**Integrated Recovery Planning for Listed Salmon:**

**Technical Guidance for Watershed Groups in Puget Sound**

**Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and Shared Strategy Staff Group**

Draft February 3, 2003

**Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team Members**

M. Ruckelshaus (Chair), National Marine Fisheries Service; K. Currens,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; R. Fuerstenberg, King County; W.
Graeber, Washington Department of Natural Resources; K. Rawson, Tulalip
Tribes; N. Sands, National Marine Fisheries Service; J. Scott,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

**Shared Strategy Staff Group**

**Table of Contents**

Page

[1.0 Introduction 1](#introduction)

[2.0 Characteristics of a Viable Salmonid Population
2](#characteristics-of-a-viable-salmonid-population)

[3.0 Steps in the Development of a Recovery Plan
2](#steps-in-the-development-of-a-recovery-plan)

[3.1 Develop Recovery Plan Outline 4](#develop-recovery-plan-outline)

[3.2 Define Planning Targets 12](#define-planning-targets)

[3.2.1. Identify Populations 12](#identify-populations)

[3.2.2. Describe VSP Parameters 13](#describe-vsp-parameters)

[3.3 Assess, Evaluate, and Identify Actions
15](#assess-evaluate-and-identify-actions)

[3.3.1. Assess Population 16](#assess-population)

[3.3.2. Evaluate and Develop Working Hypothesis
19](#evaluate-and-develop-working-hypothesis)

[3.3.3. Identify Strategies 39](#identify-strategies)

[3.3.4. Evaluate Management Actions In Place
49](#evaluate-management-actions-in-place)

[3.3.5. Identify and Evaluate Action Scenario
53](#identify-and-evaluate-action-scenario)

[3.3.6. Frame Monitoring Plan 55](#frame-monitoring-plan)

[3.3.7. Frame Adaptive Management Plan
56](#frame-adaptive-management-plan)

[3.4 Review Regional Recovery Scenarios
58](#review-regional-recovery-scenarios)

[3.5 Finalize Plan 58](#finalize-plan)

[3.5.1. Finalize Action Scenarios 58](#finalize-action-scenarios)

[3.5.2. Finalize Monitoring Plan 58](#finalize-monitoring-plan)

[3.5.3. Finalize Adaptive Management Plan
59](#finalize-adaptive-management-plan)

[4.0 Administrative Criteria 60](#administrative-criteria)

[5.0 Assistance 60](#assistance)

[6.0 References 60](#references)

**List of Tables**

Page

[Table 1. Technical tasks and key questions associated with each step in
the Shared Strategy process. 5](#__RefHeading___Toc32183588)

[Table 2. Status of population identification for each ESU of concern to
the Shared Strategy. 13](#__RefHeading___Toc32183589)

[Table 3. Characteristics of the HPVA and PVA models used by the TRT.
14](#__RefHeading___Toc32183590)

[Table 4. Examples of tools to estimate the capacity and productivity of
a population. 18](#__RefHeading___Toc32183591)

[Table 5. Examples of tools for conducting analyses that include the
effects of landscape-scale processes on VSP parameters. \[Note: this
table is draft and is not complete.\] 23](#__RefHeading___Toc32183592)

[Table 6. Examples of tools for conducting analyses for the effects of
harvest management actions on VSP parameters. The section number where
these tools are discussed is given in parentheses in the first column.
\[Note: this table is draft and is not complete.\]
31](#__RefHeading___Toc32183593)

[Table 7. Collecting information for a conceptual model of the effects
of hatchery actions on abundance (A), productivity (P), diversity (D),
and spatial structure (SS) in a watershed for current conditions (C) and
desired future conditions (F). 35](#__RefHeading___Toc32183594)

[Table 8. Examples of tools for conducting analyses that integrate the
potential effects of habitat, harvest and hatchery management actions on
VSP parameters. \[Note: this table is draft and is not complete\].
38](#__RefHeading___Toc32183595)

[Table 9. Examples of alternative habitat management strategies
associated with habitat forming processes or aquatic habitat
characteristics. 42](#__RefHeading___Toc32183596)

[Table 10. Four strategies from the Comprehensive Coho Salmon Management
Plan based on the management goal (harvest or recovery) and degree of
reproductive integration with the naturally produced fish (integration
or isolation), and their risks, benefits, and critical elements.
47](#__RefHeading___Toc32183597)

**List of Figures**

Page

[Figure 1. Example of the interaction of the physical environment and
processes that affect aquatic habitat and the VSP parameters of a
population. 20](#__RefHeading___Toc32183617)

[Figure 2. Example of the interactions among habitat, hatchery, and
harvest management actions and their potential effects on the VSP
parameters of a population. 37](#__RefHeading___Toc32183618)

# Introduction

This document describes the biological content of a recovery plan
directed to ultimately fulfill obligations of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and address broader recovery goals. We frame the biological
content through a series of technical questions that drive the
development of: 1) a working hypothesis that describes the current
interaction of the population and the ecosystem; 2) an integrated
strategy that describes the types of habitat, harvest, and hatcheries
measures that will lead to recovery; 3) a set of specific, integrated
actions for habitat, harvest, and hatcheries that are hypothesized to
result in achieving the salmon population targets; and 4) a suite of
monitoring, evaluation, and decision criteria that facilitate adaptive
implementation of the watershed plan.

Although many of our questions are focused at the individual population
level, we recognize that a watershed recovery plan must be developed and
evaluated within the context of the entire Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU). Developing a list of actions that will lead to achieving
population targets cannot be done without considering the cumulative
effects of harvest, hatchery and habitat management actions occurring
throughout the range of the population. More importantly, since the ESU
is the listed entity under the ESA, the goals and proposed recovery
actions for the individual watersheds will ultimately be evaluated based
upon how they operate together towards recovery of the entire ESU.

We believe that satisfactorily addressing the questions will lead to the
development of a recovery plan with a high likelihood of success, and
with a high likelihood of approval by NOAA Fisheries. Our suggestions
are not unique -- rather we have attempted to distill the ideas and
information from many sources, including NMFS (1996), NWPPC (2001), and
Beechie et al. (2002).

Effective recovery planning for salmonids requires expertise in many
scientific fields and the participation of many groups. Our questions
are designed to help make this multidisciplinary task easier, to provide
a common framework for salmon recovery planning that brings together,
rather than isolates, the extensive expertise that already exists in the
Pacific Northwest. Who answers the questions will vary, depending on the
types of actions being considered in each watershed. We assume that the
audience includes (but is not limited to) watershed groups and
co-managers. Progressing from the questions outlined here to a set of
actions a watershed will take to achieve population targets involves
several additional policy steps that we do not outline in this document.
Rather, our aim here is to clearly articulate questions that will form
the technical basis for policy decisions that answer the broad question:
"What actions are necessary to achieve population planning targets?"

We have attempted to foster multidisciplinary discussion and
understanding by providing a synopsis of the rationale for each question
we pose, examples of how the question has been addressed, and tools that
are available. We have also included a preliminary indication of how to
evaluate the certainty of the response; that is, "How confident are we
in our answer to the question?" Understanding the certainty of the
recovery plan, and approaches that have been incorporated to address
uncertainty, will become increasingly important as we all attempt to
assess if the plan is likely to result in recovery.

