Key Monitoring and Research Plans of the Pacific Northwest

 

Introduction

The millions of dollars poured into riparian restoration and salmon recovery projects have kept politicians and the public busy, and left them with a feeling that they are doing something to ameliorate the salmon crisis. However, these tremendous investments of both time and money have yet to demonstrate success in terms of increased salmon abundance. Salmon numbers continue to decline, many to the point of being listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. So, a question on many people=s minds, scientists and non-scientists alike, is how do we validate the assumptions of such programs? People will increasingly question the theory that any improvement of salmon habitat will increase salmon abundance. This burgeoning uncertainty, particularly in light of the tremendous financial inputs, led the ONRC to engage Dr. Daniel B. Botkin and The Center for the Study of the Environment (CSE) to produce a report addressing monitoring and salmon conservation, including the degree of interagency coordination, social and political support, and funding issues. The report highlighted the importance of pre- and post-project monitoring of salmon abundance to determine project effectiveness. The Botkin report=s mixed reception among scientists is one of the leading factors in the development of the validation monitoring panel.

As a precursor to the first conference, presented below are descriptions of some key monitoring and research plans in Washington and Oregon, with emphasis on the types of monitoring required by each. The descriptions provide data regarding who sponsored the plan, who acts as the lead scientist, what statutory requirement or purpose the plan addresses, and if the plan includes validation monitoring. Accompanying documents with more specific information concerning the individual monitoring plans will be made available through website links, hard copies, and/or electronic copies.

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)

The NWFP was sponsored and organized by President Clinton and several federal agencies, the two primary ones being the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

In 1991 the controversy surrounding the Northern Spotted Owl and old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) had clogged the legal system with lawsuits and court injunctions, effectively crippling management of federal lands. When President Clinton assumed office in 1993, the situation was at a stalemate and congress had been unable to agree on a solution. In April, 1993 President Clinton convened the Northwest Forest Conference to address the human and environmental needs served by the federal forests of the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. This represented the first step in the development of the president=s Northwest Forest Plan. In July of 1993, as part of his AForest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,@ Clinton directed FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management & Assessment Team) to develop long-term alternatives for resolving conflicts over managing forest ecosystems on USFS and BLM lands in the PNW. In October, 1993 the principal departments and agencies involved in the Northwest Forest Plan signed a Memorandum of Understanding. Signatories included the White House Office on Environmental Policy (now the Council on Environmental Quality), the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The multi-agency approach was further reinforced in April 1994, when the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior issued a joint Record of Decision based on an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement - USDA and USDI 1994a) which analyzed FEMAT alternatives. It led to the adoption of the land-allocation strategy contained in the ARecord of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl@ (ROD; USDA and USDI 1994b), commonly known as the NWFP. Five major federal laws had to be incorporated while developing the NWFP: NEPA(National Environmental Protection Act), ESA (1973 Endangered Species Act), NFMA (1976 National Forest Management Act), FLPMA (1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act), and O&CLA (Oregon and California Lands Act).

The controversial plan focuses on protecting aquatic resources, forest health, and old-growth dependent species while attempting to maintain sustainable harvest levels and economic stability in rural communities. The court's acceptance of the NWFP in 1994 led to the lifting of court injunctions and mandated forest management agencies to begin applying the newly adopted management prescriptions. Part of the plan's attraction was its stated reliance on science as the primary tool to define new forest management paradigms

An Interagency Steering Committee (ISC) was created to oversee implementation and management of the NWFP. The committee was comprised of members from the following agencies: USFS, BLM, BIA, NPS, USFWS, EPA, USGS= Biological Resources Division, and NMFS (NOAA Fisheries). The Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) was charged with assuring the prompt, coordinated, and successful implementation of the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). The RIEC served as the principal conduit for communications between the ISC and the agencies in the planning area. Staff work and decision-making support for the RIEC came from the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). REO scientists also made up the Research and Monitoring Committee, which provided evaluations and assessment of ongoing research programs, as well as development of monitoring plans.

 

What kind of monitoring is required and who performs it?

All of the agencies charged with implementing the NWFP participate in program monitoring. The NWFP presents a general framework for its required monitoring and evaluation components, citing the three specific types of monitoring to be included:

1) Implementation monitoring - determines if the standards and guidelines (as cited in Appendix A of the ROD,) were followed. Implementation monitoring considers three strategies: aquatic, terrestrial, and socioeconomic.

2) Effectiveness monitoring - goes further by evaluating if application of the management plan achieved the desired goals, and if the objectives of the standards and guidelines were met. Effectiveness monitoring also considers the three same strategies listed above.

3) Validation monitoring - determines if a cause and effect relationship exists between management activities and the indicators or resource being managed. Among the key set of assumptions that need to be validated are the relationships between habitat and populations.

