are spawner escapements sufficient to maximize production Annual X X
assessment escapement goals escapement goals, actual
in relation to the current capacity and productivity of
% exploitation rate relative escapements, and
available spawning habitat?
to goals exploitation rates
o Are exploitation rates less than the ceilings in the Recovery
Trend lines displaying
Plan and Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan?
annual escapement and
exploitation rates
Description of each
program and timeline for
List programs in place for each to address a
o Are programs in place to evaluate areas of critical each category of category of uncertainty
uncertainties to harvest management or derivation of uncertainty Trend line displaying
harvest objectives (management error, non-landed mortality, Estimates of the level of number of programs
Uncertainties marine-derived nutrients, stock-recruit modeling parameters) uncertainty for each implemented over time Annual X
o Are harvest objectives re-evaluated periodically as required category Years in which programs
by the Recovery Plan and Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Last date that harvest to address uncertainties
Management Plan? objective re-evaluated by were implemented
population List of objectives that have
not been addressed in
more than 5 years
Trend line displaying
Treaty and non-treaty
treaty and non-treaty
catch and fishing effort
catches and fishing effort
Treaty and non-treaty fleet
Harvest rights Trend line displaying
o How extensive are commercial, tribal, and recreational size over time
and treaty and non-treaty fleet Annual X X
harvest opportunities? Treaty and non-treaty
opportunities sizes
fishing days open
Trend line displaying
Treaty and non-treaty size
number of treaty and non-
of areas fished
treaty fishing days open
63
Trend line displaying
surface area available to
treaty and non-treaty
fisheries
Map displaying
differences in past and
current harvest areas
available throughout
Puget Sound
o Are opportunities available to harvest healthy hatchery % of harvestable healthy Trend lines displaying %
Chinook stocks and other species with harvestable numbers stocks that are actually of healthy stocks Annual X X
despite Chinook conservation restrictions? harvested harvested
o Are the fisheries meeting the legal mandates and guidelines Annual comparison with
of the agreements and laws listed in the last bullet item guidelines and terms of “Yes or no” check boxes Annual X X
under objectives? agreements.
64
Hatchery management
This document contains draft content for the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan. Some of the language in this document is
taken from the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and other related documents
produced by Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Members of the Adaptive Management
and Monitoring Steering Committee made contributions to this draft. This section, like all
other sections of the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Adaptive Management and
Monitoring Plan, is an evolving document that will change as needs change and new
knowledge arises.
A. Goals for hatchery management
Hatchery production of salmon has been and continues to be an important tool in Puget
Sound for managing fisheries and maintaining populations of salmon and steelhead as
natural habitat has been lost. The uses and technology for hatchery production have
changed as society’s needs have changed and scientific information has improved. Two
hatchery resource management plans describe the history, background, risks, benefits,
goals, and strategies for hatchery management in detail:
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Hatcheries: A Component of the Comprehensive
Chinook Salmon Management Plan (WDFW and Puget Sound Treaty Tribes
2004)
Puget Sound Hatchery Strategies for Steelhead, Coho Salmon, Chum Salmon,
Sockeye Salmon and Pink Salmon (Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW 2004)
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans for Chinook salmon hatcheries (HGMPs) were
submitted to NMFS in 2004 and 2005 for implementation through the ESA 4(d) Rule
Limit 6 evaluation and determination process. Their aim is to minimize the risks to
natural populations while rebuilding weak and threatened populations and provide
opportunities for harvest.
The goals and objectives listed here specifically address the role of hatchery management
in Puget Sound salmon recovery. They set the stage for the types of strategies needed to
achieve the stated goals and for the type of monitoring that will be necessary to assess
hatchery management progress.
Goals
Protect against immediate threats of extinction and loss of population identity in
watersheds where indigenous salmon populations still occur
Promote recovery of indigenous populations to sustainable, harvestable levels
Reestablish and sustain natural production in watersheds that no longer have
indigenous populations but where natural production is possible given the
existence, protection, and restoration of productive habitat
Provide for fisheries while insuring that impacts on natural populations are minimal
65
B. Hatchery management strategy
The overall hatchery management strategy consists of six guiding principles for adaptive
management. These guiding principles are described to set the stage for the types of
monitoring metrics found in the hatchery management monitoring section. More details
for each of these guiding principles can be found in the ―Regional Hatchery Management
Strategies‖ section of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (Page 429 of June 2005
version). As stated in the Recovery Plan, this strategy ―…relies upon the hatchery
management strategies and actions described in the Chinook Hatchery Resource
Management Plan and in the individual Chinook salmon Hatchery and Genetic
Management Plan proposed by the co-managers,‖ (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife and Puget Sound Treaty Tribes).
1. “Productive natural habitat is essential for healthy, harvestable salmon
populations and successful hatchery programs”
As habitat improves in Puget Sound, its capacity to produce and house more
spawning and rearing fish increases. Until those increases are realized in many
watersheds, hatcheries will play a key role in sustaining individual populations.
Under this hatchery management strategy, hatcheries will be used cautiously to boost
natural spawning and to meet harvest objectives.
2. “Hatchery programs must operate under the legal framework defined by
U.S. versus Washington”
Hatcheries play a key role in fulfilling tribal fishing rights. This is a legally defined
role that in some watersheds will allow tribal communities to fish during years where
natural production of salmon is not sufficient to satisfy cultural, subsistence, and
economic needs.
3. “Hatcheries designed, operated, and evaluated in an ecosystem perspective
are more likely to provide harvest and conservation benefits with reduced
risks to natural populations”
This principle states the importance of a strategy that integrates actions among
hatchery, harvest, and habitat sectors (also know as, ―H-integration‖). As alluded to in
the first guiding principle, hatchery actions must be balanced with the current
capacity and productivity of habitat and the needs for harvest. More information on
H-integration is found later in this adaptive management and monitoring plan.
4. “A hatchery program is successful when it provides a more favorable
balance of benefits to risks when evaluated relative to watershed-specific
objectives”
The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan states, ―As habitat is restored and
populations approach their recovery goals, the benefits of a hatchery program are
66
lower relative to the potential genetic, ecological, and demographic risks.‖ In other
words, the allowable amount of risks created by a hatchery program must be dynamic
and balanced with hatchery program benefits as habitat conditions improve. This
concept is represented by Figure 6.5 on page 433 of the Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan (June 2005 version).
5. “The design of a successful program begins with the identification of a
program goal and the careful selection of either an integrated or an isolated
hatchery strategy”
The primary management goals of hatcheries create four program types: Integrated-
Recovery, Integrated-Harvest, Isolated-Recovery, and Isolated-Harvest. The choice of
strategy is watershed-specific and dependent on local conditions. The Hatchery
Resource Management Plan lists hatchery programs in Puget Sound and their
strategies, which are all designed to be consistent with recovery goals. The table
below describes the primary outcomes from each type of strategy.