Linking actions in habitat, hatchery and harvest management to salmon
population status involves describing the four key characteristics of
population health: abundance, productivity or growth rate, diversity,
and spatial structure (see *Characteristics of a Viable Salmonid
Population*, below). The questions emphasize the importance of
integrating the predicted effects of habitat characteristics and
processes, hatchery and harvest practices on salmon populations
throughout their life cycle. For example, predicting the effects of a
hatchery management program on salmon population status is not
meaningful if the effects of the habitat condition in the watershed and
the harvest regime are ignored. Evaluating the effects of habitat on
salmon populations is especially complex. The questions contained in
this document highlight the importance of understanding the conditions
within freshwater and estuarine habitats (e.g., flow, sediment loads)
and the landscape-scale processes (e.g., hydrology, sediment budgets).
Linking the means through which landscape processes produce habitat
conditions, and how they in turn affect salmon populations is a
challenging task that must be undertaken for each watershed so that
habitat-related actions for recovery can be identified.

# Characteristics of a Viable Salmonid Population

Our approach to recovery planning rests on the concept of a viable
salmonid population (VSP). A VSP is an independent population that has a
negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation,
local environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a
100-year time period (McElhany et al. 2000). Four characteristics of a
population are linked to viability - abundance, population growth
rate/productivity, spatial structure and diversity (see Box 1).
Abundance is the number of individuals in the population at a given life
stage or time; productivity or growth rate is the actual or expected
ratio of abundance in the next generation to current abundance; spatial
structure refers to how the abundance at any life stage is distributed
among available or potentially available habitats; and diversity is the
variety of life histories, sizes, and other characteristics expressed by
individuals within a population.

# Steps in the Development of a Recovery Plan

Our suggested approach builds on the five steps in the Shared Strategy
planning process:

> Step 1. Recovery Plan Outline: Develop an outline for a recovery plan
> that addresses the needs of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
> broader regional goals.
>
> Step 2. Planning Targets: Define the abundance, productivity/growth
> rate, diversity, and spatial structure desired for each population.
>
> Step 3. Action Identification: Identify the habitat, harvest, and
> hatchery management actions necessary to attain the planning targets.
>
> Step 4. Regional Recovery: Determine which set of options in
> individual watersheds will add up to recovery at the regional scale,
> the scale at which chinook salmon, summer chum salmon, and bull trout
> are listed under the ESA.
>
> Step 5. Finalize Plan: Finalize an initial set of recovery goals and
> management actions consistent with treaty rights and the ESA.

Key technical questions in each step are summarized in Table 1 and
discussed in the following sections.

## Develop Recovery Plan Outline

Question: What technical information and analyses must be included in a
recovery plan?

The ESA identifies three components of a recovery plan:

1)  "a description of contents of such site-specific management actions
    as may be necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the conservation
    and survival of a species";

2)  "objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
    determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section,
    that the species be removed from the list"; and

3)  estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those
    measures needed to achieve the plan's goal and to achieve
    intermediate steps toward that goal."

In addition, NMFS salmon conservation guidance (1996) requests:

4)  an assessment of the factors that led to population declines and/or
    which are impeding recovery; and

5)  a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program for gauging the
    effectiveness of recovery measures and overall progress towards
    recovery.

The "Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners" (NWPPC 2001) provides a
complementary perspective and additional suggestions for the contents of
a watershed plan.

The Shared Strategy staff group reviewed these sources and developed a
draft outline for a recovery plan for Puget Sound salmon (see
[www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org](http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/)).
The outline is intended to stimulate discussion at the local and
regional level, and to help all participants in the Shared Strategy
think about how pieces of local and regional salmon protection and
restoration efforts can fit into a region-wide plan. Evolution of the
outline will occur as work proceeds on each of the Shared Strategy
steps.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183588 .anchor}Table 1. Technical tasks and key
questions associated with each step in the Shared Strategy process.