(See http://www.or.blm.gov/ForestPlan/NWFPTitl.htm for the S&Gs, section E-4 through E-11)

The approach anticipated agency development of specific monitoring strategies for priority resources such as the N. spotted owl, marbled murrelet, old growth forests, and aquatic and riparian areas. These general frameworks provided a description of monitoring=s role in adaptive management as outlined in FEMAT=s analysis. The NWFP employed ecological monitoring concepts from the EPA=s EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) and relied on the planning already performed by EMAP=s program.

Implementation monitoring began in 1996 and continued through 1997. A final report was published November 6, 1998, AResults of the FY 1997 Implementation Monitoring Program for Management of Habitat for Late-Succession and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.@

To date, there have been two cooperatively produced reports that address effectiveness monitoring, but no effectiveness monitoring programs have been implemented. The first report, released in July 1995, defined effectiveness monitoring under the NWFP. The second, AThe Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the NWFP - 1/99," presented the overall strategy and guidance for effectiveness monitoring. The second report was followed closely by recent publications regarding effectiveness monitoring of priority resources, such as old growth, marbled murrelets, and the N. spotted owl. The aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring strategy has not been published beyond a first draft (Furniss et. al., 1997). The final report is expected to be released in early 2000. This delay highlights one of the problems with implementation of the NWFP; the large time gap between adoption of the NWFP and the production of suitable testing and monitoring protocols necessary to implement the plan as it was prescribed. Agencies have found it difficult to agree on a strategy for effectiveness monitoring of riparian and aquatic areas. Problems range from the different protocols and bureaucracies expected to work together under standardized guidelines, to the extensive cost and time inputs mandated by the aquatic and riparian guidelines of the plan.

At this time, there have been no published protocols for validation monitoring and no validation monitoring has been conducted under the NWFP. Each monitoring type requires its own specific protocols, which are then tailored to each priority resource. As a result, implementation of formal validation monitoring will not occur until after the monitoring strategies have been produced and finally approved by the NMFS and USFWS.

The NWFP uses models built upon selected habitat criteria as indicators of population size. This is based on their assumption that habitat can act as a Areliable surrogate for direct population measures.@ Justification for the transition from intensive individual endangered species resource issues and population counts to a more extensive ecosystems approach is based on the following: cost-effectiveness; the belief that existing forest inventories can be used as the foundation of monitoring programs; the view that habitat focus is more in line with the mandates of the NWFP=s management of vegetative communities (habitat), not species= populations directly; and that the estimation of trends in habitat structure and composition represent an anticipatory as opposed to a retrospective approach to ecological monitoring, allowing evaluation of alternative management strategies.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources= Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)

The Washington state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed their HCP strategy as an alternative way to comply with ESA listings and their associated effects on habitat management. The HCP resulted from intensive negotiations with the two federal agencies (USFWS and NMFS) that enforce the ESA.

DNR lands provide habitat for several endangered species, including the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and several species of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Due to actual and potential conflicts between DNR's land management and the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) prohibition against take, including significant modification of habitat, DNR decided to develop a habitat conservation plan (HCP) in order to receive an incidental take permit (ITP), under Section 10 of the ESA. Initial discussions between DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) occurred in early 1993. The permit was approved in January of 1997 and covers nine listed animal species. In the plan's implementation agreement, it is stipulated that the DNR can request newly listed species to be added to the ITP by amendment. The plan includes 1.63 million acres, all DNR timberland within the range of the northern spotted owl. In terms of acreage, this is the largest HCP approved by FWS to date.

Citation: Opperman, J. (1998). The Washington Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan. In Improving Integrated Natural Resource Planning: Habitat Conservation Plans, [Web page]. National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research.

Available: http://www.ncedr.org/casestudies/hcp/wadnr.htm [1998, October 14].

Implementation of the HCP is governed by an agreement among DNR, USFWS, and NMFS. The logistics of this are detailed in an AImplementation Agreement,@ which supplements the HCP and defines the roles of the three key participants (NMFS, USFWS, and DNR). These two documents fulfill the requirements for issuance of an ITP, as defined in the ESA.

What kind of monitoring is required for an HCP and who performs it?

As part of their HCP, DNR will conduct three types of monitoring: implementation, effectiveness, and validation. Validation monitoring will only occur in OESF (Olympic Experimental State Forest); it reflects the emphasis on experimentation in that planning unit.