Table 1. Hatchery management objectives for four kinds of hatchery production
strategies. Hatchery strategies are classified based on their primary management
objective and demographic relationship to the natural population in the watershed. Not all
hatchery programs of a given type will have all the objectives described below. Numbers
in parentheses identify which of the critical assumptions and uncertainties in Table 2 are
related to specific objectives.
Primary Relationship to natural population(s) in watershed
Objective Integrated Isolated
(Interbreeding of Hatchery and Natural) (Do Not Interbreed)
Recovery Reduce risk of extinction by Reduce risk of extinction by creating
o Increasing or maintaining the “reserve” populations in captivity
abundance and/or distribution of a local (1, 2, 4)
natural population (1-3) o In case other recovery options fail
o Protecting population identity (5) o To protect population identity (5)
Speed rebuilding (“supplementation”) (4, 6) o Until reintroduction is possible (7,
Minimize negative genetic and ecological 8)
effects of artificial production (4) Minimize negative genetic and
Reintroduction (7, 8) ecological effects of artificial production
Research (9) (4)
Public Involvement, education (11) Research (9)
Public Involvement, education (11)
Harvest Provide fish for harvest (3) Provide fish for harvest (3)
Increase or maintain the abundance of a Protect natural populations from
local population while minimizing negative genetic and ecological interactions
genetic and ecological effects (1, 2, 4) with hatchery fish (10)
Research (9) Research (9)
Public Involvement, education (11) Public Involvement, education (11)
67
Table 2. Critical assumptions and uncertainties associated with different hatchery production objectives are identified in Table 2
below. The numbers relate to the numbers in parentheses in Table 1, which shows hatchery management objectives organized by
hatchery production strategy. These are organized by the four sources of management uncertainty: 1) knowledge of natural variability
and processes, 2) Guidelines for actions that are available, appropriate, and sufficient to achieve objectives, 3) technician performance,
and 4) logistical needs. Uncertainties are presented for both watershed and regional scales.
Critical Assumptions Uncertainties
Natural Variability & Processes Watershed Region
Appropriate size of program is unknown because
1. Increasing overall abundance reduces short-term relationship between overall abundance and
Potential reduction in risk to ESU is unknown
risk of extinction short-term risk of population extinction is not
known
2. Overall abundance or population growth rate will
Understanding of population dynamics and factors
increase faster with the hatchery than not (i.e.
affecting population growth rates are unreliable or
hatchery production overcomes critical factors Potential reduction in risk to ESU is unknown
imprecise
affecting life stages that are most vulnerable in
wild)
3. Conditions along freshwater migratory corridors, in
Environmental variability may lead to unexpected
estuaries, and in the ocean will allow expected
survival rates
juvenile-to-adult survival rates
4. Reducing negative effects of artificial propagation Negative effects of artificial propagation on long-
(domestication, loss of within-population genetic term recovery are not quantified and difficult to
diversity, inbreeding depression, straying and predict
outbreeding depression, competition, direct and
indirect predation, disease transmission and Trade-offs between reducing short-term risks and
amplification, facility failure, staff error) will help increasing long-term risks are unknown or difficult
long-term recovery of natural population to predict
Baseline data to accurately identify brood stock to
Ability of programs to protect population identity is
5. Identification of brood stock is accurate and precise preserve population identity may be unavailable,
unknown
biased, and imprecise
6. Factors limiting population natural rebuilding are a Understanding of population dynamics and factors
function of the abundance and distribution of affecting population growth rates unreliable or Potential reduction in risk to ESU is unknown
juvenile or adults imprecise
7. Factors limiting reestablishing a population are a Understanding of population dynamics and factors
Potential effects of increasing spatial distribution
function of the abundance and distribution of affecting population growth rates unreliable or
and diversity on the risk to ESU are unknown
juvenile or adults imprecise
68
8. Fish chosen for reintroduction have the genetic and
Genetic and physiological criteria of selection are
physiological capability to survive and adapt in the
inappropriate; appropriate fish are unavailable
new environment
Design cannot adequate capture complex
interactions; design may be compromised
9. Research design addresses research question
because researcher does not have control over all
aspects of the experiment (e.g. ability to collect
adequate sample sizes, sample without bias, etc.)
10. Ecological (including spatial distribution),
physiological, or behavioral differences between Protection is uncertain because researcher does
natural and hatchery fish can be used to prevent not have control over all these aspects
interbreeding or negative ecological interactions
11. Information and/or involvement with hatchery
Effectiveness of hatchery education programs is
programs lead to changes in human behavior that
unknown
promote salmon recovery
Implementation Guidelines & Procedures
12. Guidelines exist for when and how to initiate a
program and if used to assess the actions will
provide the desired level of protection and benefits
13. Guidelines exist for how to assess population
identity and if used will provide the desired level of
precision and accuracy
14. Brood stock collection guidelines exist that if used Effectiveness of actions to reduce negative effects
will provide the desired number and kind of is unknown or inadequately quantified
spawners to achieve program objectives
15. Mating guidelines exist that if used will achieve Effectiveness of actions to reduce negative effects
program objective is unknown or inadequately quantified
16. Rearing guidelines exist that if used will provide for Effectiveness of actions to reduce negative effects
the survival, growth, and health of the desired is unknown or inadequately quantified
number fish needed to achieve program objectives
17. Transportation guidelines exist that if used will Effectiveness of actions to reduce negative effects
achieve the program objectives is unknown or inadequately quantified
18. Release guidelines exist that if used will allow the
Effectiveness of actions to reduce negative effects
desired number and kind (age, size, physiological
is unknown or inadequately quantified
state, etc.) of fish to survive and acclimate to the
natural environment
19. Guidelines exist for how to monitor and assess the
implementation and effectiveness of hatchery
management actions
69
Technician Performance
20. Technicians are available and appropriately trained
to accomplish desired task
Logistical Factors
21. Population identification facilities and tools are
available, appropriate, and sufficient
22. Brood stock collection facilities available,
appropriate, and sufficient
23. Mating facilities are available, appropriate, and
sufficient
24. Rearing facilities are available, appropriate, and
sufficient
25. Transportation facilities are available, appropriate,
and sufficient
26. Tools and equipment for sharing data and
coordinating programs is available, appropriate,
and sufficient
70
6. “Successful hatchery programs are characterized by clear goals and
operational plans”
Successful hatchery programs have:
o Well-defined goals
o Scientifically-defensible programs (including statistical analyses, risk-
benefit assessments, and independent scientific review)
o Informed decision-making that considers and makes changes to in-season,
annual, and long-term changes in hatchery objectives and standard
operating modes described in Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans.
The Hatchery Resource Management Plan details seven operational
changes that should be implemented in Puget Sound to increase the
effectiveness of hatchery operations and reduce the risk of interfering with
naturally-spawning populations:
1. Reduction of cross-basin transfers of stocks
2. Reduction of fry plants
3. Establishment of fish health programs
4. Development of improved release strategies
5. Reduction in total releases of hatchery Chinook salmon
6. Implementation of recovery programs using hatcheries
7. Development of genetic baselines to distinguish specific stocks
Uncertainties. But as with all the salmon recovery management strategies, there are
major categories of uncertainty. The four categories below are common to all
hatcheries and must be addressed through adaptive management and monitoring
(Currens and Busack 1995, 2004, WDFW and Puget Sound Treaty Tribes 2004, Puget
Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW 2004):
Knowledge of natural variability and processes. How well can we measure the
biological status or predict how fish will respond to changes in their environment or
genetic makeup?