+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| *       | **Tec  | **Key      |            |           |            |
| *Shared | hnical | Q          |            |           |            |
| S       | T      | uestions** |            |           |            |
| trategy | asks** |            |            |           |            |
| Step**  |        |            |            |           |            |
+=========+========+============+============+===========+============+
|         |        | *          | *          | **Hat     | **In       |
|         |        | *Habitat** | *Harvest** | cheries** | tegrated** |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Id     | What       |            |           |            |
| 1**     | entify | technical  |            |           |            |
|         | El     | i          |            |           |            |
| Develop | ements | nformation |            |           |            |
| R       | of     | and        |            |           |            |
| ecovery | Plan   | analyses   |            |           |            |
| Plan    |        | must be    |            |           |            |
| Outline |        | included   |            |           |            |
|         |        | in a       |            |           |            |
|         |        | recovery   |            |           |            |
|         |        | plan?      |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        | {Note:     |            |           |            |
|         |        | This step  |            |           |            |
|         |        | in the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Shared     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Strategy   |            |           |            |
|         |        | process    |            |           |            |
|         |        | has been   |            |           |            |
|         |        | completed. |            |           |            |
|         |        | The draft  |            |           |            |
|         |        | recovery   |            |           |            |
|         |        | plan       |            |           |            |
|         |        | outline    |            |           |            |
|         |        | can be     |            |           |            |
|         |        | obtained   |            |           |            |
|         |        | at         |            |           |            |
|         |        | www.shared |            |           |            |
|         |        | salmonstra |            |           |            |
|         |        | tegy.org.} |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Id     | What       |            |           |            |
| 2**     | entify | p          |            |           |            |
|         | Popul  | opulations |            |           |            |
| Define  | ations | were       |            |           |            |
| P       |        | present in |            |           |            |
| lanning |        | the        |            |           |            |
| Targets |        | watershed  |            |           |            |
|         |        | his        |            |           |            |
|         |        | torically? |            |           |            |
|         |        | What       |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulations |            |           |            |
|         |        | are        |            |           |            |
|         |        | present in |            |           |            |
|         |        | the        |            |           |            |
|         |        | watershed  |            |           |            |
|         |        | currently? |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        | {Note:     |            |           |            |
|         |        | This step  |            |           |            |
|         |        | in the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Shared     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Strategy   |            |           |            |
|         |        | process    |            |           |            |
|         |        | has been   |            |           |            |
|         |        | completed  |            |           |            |
|         |        | for Puget  |            |           |            |
|         |        | Sound      |            |           |            |
|         |        | chinook    |            |           |            |
|         |        | salmon     |            |           |            |
|         |        | po         |            |           |            |
|         |        | pulations. |            |           |            |
|         |        | A draft    |            |           |            |
|         |        | paper      |            |           |            |
|         |        | i          |            |           |            |
|         |        | dentifying |            |           |            |
|         |        | the        |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulations |            |           |            |
|         |        | is         |            |           |            |
|         |        | available  |            |           |            |
|         |        | at         |            |           |            |
|         |        | http       |            |           |            |
|         |        | ://www.nwf |            |           |            |
|         |        | sc.noaa.go |            |           |            |
|         |        | v/cbd/trt/ |            |           |            |
|         |        | popid.pdf. |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
|         | De     | What       |            |           |            |
|         | scribe | abundance, |            |           |            |
|         | VSP    | productiv  |            |           |            |
|         | Para   | ity/growth |            |           |            |
|         | meters | rate,      |            |           |            |
|         |        | diversity, |            |           |            |
|         |        | and        |            |           |            |
|         |        | spatial    |            |           |            |
|         |        | structure  |            |           |            |
|         |        | would be   |            |           |            |
|         |        | consistent |            |           |            |
|         |        | with a     |            |           |            |
|         |        | viable     |            |           |            |
|         |        | salmonid   |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulation? |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        | {Note:     |            |           |            |
|         |        | This step  |            |           |            |
|         |        | in the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Shared     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Strategy   |            |           |            |
|         |        | process    |            |           |            |
|         |        | has been   |            |           |            |
|         |        | completed  |            |           |            |
|         |        | for Puget  |            |           |            |
|         |        | Sound      |            |           |            |
|         |        | chinook    |            |           |            |
|         |        | salmon     |            |           |            |
|         |        | with the   |            |           |            |
|         |        | exception  |            |           |            |
|         |        | of the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | North Lake |            |           |            |
|         |        | W          |            |           |            |
|         |        | ashington, |            |           |            |
|         |        | Cedar      |            |           |            |
|         |        | River,     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Green      |            |           |            |
|         |        | River,     |            |           |            |
|         |        | White      |            |           |            |
|         |        | River,     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Skokomish  |            |           |            |
|         |        | River, and |            |           |            |
|         |        | Elwha      |            |           |            |
|         |        | River      |            |           |            |
|         |        | po         |            |           |            |
|         |        | pulations. |            |           |            |
|         |        | The        |            |           |            |
|         |        | conceptual |            |           |            |
|         |        | basis for  |            |           |            |
|         |        | es         |            |           |            |
|         |        | tablishing |            |           |            |
|         |        | the        |            |           |            |
|         |        | planning   |            |           |            |
|         |        | targets is |            |           |            |
|         |        | described  |            |           |            |
|         |        | in a TRT   |            |           |            |
|         |        | document   |            |           |            |
|         |        | ("Planning |            |           |            |
|         |        | Ranges and |            |           |            |
|         |        | Guidelines |            |           |            |
|         |        | for the    |            |           |            |
|         |        | Delisting  |            |           |            |
|         |        | and        |            |           |            |
|         |        | Recovery   |            |           |            |
|         |        | of the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Puget      |            |           |            |
|         |        | Sound      |            |           |            |
|         |        | Salmon     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Evol       |            |           |            |
|         |        | utionarily |            |           |            |
|         |        | S          |            |           |            |
|         |        | ignificant |            |           |            |
|         |        | Unit")     |            |           |            |
|         |        | available  |            |           |            |
|         |        | at         |            |           |            |
|         |        | http       |            |           |            |
|         |        | ://www.nwf |            |           |            |
|         |        | sc.noaa.go |            |           |            |
|         |        | v/cbd/trt; |            |           |            |
|         |        | a synopsis |            |           |            |
|         |        | developed  |            |           |            |
|         |        | by the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Shared     |            |           |            |
|         |        | Strategy   |            |           |            |
|         |        | staff      |            |           |            |
|         |        | group can  |            |           |            |
|         |        | be         |            |           |            |
|         |        | obtained   |            |           |            |
|         |        | at         |            |           |            |
|         |        | [www.share |            |           |            |
|         |        | dsalmonstr |            |           |            |
|         |        | ategy.org] |            |           |            |
|         |        | (http://ww |            |           |            |
|         |        | w.sharedsa |            |           |            |
|         |        | lmonstrate |            |           |            |
|         |        | gy.org/).} |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Assess | What are   |            |           |            |
| 3**     | Popu   | the        |            |           |            |
|         | lation | current    |            |           |            |
| Assess, |        | abundance, |            |           |            |
| Ev      |        | productiv  |            |           |            |
| aluate, |        | ity/growth |            |           |            |
| and     |        | rate,      |            |           |            |
| I       |        | diversity, |            |           |            |
| dentify |        | and        |            |           |            |
| Actions |        | spatial    |            |           |            |
|         |        | structure  |            |           |            |
|         |        | of the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulation? |            |           |            |
|         |        | How do     |            |           |            |
|         |        | they       |            |           |            |
|         |        | compare    |            |           |            |
|         |        | with the   |            |           |            |
|         |        | historical |            |           |            |
|         |        | chara      |            |           |            |
|         |        | cteristics |            |           |            |
|         |        | of the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulation? |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
|         | Ev     | What are   | What are   | What are  | What are   |
|         | aluate | the        | the        | the       | the        |
|         | and    | plausible  | plausible  | plausible | chara      |