The DNR is required to monitor for and report on project compliance with the terms of the incidental take permit or HCP. This monitoring forms the basis of periodic reports to the USFWS and the NMFS, who oversee the implementation of the HCP=s terms and conditions. The DNR is required to submit their monitoring reports by March 30th of every year. These annual reports detail the previous year=s monitoring activities. In addition, DNR must provide assurances and work-plans describing their monitoring strategy. Such reports would include accountings of take, surveys of species= status or mitigation habitats, and progress reports on fulfillment of mitigation requirements. The HCP monitoring design also incorporates measures which address the possibility of unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances and allow for the adjustment of management strategies based on project outcomes, (adaptive management). Another mandate of the HCP is a monitoring plan which assesses the realization of project goals.

In summary, the DNR=s HCP monitoring objectives are:

1) to determine whether the HCP conservation strategies are implemented as written (implementation monitoring);

2) to determine whether implementation of the conservation strategies results in anticipated habitat conditions (effectiveness monitoring); and

3) to evaluate cause-and-effect relationships between habitat conditions resulting from implementation of the conservation strategies and the animal populations these strategies are intended to benefit (validation monitoring). Currently, validation monitoring only occurs in the OESF.

Validation monitoring will occur only within the OESF Planning units and will document spotted owl and marbled murrelet use of areas managed to provide nesting habitat, and salmonid use of streams crossing DNR-managed lands.

For salmonids, validation monitoring will employ surveys to detect changes in the productivity of spawning adults and salmon-habitat relationships. This will involve estimating numbers of spawning adults and numbers of recruits (i.e., out-migrating smolts or rearing juveniles), and surveying different stream habitat types and conditions to determine fish numbers, species composition, and densities.

Currently, DNR and non-agency scientists are working on the specific monitoring protocols for the effectiveness and validation monitoring procedures for both salmon and the Northern Spotted Owl. Internal reviews began in early September and final reviews by the federal agencies charged with approving an HCP should be concluded in early 2000. DNR plans to implement the effectiveness and validation protocols and start data collection in the summer of 2000. Although, fieldwork for the spotted owl has been performed, summer 2000 will be the first fieldwork for salmonid monitoring.

Extinction is not an option: Washington Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon

The current and anticipated ESA listings of several salmon populations throughout Washington state led to the concept of a statewide recovery plan. Since the ESA was made into law in 1973, the federal agencies and courts have become increasingly involved in defining exactly what that national commitment means for state and local governments, private industry, agriculture, and the general public. To maintain state and local control of decisions that have a major effect on how people live and do business in Washington, the WA. Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy was developed. It provides a package of budget and policy initiatives that will give state and local governments the tools they need to meet ESA requirements without federal intervention.

The plan incorporates salmon protection and water conservation measures and must be submitted for approval from the NMFS and USFWS. Federal acceptance of the plan is based on the following four criteria:

‘ substantive protective and conservation elements;

‘ a high degree of certainty that it will be implemented;

‘ a comprehensive monitoring program; and

‘ recognition of the need for a partnership between federal, state, local, and tribal governments.

Both Governor Gary Locke and the Washington state legislature supported new legislation to address the decline of salmon populations throughout the state. The passage of HB 2496 (Salmon Restoration Legislation) led to the creation of the Governor=s Salmon Recovery Office. Section 6 of HB 2496 also created the Independent Science Panel of the Salmon Recovery Office. The panel consists of five members whose purpose is to provide scientific review and oversight of the state=s recovery efforts, and to review recovery plans. With the assistance of the panel, the Governor=s Salmon Recovery Office and Joint Council on Natural Resources developed the Washington Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy in an effort to restore wild salmon and their habitat.

The first step towards implementing the strategy is a series of measures to ensure that both fish and people have the clean water they need. The Governor=s AWater for People and Fish,@ legislative plan promotes the wise use of water and is backed by $201 million in the state 1999-2001 biennium budget (with $99 million requested from the federal government). Of this $201 million, $3.7 million is appropriated for AMeasuring Our Progress,@ which will fund the collection and analysis of data on timber harvest rates, fish stock status, land use status, water quality, and other limiting factors of salmon. Performance monitoring will determine the effectiveness of the strategy.

 

The statewide strategy encompasses the following:

‘ a collaborative, incentive-based approach to salmon recovery, but one that also is coupled with increased enforcement of environmental laws;

‘ identifying what actions must be taken immediately to prevent extinction;

‘ clear performance measures for determining if restoration efforts are getting results; and

‘ established action plans that will be operational if performance goals are not met on schedule.

The AForest and Fish Agreement@ is part of Washington=s statewide salmon recovery strategy and represents the first statewide plan to meet the requirements of both the ESA and CWA. It was developed by NMFS, USFWS, EPA, Governor Locke, WA. DOE, WADFW, Tribal governments, large forest owners and county governments.

What kind of monitoring is required and who performs it?