Guidelines. Are the conservation and operating guidelines for the program consistent
with the objectives of the program and do they produce the intended effects?
Technician performance. Are guidelines being followed?
Logistics. Are sufficient resources, facilities, equipment, and coordination available to
carry out guidelines?
Implementing a monitoring program that addresses these sources of uncertainty requires
both hatchery management actions and learning from integration of other activities across
the major management sectors (research, stock assessment and fishery management,
habitat management, and hatchery management). For example, hatchery management
responsibilities, expertise, and budgets are usually limited to the performance of fish
within an individual hatchery and do not include monitoring the performance of wild or
hatchery fish once they enter the wild. Consequently, to understand the success of
71
hatchery activities or guidelines focused on increasing survival of hatchery fish in the
wild or decreasing negative interactions with wild fish, hatchery adaptive management
relies on integrated analyses of information collected by stock assessment biologists,
fishery biologists, and habitat biologists. Similarly, hatchery management responses often
occur at the local or watershed scale whereas integrated responses often occur not only
across management sectors but also from learning across an entire region. Integrated
analyses are a key element of implementing this strategy.
Table 3. Table illustrating the breadth of adaptive management responses of hatcheries
and their relationship to uncertainties in hatchery management and the integrated
response of all H-sectors.
Sources of
Common actions across H- sectors Hatchery management response
uncertainty
Knowledge of Monitor population status and trends Mark appropriate numbers of hatchery fish
natural variability Collect and maintain baseline Recover marked fish returning to hatchery
environmental, habitat, population, and Maintain genetic baseline for brood stocks
fishery data Monitor brood stock characteristics
Monitor fish performance in hatchery
Guidelines Evaluate conservation guidelines Change marking and tag recovery
Evaluate operating guidelines practices
Change brood stock selection criteria
Change in production goals
Change brood stock collection practices
Change mating practices
Change rearing practices
Change transportation and release
practices
Technician Education and training Develop education and training for
Performance Performance evaluations hatchery managers and technicians
Maintain performance evaluations
Logistics Improve facilities and equipment Improve marking and tag recovery
Improve coordination equipment and facilities
Improve brood stock collection facilities
Improve mating facilities
Improve rearing facilities
Improve transportation equipment and
release facilities
Improve program coordination and data
sharing
Co-managers will work with watershed groups and others at the regional level in
developing, enforcing, and adapting hatchery practices and regulations including the
Hatchery Resource Management Plan and the Co-manager Hatchery and Genetic
Management Plans. Hatchery management plans will be adjusted based on Hatchery
Scientific Review Group (HSRG) reform recommendations as needed and as these are
consistent with recovery objectives. Hatchery activities at watershed and regional levels
will be monitored and evaluated to ensure that activities are implemented as intended and
are having the desired effects. Activities will be adjusted as needed to protect and restore
existing populations.
72
C. Monitoring hatchery management actions
Implementation monitoring. Implementation monitoring for hatchery management acts as an accounting tool that informs whether the hatchery strategies are being implemented on
the anticipated timeline.
Table 4. Summary of implementation metrics for the hatchery management strategy across all watersheds. The Xs in the right hand column denote at which scales (WS =
watershed; R = regional) these metrics will need to be reported.
Scales
Hatchery management V&A focus question Reporting Monitoring/Reporting
Metric(s) Indicator(s) WS R
category o Management question interval parties
Are priority actions being implemented on the
anticipated timeline? Are there obstacles to
implementation?
o Does each hatchery program use an
explicitly stated biological premise
(detailed assumptions about natural
productivity and capacity, harvest,
genetics, ecology, physiology, behavior,
Each hatchery
fish health) showing the goals and Hatchery and
has a plan stating
expected outcome of the hatchery Genetic
biological
program? Management
Guiding principles premise, goals, X
o Does the hatchery program have an action Plans updated
expected
plan (consistent with the scientific at specified
outcomes, and
framework and biological premise for the intervals
action plan
watershed) with specific milestones and
schedules, action priorities, expected
outcomes of actions, and status of
actions?
o Were projects reviewed for consistency
with hatchery strategy guiding principles?
o Are goals, expected outcomes, and
actions consistent with recovery?
Trend line
% priority actions
displaying %
completed (averaged
Resources o Did the highest priority projects get done? priority projects Annual X X
over individual
completed over
hatcheries)
time
73
Trend line
% actions
displaying %
completed on time
o Are action plans on schedule? projects Annual X X
(averaged over
completed on
individual hatcheries)
time
A progress
report describing
the extent of
o Are sufficient resources, facilities,
available
equipment, and coordination available to Annual X
resources and
carry out guidelines?
future resources
still needed (staff,
time, money, etc.)
Descriptions of
current Updated as
o What regulatory mechanisms are in regulations new
Regulations X
place? related to regulations are
hatchery implemented
practices
Trend line
displaying # of
violations over
o Are hatcheries following regulatory time
# of violations Annual X X
mechanisms? Descriptions of
violations and
reason for
happening
# of cross-basin Trend line
stock transfers displaying
(include basin names number of cross-
and reason for basin transfers in Annual (some
transfer) Puget Sound indicators will
o Are the seven operational changes # Chinook salmon annually not need to be
Operational changes outlined by the Hatchery Resource fry released Explanation for updated as X X
Management Plan being implemented? % hatcheries with why cross-basin hatcheries
fish health programs transfers are accomplish
% recovery occurring goals)
hatcheries in place in Trend line
relation to goal of how displaying #
many are needed Chinook salmon
74
% hatcheries in released annually
Puget Sound that in watersheds
have genetic baseline and entire region
data Trend line
displaying %
hatcheries in
region with fish
health programs
Trend line
displaying %
recovery
hatcheries in
place in relation
to goal of how
many are needed
Trend line
displaying %
hatcheries that
have genetic
baseline data
75
Effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring for hatchery management actions basically tells us if our actions produced the hypothesized effects.
Table 5. Summary of effectiveness metrics for the regional hatchery management strategy. The Xs in the right hand columns denote at which scales (WS = watershed; R =
regional) this information will need to be reported at.
Scales
Hatchery
V&A focus question Reporting Monitoring/reporting
management Metric(s) Indicator(s) WS R
o Management questions interval parties
category
Are the implemented salmon recovery actions
See harvest and H-integration
effectively addressing the listing/limiting factors
Conservation sections for metrics and
identified in the Federal Register Notice and individual
and harvest indicators related to - - - - -
watershed plans?
goals abundance and productivity at
o Are the stock conservation goals being met region
different life stages
wide?