|         | D      | hypotheses | hypotheses | h         | cteristics |
|         | evelop | for how    | for how    | ypotheses | of an      |
|         | W      | habitat    | harvest    | for how   | integrated |
|         | orking | management | management | hatchery  | plan for   |
|         | Hypo   | actions    | actions    | m         | harvest,   |
|         | thesis | affect     | affect the | anagement | hatchery,  |
|         |        | aquatic    | de         | actions   | and        |
|         |        | habitat    | mographic, | affect    | habitat    |
|         |        | and the    | genetic,   | the       | that we    |
|         |        | de         | and        | dem       | h          |
|         |        | mographic, | ecological | ographic, | ypothesize |
|         |        | genetic,   | processes  | genetic,  | would be   |
|         |        | and        | that       | and       | consistent |
|         |        | ecological | determine  | e         | with       |
|         |        | processes  | the        | cological | achieving  |
|         |        | that       | current    | processes | the        |
|         |        | determine  | and future | that      | planning   |
|         |        | the        | VSP        | determine | targets    |
|         |        | current    | chara      | the       | for the    |
|         |        | and future | cteristics | current   | VSP        |
|         |        | VSP        | of the     | and       | parameters |
|         |        | chara      | p          | future    | of the     |
|         |        | cteristics | opulation? | VSP       | p          |
|         |        | of the     | What are   | charac    | opulation? |
|         |        | p          | the key    | teristics | What are   |
|         |        | opulation? | a          | of the    | the key    |
|         |        | What are   | ssumptions | po        | unknowns   |
|         |        | the key    | and        | pulation? | or         |
|         |        | a          | unce       | What are  | unce       |
|         |        | ssumptions | rtainties? | the key   | rtainties? |
|         |        | and        |            | as        |            |
|         |        | unce       | Example.   | sumptions | Example.   |
|         |        | rtainties? | See        | and       | See        |
|         |        |            | section    | uncer     | section    |
|         |        | Example.   | 3.3.2.2.   | tainties? | 3.3.2.4.   |
|         |        | See        |            |           |            |
|         |        | section    |            | Example.  |            |
|         |        | 3.3.2.1.   |            | See       |            |
|         |        |            |            | section   |            |
|         |        |            |            | 3.3.2.3.  |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Id     | What types | What types | What      | What       |
| 3**     | entify | and        | and        | types and | integrated |
|         | Stra   | sequence   | sequence   | sequence  | set of     |
| Assess, | tegies | of habitat | of fishery | of        | management |
| Ev      |        | management | management | hatchery  | strategies |
| aluate, |        | strategies | strategies | m         | do the     |
| and     |        | does the   | do the     | anagement | working    |
| I       |        | working    | working    | s         | hypotheses |
| dentify |        | hypotheses | hypotheses | trategies | suggest?   |
| Actions |        | suggest    | suggest    | do the    | How does   |
|         |        | will be    | will be    | working   | this       |
| ##      |        | needed to  | needed to  | h         | integrated |
| ##### ( |        | achieve    | help       | ypotheses | set of     |
| continu |        | the        | achieve    | suggest   | strategies |
| ed) {#c |        | planning   | the        | will be   | address    |
| ontinue |        | targets?   | planning   | needed to | un         |
| d .unnu |        | How do     | targets?   | help      | certainty? |
| mbered} |        | these      | How do     | achieve   |            |
|         |        | strategies | these      | the       |            |
|         |        | address    | strategies | planning  |            |
|         |        | un         | address    | targets?  |            |
|         |        | certainty? | un         | How do    |            |
|         |        |            | certainty? | these     |            |
|         |        | Examples:  |            | s         |            |
|         |        |            | Examples:  | trategies |            |
|         |        | -          |            | address   |            |
|         |        |    *Reduce | -          | unc       |            |
|         |        |            |   *Restore | ertainty? |            |
|         |        |  streambed |            |           |            |
|         |        |     fine   | population | Examples: |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |   sediment |    spatial | -         |            |
|         |        |     levels |            | *Increase |            |
|         |        |     and    |  structure |     p     |            |
|         |        |            |     and    | opulation |            |
|         |        |   increase |            |           |            |
|         |        |            | population | diversity |            |
|         |        | population |            |     by    |            |
|         |        |     pr     |  diversity |           |            |
|         |        | oductivity |     by     |  reducing |            |
|         |        |     by     |            |     the   |            |
|         |        |            | increasing |           |            |
|         |        |   reducing |     the    |    number |            |
|         |        |     the    |     number |     of    |            |
|         |        |     number |     and    |           |            |
|         |        |     of     |     range  |  nonlocal |            |
|         |        |     miles  |     in     |           |            |
|         |        |     of     |     size   |    stocks |            |
|         |        |     roads  |     of     |           |            |
|         |        |     per    |            |  spawning |            |
|         |        |     square | spawners.* |     with  |            |
|         |        |     mile   |            |     the   |            |
|         |        |     of     | -          |     pop   |            |
|         |        |            |   *Enhance | ulation.* |            |
|         |        |   forested |     pr     |           |            |
|         |        |     w      | oductivity | -         |            |
|         |        | atershed.* |     by     | *Increase |            |
|         |        |            |     es     |     p     |            |
|         |        | -          | tablishing | opulation |            |
|         |        |  *Increase |     goals  |     pro   |            |
|         |        |            |     for    | ductivity |            |
|         |        | population |     egg    |     by    |            |
|         |        |            |     de     |     using |            |
|         |        |  diversity | position.* |           |            |
|         |        |     by     |            |   natural |            |
|         |        |            |            |     b     |            |
|         |        |  restoring |            | roodstock |            |
|         |        |            |            |     and   |            |
|         |        |  estuarine |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |  reducing |            |
|         |        |    areas.* |            |     the   |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |    number |            |
|         |        |            |            |     of    |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |  hatchery |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |    origin |            |
|         |        |            |            |     fish  |            |
|         |        |            |            |     in    |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |   natural |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |  spawning |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |   areas.* |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Ev     | What       | What       | What      | What is    |
| 3**     | aluate | habitat    | harvest    | hatchery  | the        |
|         | A      | management | management | m         | predicted  |
| Assess, | ctions | actions    | actions    | anagement | status of  |
| Ev      | in     | are in     | are in     | actions   | the VSP    |
| aluate, | Place  | place? In  | place? In  | are in    | parameters |
| and     |        | c          | c          | place? In | of the     |
| I       |        | onjunction | onjunction | co        | population |
| dentify |        | with other | with other | njunction | in 20, 50, |
| Actions |        | ongoing    | ongoing    | with      | and 100    |
|         |        | changes to | changes to | other     | years      |
| (con    |        | the        | the        | ongoing   | after      |
| tinued) |        | watershed  | watershed  | changes   | accounting |
|         |        | (buildout, | (buildout, | to the    | for the    |
|         |        | delayed    | delayed    | watershed | management |
|         |        | response   | response   | (         | actions    |
|         |        | to changes | to changes | buildout, | that have  |
|         |        | in habitat | in habitat | delayed   | been       |
|         |        | forming    | forming    | response  | im         |
|         |        | p          | p          | to        | plemented? |
|         |        | rocesses), | rocesses), | changes   | ? What are |
|         |        | what will  | what will  | in        | the key    |
|         |        | be their   | be their   | habitat   | unknowns   |
|         |        | net effect | net effect | forming   | or         |
|         |        | on the VSP | on the VSP | pr        | unce       |
|         |        | parameters | parameters | ocesses), | rtainties? |
|         |        | of the     | of the     | what will |            |
|         |        | p          | p          | be their  |            |
|         |        | opulation? | opulation? | net       |            |
|         |        | What are   | What are   | effect on |            |
|         |        | the key    | the key    | the VSP   |            |
|         |        | unknowns   | unknowns   | p         |            |
|         |        | or         | or         | arameters |            |
|         |        | unce       | unce       | of the    |            |
|         |        | rtainties? | rtainties? | po        |            |
|         |        |            |            | pulation? |            |
|         |        | Example:   | Example:   | What are  |            |
|         |        |            |            | the key   |            |
|         |        | -   *How   | -   *What  | unknowns  |            |
|         |        |     will   |     will   | or        |            |
|         |        |            |     be the | uncer     |            |
|         |        |   projects |     net    | tainties? |            |
|         |        |     funded |     effect |           |            |
|         |        |     by the |     of the | Example:  |            |
|         |        |     SRFB   |     Puget  |           |            |
|         |        |            |     Sound  | -   *What |            |
|         |        |  (assuming |     4(d)   |     will  |            |
|         |        |     m      |            |     be    |            |
|         |        | aintenance |    harvest |     the   |            |
|         |        |     of     |     plan   |     net   |            |
|         |        |            |     on the |           |            |
|         |        |    current |     VSP    |    effect |            |
|         |        |            |            |     of    |            |
|         |        |    funding | parameters |     the   |            |
|         |        |            |     for    |           |            |
|         |        |    levels) |     the    |  proposed |            |
|         |        |     affect |     po     |     Puget |            |
|         |        |     the    | pulation?* |     Sound |            |
|         |        |     VSP    |            |     4(d)  |            |
|         |        |     pa     |            |           |            |
|         |        | rameters?* |            |  hatchery |            |
|         |        |            |            |     plan  |            |
|         |        | -   *How   |            |     on    |            |
|         |        |     will   |            |     the   |            |
|         |        |     the    |            |     VSP   |            |
|         |        |     Forest |            |     p     |            |
|         |        |     and    |            | arameters |            |
|         |        |     Fish   |            |     for   |            |
|         |        |            |            |     the   |            |
|         |        | agreement, |            |     pop   |            |
|         |        |     HCPs,  |            | ulation?* |            |
|         |        |     or     |            |           |            |
|         |        |     other  |            |           |            |
|         |        |     i      |            |           |            |
|         |        | mplemented |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |    actions |            |           |            |
|         |        |     affect |            |           |            |
|         |        |     the    |            |           |            |
|         |        |     VSP    |            |           |            |
|         |        |     pa     |            |           |            |
|         |        | rameter.?* |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Id     | In         | In         | In        | What are   |