According to the legislation that supports the salmon recovery plan, adaptive management is the cornerstone of the Washington Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy, and adaptive management cannot exist without monitoring. Adaptive management is defined as Areliance on scientific methods to test the results of actions taken so that the management and related policy can be changed promptly and appropriately.@ The comprehensive monitoring plan contained within the salmon recovery strategy supports adaptive management and consists of three types of monitoring:

‘ Implementation - determining whether they did what they said they would do, and if they did it correctly.

‘ Effectiveness - how well actions taken achieve their objectives.

‘ Validation - research and evaluations to examine key assumptions associated with conservation actions, especially to learn more about cause-and-effect relationships. (See http://www.governor.wa.gov/esa/strategy/strategy.htm)

The Joint Natural Resources Cabinet expects that each agency/partner will commit to monitor the implementation of its respective conservation actions. Monitoring the status of fish stocks over time is the responsibility of the WDFW and tribal fishery co-managers.

Funding oversight for the statewide salmon recovery strategy was established by the adoption of 2E2SSB 5595 (a.k.a. Salmon Recovery Funding) by the Washington state legislature, passed on May 5th, 1999 and effective July 1st, 1999. This bill created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board which guides spending of funds targeted for recovery activities and projects. The funding board will oversee $119,928,000 in state and federal monies, and disseminate the funds according to the criteria set forth in SB 5595. (For more detail, see http://www.wa.gov/iac/salmonleg.html) In addition, SB 5595 stipulated that the draft of the Washington Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy shall be submitted to NMFS by September 1, 1999. The Strategy was submitted by the deadline, and the Salmon Recovery Office is currently awaiting the NMFS=s assessment of the Washington Statewide Strategy.

 

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

The Oregon Plan began as a set of actions by state, local, tribal, and private organizations and individuals in October, 1995. Their goal was to restore fish populations to productive and sustainable levels. In response to the proposed ESA listings of Coho salmon, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber=s Executive Order No. 99-01 established AThe Oregon Plan For Salmon and Watersheds.@ The plan was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 and is described in two documents, AThe Oregon Plan,@ (3/97) and AThe Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement 1--Steelhead@(1/98). It first addressed Coho salmon and then broadened to include Steelhead in the coastal and lower Columbia River regions.

Like Washington state=s current effort to develop a statewide salmon recovery plan that would maintain state control over conservation measures, the Oregon plan represents their effort to prevent federal intervention and regulatory controls. The Oregon Plan strives to move beyond prohibitions, to encourage efforts to improve conditions for salmon through non-regulatory means, particularly volunteer efforts. The Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team (IMST) and the Joint Legislative Commission on Salmon and Stream Enhancement provide oversight for the Oregon Plan.

In a recent executive order, (effective January 8, 1999) Governor Kitzhaber re-affirmed his commitment to statewide salmon recovery efforts and issued a new plan that covers all Aat-risk@ wild salmonids throughout Oregon state. The order instructs departments that have programs which affect salmon, including forestry, agriculture, and transportation, to establish work plans showing how they will aid all at-risk species in the state. It also requires the departments to set measurable goals to assess the success or failure of their recovery plans. In his executive order, Governor Kitzhaber set a June 1, 1999 deadline for state agency reports on modifications performed on their work programs that would prioritize salmon protection and habitat restoration. In addition, April 1999 was the deadline for the publication date of the final Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines.

What kind of monitoring is required and who performs it?

Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency must actively support the prescribed monitoring strategies and establish a program to determine the effectiveness of their conservation and/or restoration measures. State agencies focus on monitoring trends in fish populations and watershed health to evaluate the effectiveness of current management programs and to adapt their programs as needed.

 

Some examples of the types of monitoring included in the Oregon Plan are:

‘ Monitoring and Assessment

× Abundance and Distribution - Sampling to detect population changes and track recovery.

‘ Downstream Migrants

A Counts of salmon smolts to provide an index of stream productivity.

‘ Project Effectiveness

A Do evaluations of stream habitat improvement projects show that desirable habitat conditions are created when projects are conducted in accordance with Oregon Restoration Guidelines.

‘ Rule Effectiveness

A An ongoing study to evaluate effectiveness of Forest Practices Rules to protect water quality and fish habitats.

In addition, the Plan tracks restoration activities across the state, but they do not yet have a system for determining the impacts of restoration work at various geographic and ecological scales. Previously, the plan had focused on collecting fish and watershed data, but now they are placing more emphasis on the incorporation of monitoring information and evaluation of the effectiveness of Oregon Plan recovery measures. Although the protocols for effectiveness monitoring and validation monitoring are not yet specified, the concepts are being integrated in the planning of future recovery strategies and are a major focus of the Plan. At the same time, they are working on eliminating redundant and less productive monitoring strategies used by the state agencies in an effort to create a unified, standardized monitoring system used by all agencies.