See harvest section for metrics
o Are the goals for harvest being met region wide? and indicators related to - - - - -
harvest rates
# hatchery and natural-origin Table displaying
fish taken for brood stock number of fish taken
% brood stock collected annually for brood stock
compared to collection goals by watershed and %
o Are brood stock collections inhibiting populations % of escapement that brood brood stock take goal
Annual X X
from achieving stated VSP goals? stock collections could have realized
contributed to natural Trend line displaying %
spawning (assuming that escapement that brood
would have been done if stock collections could
option was feasible) have contributed to
Trend line displaying %
% non-local origin fish in
non-local origin fish in
population (measured with
population
genetic or Coded Wire Tag
Limiting factors o What are the straying rates of hatchery fish? Trend line displaying % Annual X X
data)
non-local fish
% non-local fish contributing to
contributing to terminal
individual terminal fisheries
fisheries
o What is the rate of loss of genetic diversity from Trend line displaying
Ne (Genetic effective size)
hatchery influence? changes in Ne
o What is the degree of integration between hatchery % hatchery versus % wild fish Trend line displaying
Annual X X
and wild stocks? on spawning grounds and wild to naturally
76
within hatchery brood stock produced fish ratios
within the naturally
spawning population
and within the brood
stock
Trend line displaying
Post-release survival of survival rates from
o What is the contribution of hatchery fish to an hatchery fish to smolt stage, hatchery release to
Annual X X
individual population’s overall abundance? ocean adult stage, and smolt, smolt to ocean
spawning adult, and ocean adult
to spawner
o Are technicians effectively following the guidelines Performance audits of
Uncertainties X
set forth by their hatchery? hatchery technicians
Description of programs
designed to assess
critical assumptions
Trend line displaying
number of hatchery
See section below programs over time
effectiveness monitoring implemented to assess
o Are critical assumptions behind the hatchery (Table 2) for a list of critical critical assumptions
Annual X
management strategy being tested? * assumptions and uncertainties Years in which
for watershed and regional programs to address
scales * uncertainty were
implemented
List of assumptions that
have not been
addressed in 5 or more
years
Description of
o Are the results behind tests of critical assumptions implemented changes
informing future hatchery management strategy based on critical
adjustments? assumption
assessments
* The list of critical assumptions and uncertainties is long and should be prioritized in the near future. These priorities should be the basis for reporting
77
References
Currens, K.P., and C.A. Busack. 1995. A framework for assessing genetic vulnerability.
Fisheries 20 (12): 24-31.
Currens, K.P., and C.A. Busack. 2004. Practical approaches for assessing risks of
hatchery programs. Pages 277-290 in M. Nichum, P. Mazik, J. Nickum, and D.
MacKinlay, eds. Propagated fish in resource management. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 44, Bethesda, Maryland.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Treaty Tribes. 2004.
Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatcheries, a component of the comprehensive
Chinook salmon resource management plan (draft).
Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004.
Puget Sound hatchery strategies for steelhead, coho salmon, chum salmon,
sockeye salmon, and pink salmon. Unpublished report available from the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington.
78
H-integration
This document contains draft content for the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery
Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan. Some of the language in this document is
taken from the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and other related documents
produced by Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. Members of the Adaptive Management
and Monitoring Steering Committee made contributions to this draft. This section, like all
other sections of the Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Adaptive Management and
Monitoring Plan, is an evolving document that will change as needs change and new
knowledge arises.
A. Goals and Objectives for Regional H-integration
H-integration is defined as a coordinated combination of actions among all H-sectors –
harvest, hatchery, and habitat (inclusive of hydro) – that together work to achieve the
goal of recovering self-sustaining, harvestable salmon runs. Elements of successful H-
integration include:
Locating recovery actions in specific places (i.e. consider how habitat, hatchery or
harvest actions interact in particular locations—for example coordinate hatchery
releases that allow natural-origin juveniles to effectively utilize necessary habitat)
Timing when actions occur (e.g. linked to salmon life cycle)
Sequencing recovery actions over time (e.g. phasing hatchery supplementation to
match with expected future increases in habitat carrying capacity)
Judiciously choosing the magnitude of recovery actions
The goals and objectives listed here are specifically for the role of H-integration in Puget
Sound salmon recovery. They set the stage for the types of strategies needed to achieve
the stated goals and for the type of monitoring that will be necessary to assess H-
integration progress.
Goals
Develop integrated strategies and suites of actions among the H-sectors that are
consistent with predictions of moving salmon populations towards short,
moderate, and long-term recovery goals
Help decision-makers clearly see the interaction and cumulative effects of actions
among the H-sectors
Objectives
Integrate strategies and actions to result in an observable increase of VSP
parameters
Quantitatively assess and summarize the cumulative effectiveness of integrated
actions on VSP parameters
79
B. The H-integration strategy
The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team identified H-Integration as an essential
component of effective salmon recovery (Page 439, Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Plan). Each of the H-sectors – hatchery, harvest, and habitat – independently affects the
status of salmon populations, but they also have cumulative and synergistic effects
throughout the salmonid life cycle. The achievement of viability at the population and
ESU levels depends on the concerted effort of all three sectors working together, not
canceling each other out, and adjusting over time as conditions change. During the 2005
technical review of the local watershed salmon recovery plans, the TRT identified the
need to further develop strategies that integrate the Hs and increase the certainty that
recovery goals will be realized.
The H-integration strategy involves individual watersheds completing a six-step process
developed at a regional level by the H-integration subgroup of the Puget Sound Adaptive
Management and Monitoring Steering Committee. This process was presented in detail at
a June 20-21, 2006 workshop in Edmonds, Washington and was attended by
representatives from all watersheds across the region. The steps have both policy and
technical elements:
1. Identify the people that need to participate (decision makers and technical people
from all H-sectors) and how to involve them
2. Gain a common understanding of how the system works; this includes
a. Habitat conditions and priority limiting factors
b. Harvest rates
c. Hatchery management
d. Fish population status (e.g. VSP parameters)
e. Community needs
3. Agree upon common goals that reflect salmon recovery needs and community
values and a set of outcomes across the H-sectors that describe what will be
achieved relative to those goals in measurable terms
4. Examine, evaluate, and select a suite of complementary actions to achieve the
outcomes
5. Document rationale, implementation steps (across all H-sectors), expected
outcomes (including effects on VSP parameters), and benchmarks
6. Prepare annual performance reports and adjust over time using a verification and
accountability system
More detail on each of the steps can be found at the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound
website: http://sharedsalmonstrategy.org/meetings.htm#H (as of October 26th, 2006).
The verification and accountability system noted in step six is described in detail in its
own chapter of the adaptive management and monitoring plan. This system will be the
informational foundation for adaptive decision-making and transparent reporting of our
recovery progress in all H-sectors.
80
Following the workshop, each watershed in Puget Sound was asked to develop a plan for
completing the six-step H-integration process with half of them expected to complete the
steps by June 2007 and the other half by September 2007.