| 3**     | entify | addition   | addition   | addition  | the        |
|         | and    | to the     | to the     | to the    | predicted  |
| Assess, | Ev     | actions    | actions    | actions   | effects of |
| Ev      | aluate | already in | already in | already   | the        |
| aluate, | Action | place,     | place,     | in place, | harvest,   |
| and     | Sc     | what       | what       | what      | hatchery,  |
| I       | enario | habitat    | harvest    | hatchery  | and        |
| dentify |        | action     | action     | action    | habitat    |
| Actions |        | scenario   | scenario   | scenario  | action     |
|         |        | is needed  | is needed  | is needed | scenarios  |
| (con    |        | to provide | to provide | to        | on the VSP |
| tinued) |        | the        | the        | provide   | parameters |
|         |        | aquatic    | population | the       | of the     |
|         |        | habitat    | chara      | p         | population |
|         |        | c          | cteristics | opulation | in 25, 50, |
|         |        | onditions, | that are   | charac    | and 100    |
|         |        | habitat    | consistent | teristics | years? How |
|         |        | forming    | with the   | that are  | do these   |
|         |        | processes, | planning   | c         | actions    |
|         |        | and        | targets    | onsistent | address    |
|         |        | population | for the    | with the  | un         |
|         |        | chara      | VSP        | planning  | certainty? |
|         |        | cteristics | p          | targets   |            |
|         |        | that are   | arameters? | for the   |            |
|         |        | consistent | How does   | VSP       |            |
|         |        | with the   | this       | pa        |            |
|         |        | planning   | action     | rameters? |            |
|         |        | targets    | scenario   | How does  |            |
|         |        | for the    | address    | this      |            |
|         |        | VSP        | un         | action    |            |
|         |        | p          | certainty? | scenario  |            |
|         |        | arameters? |            | address   |            |
|         |        | How does   | Examples:  | unc       |            |
|         |        | this       |            | ertainty? |            |
|         |        | action     | -   *Close |           |            |
|         |        | scenario   |     all    | Examples: |            |
|         |        | address    |            |           |            |
|         |        | un         |  nontreaty | -   *     |            |
|         |        | certainty? |            | Eliminate |            |
|         |        |            |  fisheries |     net   |            |
|         |        | Examples:  |     in     |     pen   |            |
|         |        |            |     areas  |           |            |
|         |        | -   *River |     A-D    |   program |            |
|         |        |     miles  |     for    |     X     |            |
|         |        |     I-J    |     the    |     that  |            |
|         |        |     will   |     period |     has a |            |
|         |        |     be     |     July 1 |     high  |            |
|         |        |            |            |     risk  |            |
|         |        | identified |    through |     of    |            |
|         |        |     as     |            |     in    |            |
|         |        |            |  September | troducing |            |
|         |        |   critical |     30.*   |     fish  |            |
|         |        |     areas  |            |     of    |            |
|         |        |     with a | -          |           |            |
|         |        |            | *Eliminate |  nonlocal |            |
|         |        |   riparian |            |           |            |
|         |        |     buffer |    minimum |    origin |            |
|         |        |     of K   |     size   |     into  |            |
|         |        |     feet.* |     limits |           |            |
|         |        |            |     in     |  spawning |            |
|         |        | -   *Close |     re     |           |            |
|         |        |     roads  | creational |   areas.* |            |
|         |        |     X, Y,  |     f      |           |            |
|         |        |     and Z  | isheries.* |           |            |
|         |        |     to     |            |           |            |
|         |        |     reduce |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |   sediment |            |           |            |
|         |        |            |            |           |            |
|         |        |  loading.* |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Frame  | What types | What types | What      | How will   |
| 3**     | Moni   | of         | of         | types of  | we         |
|         | toring | monitoring | monitoring | m         | determine  |
| Assess, | Plan   | should be  | should be  | onitoring | if the     |
| Ev      |        | linked to  | linked to  | should be | recovery   |
| aluate, |        | the action | the action | linked to | plan had   |
| and     |        | scenarios  | scenarios  | the       | the        |
| I       |        | to assess  | to assess  | action    | hy         |
| dentify |        | if the     | if the     | scenarios | pothesized |
| Actions |        | actions    | actions    | to assess | effect on  |
|         |        | were       | were       | if the    | the VSP    |
| (con    |        | i          | i          | actions   | parameters |
| tinued) |        | mplemented | mplemented | were      | of the     |
|         |        | as         | as         | im        | p          |
|         |        | proposed?  | proposed.  | plemented | opulation? |
|         |        | How will   | How will   | as        |            |
|         |        | we         | we         | proposed. |            |
|         |        | determine  | determine  | How will  |            |
|         |        | if the     | if the     | we        |            |
|         |        | actions    | actions    | determine |            |
|         |        | had the    | had the    | if the    |            |
|         |        | hy         | hy         | actions   |            |
|         |        | pothesized | pothesized | had the   |            |
|         |        | effect on  | effect on  | hyp       |            |
|         |        | habitat    | harvest    | othesized |            |
|         |        | and the    | and the    | effect on |            |
|         |        | VSP        | VSP        | h         |            |
|         |        | parameters | parameters | atcheries |            |
|         |        | of the     | of the     | and the   |            |
|         |        | p          | p          | VSP       |            |
|         |        | opulation? | opulation? | p         |            |
|         |        |            |            | arameters |            |
|         |        |            |            | of the    |            |
|         |        |            |            | po        |            |
|         |        |            |            | pulation. |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
|         | Frame  | How will   | How will   | How will  | How will   |
|         | Ad     | results    | results    | results   | results    |
|         | aptive | from the   | from the   | from the  | from the   |
|         | Mana   | monitoring | monitoring | m         | monitoring |
|         | gement | program be | program be | onitoring | program be |
|         | Plan   | used to    | used to    | program   | used to    |
|         |        | modify     | modify     | be used   | develop an |
|         |        | habitat    | harvest    | to modify | integrated |
|         |        | programs?  | programs?  | hatchery  | habitat,   |
|         |        |            |            | programs? | harvest,   |
|         |        |            |            |           | hatchery   |
|         |        |            |            |           | management |
|         |        |            |            |           | habitat    |
|         |        |            |            |           | response?  |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Id     | Does the   |            |           |            |
| 4**     | entify | suite of   |            |           |            |
|         | and    | proposed   |            |           |            |
| Review  | Ev     | actions    |            |           |            |
| R       | aluate | result in  |            |           |            |
| egional | ESU    | a set of   |            |           |            |
| R       | Sce    | p          |            |           |            |
| ecovery | narios | opulations |            |           |            |
| Options |        | meeting    |            |           |            |
|         |        | the        |            |           |            |
|         |        | criteria   |            |           |            |
|         |        | for        |            |           |            |
|         |        | recovery   |            |           |            |
|         |        | of the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | ESU?       |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| **Step  | Fi     | What       |            |           |            |
| 5**     | nalize | additional |            |           |            |
|         | Action | management |            |           |            |
| F       | Sce    | actions    |            |           |            |
| inalize | narios | are        |            |           |            |
| Plan    |        | necessary  |            |           |            |
|         |        | for the    |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulations |            |           |            |
|         |        | to achieve |            |           |            |
|         |        | the        |            |           |            |
|         |        | population |            |           |            |
|         |        | targets    |            |           |            |
|         |        | and for a  |            |           |            |
|         |        | set of     |            |           |            |
|         |        | p          |            |           |            |
|         |        | opulations |            |           |            |
|         |        | to meet    |            |           |            |
|         |        | the        |            |           |            |
|         |        | criteria   |            |           |            |
|         |        | for        |            |           |            |
|         |        | recovery   |            |           |            |
|         |        | of the     |            |           |            |
|         |        | ESU?       |            |           |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
|         | Fi     | Were       | Were       | Were      | Did the    |
|         | nalize | habitat    | harvest    | hatchery  | recovery   |
|         | Moni   | management | management | m         | plan have  |
|         | toring | actions    | actions    | anagement | the        |
|         | Plan   | i          | i          | actions   | hy         |
|         |        | mplemented | mplemented | im        | pothesized |
|         |        | as         | as         | plemented | effect on  |
|         |        | proposed?  | proposed?  | as        | the VSP    |
|         |        | Did the    | Did the    | proposed? | parameters |
|         |        | actions    | actions    | Did the   | of the     |
|         |        | have the   | have the   | actions   | p          |
|         |        | hy         | hy         | have the  | opulation? |
|         |        | pothesized | pothesized | hyp       |            |
|         |        | effect?    | effect?    | othesized |            |
|         |        | Did the    | Did the    | effect?   |            |
|         |        | VSP        | VSP        | Did the   |            |
|         |        | parameters | parameters | VSP       |            |
|         |        | of the     | of the     | p         |            |
|         |        | population | population | arameters |            |
|         |        | respond as | respond as | of the    |            |
|         |        | hyp        | hyp        | p         |            |
|         |        | othesized? | othesized? | opulation |            |
|         |        |            |            | respond   |            |
|         |        |            |            | as        |            |
|         |        |            |            | hypo      |            |
|         |        |            |            | thesized? |            |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+
|         | Fi     | How will   | How will   | How will  | How will   |
|         | nalize | results    | results    | results   | results    |
|         | Ad     | from the   | from the   | from the  | from the   |
|         | aptive | monitoring | monitoring | m         | monitoring |
|         | Mana   | program be | program be | onitoring | program be |
|         | gement | used to    | used to    | program   | used to    |
|         | Plan   | modify     | modify     | be used   | develop an |
|         |        | habitat    | harvest    | to modify | integrated |
|         |        | programs?  | actions?   | hatchery  | habitat,   |
|         |        |            |            | programs? | harvest,   |
|         |        |            |            |           | and        |
|         |        |            |            |           | hatchery   |
|         |        |            |            |           | management |
|         |        |            |            |           | response?  |
+---------+--------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+

##  {#section .unnumbered}

## Define Planning Targets

A key step of the Shared Strategy process is the development of recovery
planning ranges and targets for the populations that comprise each ESU.
The ranges and targets provide a sense of the magnitude of the effort
necessary to recover populations, and a common measure that can be used
by habitat, harvest, and hatchery managers to guide the identification
and evaluation of recovery actions.

The planning range, as determined by several technical models, provides
a broad estimate of the abundance needed for a population to be viable
over time. The ranges are large because of: 1) our limited understanding
of the interacting factors controlling population dynamics; 2) the
quality and quantity of data available; and 3) our inability to predict
the environmental conditions that will affect each population in the
future. The planning target provides a more specific measure within the
range based on a fully functioning estuary, improved freshwater
conditions, restored access to blocked habitats, and poor ocean
conditions (see additional discussion below). Local governments, marine
groups, and watershed groups are asked to work with the state, tribes,
and Services to identify the actions necessary to attain the planning
targets and reach consensus on how to implement those actions. Planning
ranges and targets are discussed in greater detail in section 3.2.2.

Before the planning ranges and targets can be defined, the populations
that comprise the ESU must be identified.

### Identify Populations

Question: What populations were present in the watershed historically?
What populations are present in the watershed currently?

Identification of the historical and current populations in an ESU is
the initial step in the development of a recovery plan. The population
is the basic unit for viability assessments and, at an ESU scale, the
number, characteristics, and geographic distribution of current and
historical populations is an important consideration in delisting
decisions. NMFS has defined an independent population as a group of fish
that does not, to a substantial degree, interbreed with fish from
another group. For purposes of recovery planning, two groups are
considered to be independent populations if exchanges of individuals do
not substantially affect their population dynamics or extinction risk
over a 100-year time period (McElhany et al. 2000).

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} The definitive information needed
to identify populations is inter-group migration rates and the
demographic consequences of those migration rates. In practice,
information on straying of salmon between streams is rarely available.
An alternative approach is to use diverse sources of information that
are proxies for understanding the degree of reproductive isolation
between groups of fish. These sources of information, in order of the
strength of inference, include: 1) the spatial distribution of spawning
habitat; 2) migration rates between spawning locations; 3) genetic
attributes; 4) patterns of life history and phenotypic characteristics;
5) population dynamics; 6) environmental and habitat characteristics;
and 7) the size of geographic area inhabited (Ruckelshaus et al., in
prep.; McElhany et al., in prep.).

[Evaluation.]{.underline} The certainty of the population structure can
be evaluated using the hierarchy of information types listed above, the
consistency of inferences drawn from different types of information, and
the strength (e.g., number of samples, length of record, sampling
protocols) of the empirical data.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The TRT has the task of identifying the
current and historical populations for each listed species. Each report
describing the historical population structure will also identify data
needs and uncertainties to help guide research and monitoring and to
provide watershed planners with a context for evaluating the risks posed
by alternative actions. The status of population identification work by
the TRT is summarized in Table 1.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183589 .anchor}Table 2. Status of population
identification for each ESU of concern to the Shared Strategy.

  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------------
  **ESU**                 **Status**            **Reference**

  Puget Sound Chinook     Completed             Ruckelshaus et al. (in
                                                press)

  Hood Canal Summer Chum  Completed^1^          WDFW and PNPTT (2000)
  ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------------

^1^ The TRT agrees with the population structure for summer chum
identified in WDFW and PNPTT (2000). A draft TRT report discussing the
population structure of summer chum will be available in the spring of
2003.

### Describe VSP Parameters

Question: What abundance, productivity/growth rate, diversity, and
spatial structure would be consistent with a viable salmonid population?

The TRT has conducted quantitative analyses to estimate the abundance,
growth rate, and productivity criteria for Puget Sound chinook salmon
populations. Specification of these criteria at this stage is aimed at
helping planners evaluate the magnitude of effort that will be needed
from each population to achieve recovery. Quantitative viability
criteria for spatial structure and diversity have not been thoroughly
developed, but the TRT has developed a set of recommendations that
describe criteria for each of these characteristics. Initial guidelines
for population spatial structure and diversity have also been presented
to help planners understand how these fit with the quantitative
population-level abundance and productivity criteria.

Although the TRT is developing separate criteria for each of the VSP
parameters, it is important to understand that they are closely
interrelated. For example, opening up additional high quality habitat
will benefit both abundance and spatial structure. It is also important
to recognize, however, that addressing one key characteristic may
negatively affect another one. For example, to meet spatial structure
and diversity criteria, it may be necessary to provide opportunity for
chinook salmon to occupy habitats where they are less productive than in
the best habitats in the system. This may, in some cases, reduce the
average productivity of the population.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} The TRT identified criteria for
abundance and the productivity/growth rate of a population using two
types of analyses: 1) Population Viability Analysis (PVA) and 2) Habitat
Productivity Viability Analysis (HPVA).