C. Monitoring H-integration actions
The monitoring plan for H-integration is two-tiered. First, implementation metrics will
confirm the number of watersheds that have implemented and sustained the six-step H-
integration process. While the six-step process is being completed, it is expected that
watersheds will produce detailed information to support the process, such as modeling
results that verify the common understanding of the current watershed status and the
factors affecting salmon recovery (step two). For the purposes of regional monitoring and
decision-making, though, this document provides guidance for producing high-level
summaries that are considered the minimum product necessary for completing an
iteration of the H-integration process. Second, validation monitoring metrics that
determine whether the cumulative effects of our integrated actions are resulting in
improved VSP parameters for individual populations will be described.
The validation metrics are the crucial indicators for success in Puget Sound salmon
recovery. Ultimately, the region’s goal is to improve every salmon population, and the
best measure of a salmon population’s health is through the VSP parameters of
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. If only one set of data could be
measured to assess Puget Sound recovery, it would be these four indicators. It should be
noted that changes in VSP parameters and habitat conditions are long-term. Changes may
not be seen over several generations of salmon, so while some data (abundance and
productivity) may need to be collected on an annual basis, some (spatial structure and
diversity) may only need to be collected over longer time intervals (e.g. every 3-5 years).
The VSP parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity will not
be explained in detail here, but several resources are available that explain the Viable
Salmonid Population concept in more detail (all internet links current as of 2 November
2006):
McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P.
Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of
evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42.156 pages.
Found online at: http://csc-s-maps q.csc.noaa.gov/salmonid/html/salmonid/pdf/tm42.pdf; this is the
original document that described the Viable Salmonid Population concept.
Puget Sound Technical Review Team. Metrics for spatial structure.
Found online at http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/files/Metrics-Spatial-Structure.pdf
Puget Sound Technical Review Team. Metrics for diversity.
81
Found online at: http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/files/Metrics-Diversity.pdf
The brief descriptions provided for each VSP parameter in the validation monitoring
section are based on a combination of these three documents.
82
Implementation monitoring. Implementation monitoring for H-integration acts as an accounting tool that informs whether watersheds
are implementing H-integration strategies on the anticipated timeline. As years progress, updates on changes in H-integration
strategies will be detailed by individual watersheds.
Table 1. Summary of implementation metrics for the H-integration strategy across all watersheds. These metrics and indicators will be
reported for every watershed.
V&A Focus question
Monitoring/reporting
o Management Metric(s) Indicator(s) Reporting interval
parties
question
# watersheds
that have
Table displaying
completed first
individual
iteration of the
Are priority actions being watershed names,
six steps; if not
implemented on the anticipated expected
complete, First half of
timeline? Are there obstacles to completion date
provide an watersheds by June
implementation? for first iteration of
analysis of 2007; Second half of Individual watershed groups
o Are watersheds H-integration, and
obstacles watersheds by
implementing the six actual completion
blocking September 2007
steps of H- date
completion (this
integration? Reporting
should be
summaries
included with
(described below)
reporting
summaries)
o Once the first
iteration of the six
steps is complete,
Reporting
are watersheds able
summaries Individual watershed groups
to sustain future
(described below)
iterations as
knowledge
improves?
83
Reporting summaries of H-integration strategies. Reporting summaries should be
provided by each watershed after the first iteration of the H-integration process and then
refined for future iterations. Below are example tables that summarize a watershed’s:
H-integration strategy in the context of VSP parameters
H-actions sequenced over time with the associated modeled effects of each H on
VSP parameters
Summary graph depicting the hypothesis of how the H actions will affect the
population over time
More detail should be added as new knowledge arises and monitoring actions in each of
the H-sectors should be adjusted accordingly to match integrated strategies. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently lead staff in assisting watersheds with the H-
integration process, and as their approaches and materials evolve, so should the reporting
summaries below. In other words, the reporting summaries below are the best
representation of products generated by the H-integration process, but should not be
considered exhaustive.
Table 2. Example table from the Snohomish watershed describing their current understanding of
how actions in the watershed affect VSP parameters. This table may change as new knowledge
arises through monitoring and/or research.
Abundance Productivity Spatial Structure Diversity
Restoration and
Restoration and
preservation actions that Restoration and
Preservation actions preservation actions to
benefit habitat quality preservation strategy
focused in sub- address the life history
and survival; focused on across the basin
basins with high needs of the Skykomish
improving rearing habitat including smaller
Habitat current and/or and Snoqualmie
in and downstream of mainstem and large
potential use; i.e. populations; actions that
spawning reaches; i.e. tributaries with
large mainstems, provide for habitat needs
large woody debris, edge rearing and small
estuary nearshore of all life history
habitat, estuarine marsh, spawning populations.
trajectories.
floodplain connectivity.
Maintaining average
Set a low Maximum
Most harvest is on a annual harvest rates
Harvest Rate;
mixture of fish from all below 24% is expected
reduction in the Harvest practices that
portions of the basin to to increase average age
annual harvest rate allow for continued
Harvest prevent disproportionate at spawning, average
to below 24% to population growth rather
harvest of fish using a size, average fecundity,
take advantage of than fixed escapement.
specific portion of the and representation of all
habitat gains and
basin. age classes in the
rebuild runs sizes.
population.
Incorporation of natural
Mass marking of
origin fish into hatchery
hatchery salmon to Use Skykomish-origin
broodstock to increase
allow easy visual stock at the Wallace
fitness of integrated Use weir and trapping
identification and River and Tulalip
population. Reduce protocols at hatchery
release of wild fish; hatcheries to reduce
Hatchery hatchery releases to facilities that prevent
programs designed losses in population
levels that minimize blockages and migration
to permit time and- diversity and genetic
potential risks of delays.
area selective fitness of the Skykomish
predation and
harvest of hatchery wild population.
competition with wild
fish.
salmon.
84
Table 3. Hypothetical summary of the magnitude (major or minor) of H-actions over different
time intervals. This table describes a high-level sequencing of actions in each H. There is
currently no definition for ―Major‖ or ―Minor‖ actions, but these should be developed in the near
future.
1990 Current 3yr 10 yrs 20 yr
Minor Major Major Major Major
Habitat
actions actions actions actions actions
Major Major Major Minor Minor
Harvest
actions actions actions actions actions
Major Major Major Major Minor
Hatchery
actions actions actions actions actions
Table 4. Hypothetical table summarizing VSP targets based on the predicted integrated effects of
all Hs over time. Note that the table is incomplete, but states that modeled data will provide the
missing VSP targets.
1990 Current 3yr 10 yrs 20 yr
Abundance
Modeled Modeled Modeled
(Capacity metric 8600 and
data 5000 data data
of system) % change
Productivity
Modeled Modeled Modeled
(Intrinsic
data 3.7 5.3 data data
productivity)
Spatial
Structure Modeled Modeled Modeled Modeled Modeled
(Qualitative data data data data data
description)
Diversity
Modeled Modeled Modeled
(Diversity 80% 93%
data data data
Index)
Figure 1. Example graphic depiction of how the H actions will affect the population.
85
Validation monitoring. Metrics for validation monitoring include the suite of VSP
parameters, which can be summarized with watershed-specific graphics depicting a
change in parameters over time. The cumulative effectiveness of our combined H-actions
on VSP parameters can also be summarized with a graph described at the end of this
section. Examples for both sets of metrics are described below. Instead of providing a
summary table of metrics and indicators such as those provided above and in previous
sections, a brief description for each VSP parameter (metric) and graphic depictions
(indicators) are provided.
Abundance. Abundance is simply a measure of how many fish of a defined life
stage (e.g. fry) are in a defined area (e.g. freshwater watershed). The most
informative abundance data can be described by the phrase, ―fish in, fish out.‖
Ideally, watersheds would have information on how many fish are present in
every type of encountered habitat (freshwater, estuarine, marine areas) at every
life stage (egg through adult), but at a minimum, each watershed should be able to
quantify how many smolts are going ―out‖ of a river and how many adults are
coming ―in‖ to spawn (also known as ―escapement‖). Abundance graphs should
depict trends in smolt and adult abundance over time related to an abundance
goal. This goal may change based on the changing productivity of the system,
which is briefly discussed below in ―productivity‖, so there should be long-term,
paired goals for both productivity and abundance based on projections for
improvement in each of the H-sectors.
86
Figure 2. Hypothetical example of ―fish in‖ abundance trends that would serve as an indicator for
the abundance metric. This same graph should be repeated for ―fish out‖. Numbers were
randomly generated.
40000 Abundance goal based on intrinsic productivity
that increases as habitat quality improves
35000
Number of adults
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Trends in this graph can inform decision-makers by displaying if we are on an
abundance trajectory that will consistently perform above identified abundance
goals. Natural variability in annual abundances, which can be caused by variables
like changing ocean conditions that support salmon growth and survival, are not
accounted for in this graph, but should be considered in parallel. The regional
indicator for this metric should be a trend line displaying the average annual
percentage of the abundance goal each watershed has achieved for ―fish in‖ and
―fish out‖.
Typically, comanagers collect abundance data as part of their harvest
management responsibilities. Although it is a primary tenet of this plan that the
integration of all H-actions is necessary for efficient increases in abundance and
other VSP parameters, more specific abundance metrics and indicators are found
in the harvest section because of the traditional collection responsibilities and
their relation to harvest management plans. This should not be interpreted as
lessening the importance of H-integration for abundance improvements.
Productivity. Productivity over the entire life cycle of a salmon population is also
known as ―population growth rate‖. One of the most common metrics of
productivity quantifies how many fish come back as adults from one previous
spawner (spawner to spawner productivity). This is the best measure for
87
determining the overall status of a population. Abundance goals are directly
linked to productivity. The more productive a population is the fewer number of
adults are needed to return to spawn to consistently reach abundance goals for
different life stages. Measures of productivity trends can be summarized annually
in table format that will serve as an indicator of productivity, but they will also be
reflected in abundance goal lines similar to the one in Figure 2 above. Similar to
abundance, the regional indicator for productivity should be a trend line
displaying the average annual percentage of the spawner to spawner productivity
goal each watershed has achieved (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Hypothetical graph showing the combined trends of ―fish in‖, ―fish out‖, and spawner
to spawner productivity for an individual watershed. The Y-axis for productivity is on the right.
Numbers were randomly generated.
250000 adults 2.00
smolts
productivity
200000
Spawner to spawner
Number of fish
productivity
150000
1.00
100000
50000
0 0.00
1989 1994 1999 2004
Year
Spatial Structure. Spatial structure describes the general distribution of a fish
population in habitats they use throughout their life cycle. In other words, spatial
structure depicts the total range of fish at different life stages (e.g. spawning adults)
within a spatial unit (e.g. watershed). Fish that use a greater amount of area within a
spatial unit have a better chance of persisting than those that populate more
concentrated areas. The Puget Sound TRT notes that the negative effects of three
processes are ameliorated by greater spatial structure:
1) Catastrophic losses to a population (e.g. a landslide blocks access to spawning
habitat upstream, but a certain set of the population spawns below the landslide)
88
2) Dwindling groups (e.g. within an individual population there is a greater chance
for other healthier groups to help recolonize smaller groups)
3) Environmental change (e.g. as habitats change, more groups within an individual
population will have the chance of effectively coping with those changes)
These processes are potentially most harmful in freshwater portions of the salmons’ range
since freshwater habitat conditions tend to be more dynamic and prone to acute
disturbances than saltwater conditions. Thus, freshwater descriptions of spatial structure
should be the minimum monitoring requirement, but ideally, a watershed or region would
be able to summarize spatial structure for all life stages in all habitat types, including
nearshore and marine habitats. There are several ways of displaying spatial structure, but
among all of the possibilities there should be a comparison of spatial structure for
historic, current, and projected conditions (hypothesized future conditions based on
recovery actions). Templates are suggested below.
Table 5. Example table from the Snohomish freshwater watershed quantifying the
proportion of sub-basins that are occupied by greater than 500 spawners under alternative
watershed habitat conditions (historical, current, future)
Historical Future Current
# occupied sub-
13 9 3
basins
Percentage of
historically
100% 69% 23%
available sub-
basins
This table contributes to visual descriptions of spatial structure. The example map below
(Figure 4) should be produced within each watershed:
Together, the table and graph for spatial structure will illustrate a goal for future spatial
structure. Watersheds can gauge their progress toward spatial structure goals every three
years (as new three-year work plans are developed) and report a percentage toward their
overall goal. These percentages can be averaged to summarize regional trends.
Diversity. Diversity metrics describe the breadth of life history, morphological (body
structure and form), physiological, and genetic traits. Variation within these traits allows
populations to thrive in a wide array of environmental conditions. It is different from
spatial structure in that it does not consider the amount of area used by salmon, but more
the types of areas used and the individual differences of fish within a population that
allow them to utilize different habitats at different times. But similar to spatial structure,
there are many ways to summarize these metrics; one useful and tangible summary is to
graph the proportion of each habitat type in a watershed that is being used by spawners
under historical, current, and future conditions. The assumption in this graph is that
within each habitat type, fish have unique suites of morphological, physiological, and
genetic traits that are adapted to their specific habitat. The magnitude of variation
between the suites of traits will vary among all populations.
89
Figure 4. Maps depicting the spatial locations of sub-basins in the Snohomish watershed
that support greater than 500 spawners under current, future, and historic conditions. The
SHIRAZ model predicted future conditions based on proposed habitat changes (NOTE:
other models and methods are available for predicting conditions).
90
Figure 5. Histogram showing the diversity of habitat types occupied by spawners under
current, test case and historical habitat conditions. This figure is an example from the
Snohomish Basin.
Similar to the spatial structure figure and table, watersheds can use this graph to gauge
their progress toward diversity goals every three years (as new three-year work plans are
developed) and report a percentage toward their overall goal. These percentages can be
averaged over the region and reported every three years.