The PVA used by the TRT addresses the question "What is the equilibrium
abundance associated with the observed variability in growth rates for
Puget Sound chinook salmon that assures the population will persist for
a prescribed period of years with a given level of probability?" The PVA
predicts the equilibrium abundance level based solely on three
fundamental demographic properties of a population (abundance,
quasi-extinction threshold (QET), and variability in growth rate or
σ^2^) and two policy parameters (the probability and time period for
persistence); that is, it predicts the abundance required for population
persistence without consideration of ecological interactions, the
spatial distribution of the population, or life history diversity.
Because these factors are not considered, and a single estimate of the
variability in growth rate is used for all populations, the predictions
are not population specific.

The HPVA used by the TRT addresses the question "What is the equilibrium
abundance associated with the habitat characteristics predicted to
support a persistent population?" The HPVA~PFC~ is an application of
NMFS' concept of Properly Functioning Conditions (PFC), or the habitat
conditions "essential to conservation of the species, whether important
for spawning, breeding, rearing, feeding, migration, sheltering, or
other functions". The HPVA~PFC~ derives its prediction for equilibrium
abundance by developing a set of explicit relationships between habitat
conditions and salmon survival, and applying the minimum thresholds for
PFC for habitat throughout the watershed. By incorporating these minimum
conditions for habitat throughout the watershed, the HPVA~PFC~
predictions for equilibrium abundance implicitly address several of the
criteria for spatial structure and diversity developed by the TRT.

The complementary characteristics of the HPVA~PFC~ and PVA models used
by the TRT are summarized in Table 3.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183590 .anchor}Table 3. Characteristics of the
HPVA and PVA models used by the TRT.

+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Characteristic        | PVA                  | HPVA~PFC~            |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Population Specific   | No                   | Yes                  |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Criteria Addressed    | Yes                  | Yes                  |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Abundance             | Yes                  | Yes                  |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Productivity/Growth   | No                   | Yes                  |
| Rate                  |                      |                      |
|                       | No                   | Yes                  |
| Diversity             |                      |                      |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Spatial Structure     |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Extinction            | Yes                  | No                   |
| Probabilities         |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Underlying Model      | Demographically      | Habitat Driven       |
|                       | Driven               |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

[Evaluation.]{.underline} Key questions to consider when evaluating the
planning targets include: 1) Were the assumptions of the model described
and defended?; 2) Was the model developed from data collected in the
watershed, from studies conducted in multiple watersheds, or from expert
opinion?; 3) Were all important processes affecting the population
include in the model?; 4) Is the performance of the population
consistent with the model structure and assumptions?; and 5) Were all
VSP parameters addressed?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The TRT, comanagers, and NMFS have completed
quantitative analyses to estimate the abundance, growth rate, and
productivity criteria for most Puget Sound chinook salmon populations
(analyses for North Lake Washington, Cedar River, Green River, White
River, Skokomish River, and the Elwha River are still underway). The
conceptual basis for these analyses is described in a TRT document
("Planning Ranges and Guidelines for the Delisting and Recovery of the
Puget Sound Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit") available at
[***http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/trt***](http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/trt).
From these technical analyses, the Shared Strategy Development Committee
has defined the planning targets for use by watershed planning groups. .
A synopsis developed by the Shared Strategy staff group can be obtained
at
[***www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org***](http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/).

Quantitative viability criteria for spatial structure and diversity have
not been developed, but the TRT has developed a set of recommendations
that describe criteria for each of these characteristics.

## Assess, Evaluate, and Identify Actions

The ultimate objective of Step 3 of the Shared Strategy is for local
governments, marine groups, and watershed groups to work with the state,
tribes, and Services to identify the actions necessary to attain the
planning targets. Our suggested approach for achieving this objective is
to:

1)  assess the status of the population (section 3.3.1);

2)  develop a working hypothesis that describes the interaction of the
    population and the ecosystem (section 3.3.2);

3)  identify strategies to improve the status of the population (section
    3.3.3);

4)  evaluate the potential effects of the management actions already in
    place (section 3.3.4);

5)  identify site-specific management actions that are predicted to
    result in the population achieving the planning targets (section
    3.3.5);

6)  develop a conceptual framework for a monitoring plan (section
    3.3.6); and

7)  develop a conceptual framework for an adaptive management plan
    (section 3.3.7).

Successful completion of these steps assures meeting a fundamental
requirement of a recovery plan -- "a description of contents of such
site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the
plan's goal for the conservation and survival of a species".

### Assess Population

Question: What are the current abundance, productivity/growth rate,
diversity, and spatial structure of the population? How do they compare
with the historical characteristics of the population?

The current and historical abundance, productivity/growth rate,
diversity, and spatial structure of the population are important
reference points for the recovery plan. Comparison of the planning
targets with the current and historical conditions provides an
indication of the risks facing the population and helps identify the
magnitude of change that will be required. It is important when these
comparisons are made that a common "measure" is used. For example, since
the planning target is expressed in terms of equilibrium spawners, a
similar measure should be used for current and historical abundance if
we are to identify the magnitude of change required.

Abundance and Productivity.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Several methods are available for
estimating the current and historical equilibrium abundance, capacity,
and/or productivity of the watershed (Table 4). The Ecosystem Diagnosis
and Treatment model (EDT) (Mobrand et al. 1997) has been broadly applied
throughout Washington (see section 3.3.2.1 for additional discussion of
EDT). Additional analytical approaches to estimating current and
historical abundance of chinook in Puget Sound watersheds are described
in Haas and Collins (2001), Holsinger (2002), and Collins and Montgomery
(in press). Estimates of current and historical parameters for many
chinook salmon populations are available, including populations in the
Nooksack River, the Skagit River, the Stillaguamish River, the Snohomish
River, the Puyallup River, the Nisqually River, the Dosewallips River,
and the Dungeness River.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} The tools used to assess populations can be
evaluated relative to several criteria: 1) Was the analysis developed
from data collected in the watershed, from studies conducted in multiple
watersheds, or from expert opinion; 2) Do the prediction intervals from
the model have a coefficient of variation of less than 30%, more than
30%, or is no prediction interval provided?; 3) Have all important
processes been included in the model structure?; 4) Has the model been
validated?; 5) Have the assumptions of the model been identified and
defended?; and 6) How sensitive are the results to processes or
parameters with significant uncertainty?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} Estimates of current and historical
abundance will be provided to watershed planning groups by the TRT,
WDFW, and the Puget Sound treaty tribes.

Spatial Structure.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Few assessments of population
spatial structure are known to currently exist. However, the Ecosystem
Diagnosis and Treatment model (EDT) (Mobrand et al. 1997) has been
broadly applied throughout Washington (see section 3.3.2.1 for
additional discussion of EDT). In the process of estimating abundance
and productivity based upon the habitat conditions inputs, the EDT model
simulations generate life stage specific spatial distribution data in
the form of 1ife history trajectories. These data can be captured and
quantitatively analyzed to describe the population spatial structure
associated with the abundance, productivity, and diversity estimates.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See "Abundance" section above.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} WDFW, the Puget Sound tribes, and the
Washington State Conservation Commission have compiled GIS layers with
barriers to fish passage, current distribution, and presumed historical
distribution.

Diversity.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Few quantitative tools to evaluate
diversity have been applied for salmon populations. EDT provides a
measure of diversity by comparing the predicted number of life history
trajectories (unique paths through time and space) that are sustainable
under alternative conditions.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See "Abundance" section above.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} Estimates of current and historical
diversity will be provided to watershed planning groups by the TRT,
WDFW, and Puget Sound treaty tribes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183591 .anchor}Table 4. Examples of tools to
estimate the capacity and productivity of a population.