Since some watersheds may not currently have the capability to monitor all of the VSPs,
Puget Sound regional adaptive management discussions in the near-term should consider:
How do we prioritize what VSP parameters are monitored and where they are
monitored, or how do we ensure that all watersheds have the ability to monitor all
the VSPs?
If we have to prioritize, how can we prove that the biological status of each Puget
Sound population is improving?
These questions will be important to answer before determining exactly how VSP
parameter monitoring will tell an effective salmon recovery story.
Cumulative effectiveness graphs. Consolidating important information into a small,
descriptive, and intuitive package is valuable to decision-makers. Over time, as
monitoring progresses, the region should be able to develop visual aids that summarize
91
the cumulative effectiveness of all our recovery actions on improving VSP parameters. It
is important to remember that improving VSP parameters to harvestable, sustainable
levels is the major goal of Puget Sound salmon recovery. The content of this section is
intended to guide development of these cumulative effectiveness figures and identify
technical issues that will need to be discussed for future refinement. These figures will
show change only over long time periods, likely every 2 to 3 generations of salmon.
Currently, it is proposed that a suite of four cumulative effectiveness graphs be
developed. The Y-axis (or vertical axis) for each graph will be an individual VSP
parameter (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). The X-axis (or
horizontal axis) for each graph will be the same for all four graphs, and will be an index
number that represents the status of all H-sector actions combined (hatchery, harvest, and
habitat). To keep the text concise, this will be referred to as an ―H-integration index‖. An
index is simply a single value that is derived from a number of observations. For
example, if a watershed had one habitat indicator that determined the status of a habitat
limiting factor for salmon, each indicator could be weighted and summed to develop an
overall habitat condition index. A suite of indicators that represents the status of each H-
sector is proposed below. Each of these indicators should specifically identify the status
of a limiting factor within each H-section. Limiting factors are described in each
individual H section of this plan.
Table 6. Summary of indicators from each H-sector that would develop H-integration index.
Habitat Harvest Hatchery
Status of potential habitat Harvest rate (a % non-local origin fish
limiting factors: See Habitat metric of the in population (or some
section ―Status and Trends‖ number of fish other metric of straying
monitoring for a list of harvested from the – can be measured with
proposed metrics; there population) genetic or Coded Wire
should be at least one metric Tag (CWT) data)
for each limiting factor Genetic effective size –
Ne (a measure of rate of
loss of genetic diversity
from hatchery influence
and capacity of
population to adjust to
changes in environment)
% hatchery versus %
wild (or some other
metric of the degree of
integration between
hatchery and wild
stocks)
Post-release survival (or
some other metric of
hatchery fish
contribution to the
population’s abundance)
The most technical aspect of this analysis is weighting each indicator’s influence on VSP
parameters. In other words, if one indicator changes will there a related change in one or
92
more VSP parameters occur? Weighting will be possible if each chosen indicator has a
significant correlation to changes in VSP parameters. If development of a cumulative
effectiveness indicator such as the one described here is pursued further, the reality may
be that only a certain core set of metrics correlate to changes in VSP parameters. The
weight given to each metric based on their influence on VSP parameters is known as
―common currencies.‖ These common currencies will add up to an ―H-integration index‖
that can be calculated within an individual watershed.
Is this possible and meaningful? Before considerable technical work takes place, a
conversation between technical and policy people must determine if this tool, in a
technically realistic form, will provide meaningful information to decision-makers. This
tool should be specifically designed to show long-term progress in VSP parameters as a
result of our integrated recovery efforts. This type of data could aid prioritization of
recovery actions and summarize progress within watersheds and across the Puget Sound
region. To facilitate discussion, it might be possible to develop an example of what the
results would look like for a watershed that already has a large monitoring data set.
If the tool is deemed possible and meaningful, then the most effective approach to
developing this tool (Figure 6) may be to convene a small one or two-day workshop in
2007 that brings experts together to discuss a realistic and scientifically defensible
approach for development. This workshop would be planned by a subgroup of the Puget
Sound Regional Adaptive Management and Monitoring Steering Committee. The
technical issues below should be discussed:
Refine criteria for choosing metrics. Choose metrics that accurately depict the
status of limiting factors in each H and also have an influence on VSP parameters.
It will be important to consider which ones have significant influence in all
watersheds, or if there will be separate sets of metrics for each watershed based
on their unique situations. Also, as habitat conditions change, will different
metrics become more important, and will new metrics need to be chosen over
time?
Define the relationship between the time habitat data is collected and specific
year classes of salmon. For example, if the cumulative effectiveness monitoring
tool examines adult abundance as a VSP parameter for 2005 adults, then
freshwater habitat indicators that affected those adults as juveniles may need to be
reported for 2001. These relationships should be defined in a table.
Weight the effect of each metric. A multiple regression or other correlation
technique will most likely be utilized to determine the magnitude of relationship
between each metric and VSP parameters.
Decide which life stages to report. Which life stages are the most important to
report? Since successful adult spawners are the ultimate judge of recovery
progress, the priority should be summarizing the VSP parameters for adults.
Figure 6. Hypothetical example of a cumulative effectiveness graph for abundance. One of these
graphs would be produced for each VSP parameter. In this graph, each watershed is represented
by a single point at the intersection of its H-integration index and its progress toward their stated
abundance goal. Since it is unlikely that changes will be seen in time periods less than 2 to 3
93
generations of salmon, progress toward abundance goals should be averaged over a specified time
interval. (Note: some points in this figure have color)
Watershed's % progress toward
60
50
abundance goal
40 Individual watershed
score As years progress,
changes in score can
30 be noted and color
coded based on the
20
amount of change
10 relative to other
watersheds
0
50 60 70 80 90 100
H-integration index
94
To be developed in early 2007:
Education, Outreach, and Community Engagement
Capacity-Building
Regional Research Strategy
95
Appendices
96
Appendix A: Strategy Map for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Strategies & Activities Assets & Threats Objectives & Goals
Habitat protection and restoration Habitat effects
• Protect existing habitat to improve VSP : – Loss/degradation of habitat conditions: e.g. structure &
Watershed: Update/implement protection programs; stability, substrate, flow regime, access, water quality, riparian Well-coordinated &
acquisition/conservation easements of priority habitat; – Degradation of watershed processes: e.g. sediment supply, supported recovery
Regional: Assess effectiveness of protection efforts; hydro regime, organic matter, nutrient/chem light/heat inputs efforts
provide technical and political support to improve regulatory, – Stressors: e.g. industrial& urban development, some ag & • Funding matched to
educ’n & incentive programs; develop/implement protection timber harvest practices, hydropower, dredging/drainage priorities
progs for critical habitat + Potential for natural resource industries to protect & restore • Political commitment
• Restore/create habitat & habitat-forming processes to habitat (e.g. focus development in existing urban areas) (watershed, ESU,
improve VSP: +/– Existing programs/tools: Growth Management Act, Forest international)
Watershed: restoration projects for riparian instream, & Fish, Forest Management Plan, DOE water programs, • Habitat, harvest &
channel migration; forest & farm practices; fish passage, etc. Shoreline Management Act, NEPA, FERC, & others hatchery activities
Regional: Create, adopt, enforce tribal, state & fed progs + Experts/independent review of science & activities well integrated
(State water quality, SMP, Forests & Fish, development
codes, instream flow etc.); develop incentive Harvest effects
programs & strategies for risks such as climate change – Effect of direct, incidental, & illegal harvesting (eg. Loss of
Harvest management abundance altered diversity and distribution) Threats facing the Tribal treaty
• Manage fisheries to protect existing pops & restore pops +/– Existing local, regional, & intern’l harvest management progms ESU addressed rights to
to meet harvest & recovery goals + Experts/independent review of science & activities • Protected and/or harvest fish met
Watershed: Develop/enforce/adapt harvest regs restored habitat &
Hatchery effects
Regional: Implement/adapt Chinook Harvest Mgnt Plan; habitat-forming
– Hatchery risks: Loss of wild population diversity &
US-Canada plan; set fisheries plan (Falcon Process) processes
fitness, physical/chemical effect of hatchery structure & Self-sustaining,
• Harvest levels that
Hatchery management effluent, competition between hatchery & wild fish, disease harvestable
allow for viable
• Manage hatcheries to protect existing pops & restore transfer, increased risk of over-harvest, altered gene flow salmon runs
populations & treaty
pops to meet harvest & recovery goals + Tools & progs to increase abundance & prevent extinction • ESU no longer
rights
Watershed & Regional: Develop/enforce/adapt hatchery + Experts/independent review of science & activities in danger of
• Hatcheries used
regs, implement/adapt Hatchery RMPs according to GMPs extinction, not
appropriately to
Cumulative effects of habitat, harvest and hatcheries likely become
Monitoring, research and adaptive management support wild
+/– Understanding cumulative effects within and between each H endangered in
•Create systems to assess overall effectiveness & test populations &
+ Integrating management of all H’s the foreseeable
uncertainties: Identify key targets and triggers; link to fisheries
future
decision making & decision makers
Other regional & global environmental factors
•Ensure that planned actions are being implemented
– Climate change
•Design & implement cross-watershed experiments
–/+ Ocean conditions Improved salmon
•Coordinate monitoring efforts & data sharing
– Disease & predation populations within &
–/+ Food web Puget Sound’s
Coordination and integration of recovery activities across bio-
fresh & marine
•Integrate Hs: use integrated analyses, adjust relative to each geographic regions
Socio-political drivers waters support
other, integrate w/ in & across marine & freshwater, Use life • Abundance
– Rules of commerce/economic market forces abundance of
cycle analyses to prevent further population decline • Productivity
– Trends in population growth all native
•Integrate local, state, tribal & federal activities: Create • Spatial distribution
– Increasing scarcity of natural resources species
systems that make info accessible; avoid duplication of efforts • Diversity
– Individual & collective preferences and behaviors
•Set funding priorities: Allocate funds efficiently within and
among watersheds and region Social Structure
•Hedge uncertainties: Prioritize “higher certainty” projects Watershed:
Coexistence of people, economic prosperity & a
+ Watershed groups (where exist)
healthy environment
Strategic education, outreach and community engagement + Diverse & dispersed network
• Sustainable growth (e.g., most growth in urban
•Broaden & deepen public & political support: Target +/– Multiple governments and groups involved
areas)
communication to specific key community sectors to achieve – Limited capacity (time, money, staff, planning grp in some)
• Sustainable economies (e.g., improved bottom-
support for plan implementation, legislation, resources +/– Commitment of elected officials and community leaders
• Promote the PS recovery effort outside the region:
line of salmon-friendly farming)
Regional:
• Natural resource culture & traditions enjoyed
Publicize, recognize progress, innovation & results +/– Multiple governments and groups involved
(e.g., harvest for tribes)
+ Diverse & dispersed network
Capacity-building at watershed and regional levels – Lack coordination of info; inaccessibility of information
• Clarify and define roles and responsibilities across WS + Regional organization Puget Sound Regional Salmon Recovery Plan
and Regional scales +/– Commitment of officials and community leaders Draft Situation Map (January 23, 2006)
• Build WS & Regional capacity to resolve conflicts, make
difficult decisions & use current science: cross watershed Funding Situation Map template created by the Ecosystem Management Initiative,
forums, training, technical guidance & support +/– Federal, state, private, local and tribal funding sources School of Natural Resources & Environment, The University of Michigan
• Develop/leverage funding to support efforts –/+ Coordinated and prioritized funding For more information: www.snre.umich.edu/emi
97
Appendix B
The Puget Sound Protection Initiative
Background. It has been assumed by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan that the
implementation of current habitat protection management tools, which can be regulatory,
voluntary, incentive-based, or educational, are effectively stopping the continued
degradation of salmon habitat and habitat-forming processes. Thus, stopping the
continuing degradation will allow habitat restoration actions to build on the current level
of ecological function in the Puget Sound region. However, feedback from the Puget
Sound Technical Recovery Team and local recovery planning groups suggests that the
certainty of this assumption is extremely low.
Thus, the Puget Sound Protection Initiative seeks not only to test the assumption
described above, but to effectively protect the ecological functions of terrestrial,
freshwater, nearshore and marine ecosystems in a manner that also protects human
interests such as water quality, human health, private property rights, and public safety.
This merging of environmental and human interests is an important principle of the Puget
Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. One major part of the initiative will be to assess and
evaluate how effectively protection tools are being implemented. The results of this stage,
which is currently being initiated voluntarily in some watersheds, will inform and help
guide the adapted assessment and evaluation models watersheds use in the remaining
Puget Sound region. The description below may be adapted to address the unique needs
of individual watersheds.
This initiative has four key elements:
1) Using local decision-makers, stakeholders, and citizens to guide the initiative
2) Assessment
Determining current conditions. Map existing quantity, quality and location of
intact habitats and habitat forming processes
Describing protection goals. Describe the priority types of ecological
functions we want to preserve, and what protection tools are being used to
preserve those functions
Describing differences. Indicate where protection tool goals are different.
3) Using the results to further craft a regional protection strategy using the available
suite of protection management tools; some of the results will develop from:
Determining implementation effectiveness. Analyze whether protection tools
are actually being implemented as proposed
Determining cause for lack of effectiveness. Describe why implementation of
some protection tools is not occurring
Scaling priority areas. Answer whether protection tools are effective in high
priority, sensitive habitats
98
Predicting future threats. Answer how future growth patterns could influence
the current trends in type of habitat protection tools used and their
implementation effectiveness
4) Monitor the effectiveness of this strategy over time
Results should include:
A set of common and measurable ecosystem-based protection tool objectives
A process for monitoring short-term and long-term implementation effectiveness
over time across protection tools and the organizations that implement them
An assessment of past implementation effectiveness of existing protection tools
A determination of areas at highest risk to loss of ecological function
A determination of protection tool successes that need to be continued and gaps
that must be addressed
An assessment and evaluation model for protection tool implementation
effectiveness that can be used and adapted throughout Puget Sound
99