+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| ######  {#  | Ana     |         |          |          |          |
| section-1 . | lytical |         |          |          |          |
| unnumbered} | Tools   |         |          |          |          |
|             |         |         |          |          |          |
| ######      |         |         |          |          |          |
| Characteris |         |         |          |          |          |
| tic {#chara |         |         |          |          |          |
| cteristic . |         |         |          |          |          |
| unnumbered} |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|             | Pro     | Pro     | Stock    | EDT      | Habi     |
|             | duction | duction | -Recruit |          | tat-life |
|             | per     | per     | Analysis |          | cycle    |
|             | Unit of | Unit of |          |          | model    |
|             | Wa      | Stream  |          |          |          |
|             | tershed | Area    |          |          |          |
|             | Area    |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| **          | Ford et | Ho      | Schaller | Mobrand  | 1        |
| Reference** | al.     | lsinger | et al.   | et al.   |          |
|             | 1999    | in      | 1999     | 1997     |          |
|             |         | press   |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| **De        | M       | M       | Estimate | Predict  | Predict  |
| scription** | ultiply | ultiply | stock    | stock    | stock    |
|             | wa      | stream  | -recruit | -recruit | -recruit |
|             | tershed | area by | function | function | function |
|             | area by | pro     | from a   | from     | from     |
|             | pro     | duction | hi       | habitat  | habitat  |
|             | duction | per     | storical | charact  | charact  |
|             | per     | unit    | series   | eristics | eristics |
|             | unit    | area    | of       | and      | and      |
|             | area    | for a   | e        | r        | r        |
|             | for a   | par     | mpirical | eference | eference |
|             | par     | ticular | spawner  | inf      | inf      |
|             | ticular | life    | and      | ormation | ormation |
|             | life    | stage   | adult    | on       | on       |
|             | stage   | in a    | recruit  | survival | survival |
|             | in a    | re      | data.    | rates    | rates    |
|             | re      | ference |          | and      | and      |
|             | ference | system. |          | c        | c        |
|             | system. |         |          | apacity. | apacity. |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Appl      |         |         |          |          |          |
| icability** |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Historical  | Yes     | Yes     | No       | Yes      | Yes      |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Current     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes      | Yes      | Yes      |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Data      | 0 -- 6  | 0 -- 6  | 0 -- 6   | 0 - 6    | 6 -- 12  |
| Ava         | months  | months  | months   | months   | months   |
| ilability** |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| *           |         |         |          |          |          |
| *Parameters |         |         |          |          |          |
| Estimated** |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Equilibrium | No      | No      | Yes      | Yes      | Pot      |
| Abundance   |         |         |          |          | entially |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Capacity    | Yes     | Yes     | Yes      | Yes      | Yes      |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Intrinsic   | Yes     | No      | Yes      | Yes      | Yes      |
| P           |         |         |          |          |          |
| roductivity |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Criteria  |         |         |          |          |          |
| Addressed** |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Abundance   | Yes     | Yes     | Yes      | Yes      | Yes      |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| P           | No      | No      | Yes      | Yes      | Yes      |
| roductivity |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Diversity   | No      | No      | No       | Yes      | Pot      |
|             |         |         |          |          | entially |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Spatial     | No      | Yes     | No       | No       | Yes      |
| Structure   |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| **          |         |         |          |          |          |
| Uncertainty |         |         |          |          |          |
| Included**  |         |         |          |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Measurement | No      | Yes     | Pot      | No       | No       |
| Error       |         |         | entially |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Model       | No      | No      | Pot      | No       | Pot      |
|             |         |         | entially |          | entially |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| En          | Pote    | No      | Pot      | Yes      | Yes      |
| vironmental | ntially |         | entially |          |          |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+----------+

1\. Nickelson and Lawson (1998), Greene and Beechie (2002), Sharma et
al. (2002)

### Evaluate and Develop Working Hypothesis

The NWPPC (2001) describes the working hypothesis as "a collection of
component hypotheses -- a set of key assumptions that are based on
assessment data and analysis". It includes a synthesis of the underlying
data, assumptions, key uncertainties, and analyses that provide the
basis for a holistic view of the current interaction of the population
and the ecosystem. The working hypothesis drives the subsequent
development of management strategies and is a crucial element of the
adaptive management plan. In some cases, alternative hypotheses may
exist, and it will be important to discuss the ramifications of the
alternatives, how risks associated with acting upon an incorrect
hypothesis can be minimized, and how the alternative hypotheses should
be addressed in an adaptive management plan.

The working hypothesis is likely to be hierarchical, beginning at a
relatively broad scale geographic or biological scale, and ultimately
drilling down to a sufficiently fine scale to inform the identification
and selection of management strategies.

#### Habitat

Aquatic habitat conditions result from a complex web of biological and
physical processes operating under the geomorphic and climatic
constraints in the watershed (Fig. 1). The processes operate at multiple
temporal and spatial scales, ranging from watershed processes occurring
over time periods as long as 10,000 years to site specific processes
affecting individual channel units such as a pool or bar (Montgomery and
Buffington 1998). Habitat management actions can affect aquatic habitat
directly, or indirectly through disruption of the underlying processes
and alteration of the physical environment of the watershed.

The VSP parameters of a population are most directly linked to the
aquatic habitat in which the population spawns, rears, and migrates.
Assessing the current quantity, quality, and connectivity of aquatic
habitat, then, is an obvious first step if we are to develop hypotheses
about the mechanisms through which habitat management actions have
affected the VSP parameters of the population. Equally important,
however, is to identify the how habitat management actions disrupted the
landscape scale processes controlling aquatic habitat conditions
(Frissell and Nawa 1992; Beechie and Bolton 1999). Failure to identify
and address these processes can lead to costly site-specific restoration
actions that are unlikely to persist in the face of large-scale,
persistent habitat forming processes (Roni et al. 2001).

![](media/image1.wmf){width="7.125in" height="7.029861111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183617 .anchor}Figure 1. Example of the
interaction of the physical environment and processes that affect
aquatic habitat and the VSP parameters of a population.

Question. Part A) What are the plausible hypotheses describing how
aquatic habitat affects the demographic, genetic, and ecological
processes that determine the current and future VSP characteristics of
the population? What are the key assumptions and uncertainties?

The specific aquatic habitat conditions limiting the abundance,
productivity, diversity, and/or spatial structure of a population should
be identified to direct subsequent assessment activities and recovery
actions. For some populations, the one or two key habitat conditions
limiting population viability may be readily apparent; for other
populations, the complex interaction of the life history of salmonids
with the ecosystem may require a more detailed analysis that links all
life history stages. Estuarine and nearshore habitats, for example, may
play a critical role in determining the abundance, productivity, and
diversity of Puget Sound populations of chinook salmon (Simenstad 2000).

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Most assessments of the effects of
habitat on salmonid populations have either been qualitative, limited to
a single life stage, or focused on a single habitat characteristic. The
Washington State Conservation Commission, for example, completed a
qualitative review of the habitat features limiting salmonid production
for many watersheds in Washington (see
[www.conserver.org](http://www.conserver.org/)). Quantitative
relationships between habitat attributes (e.g., peak flow, interstitial
dissolved oxygen concentrations, temperature) and survival rates or
production have been identified in some watersheds with long-term
monitoring or in experimental studies. Excellent surveys of the habitat
requirements of salmonids may be found in Spence et al. (1996) and
Bjornn and Reiser (1991).

While this information is invaluable, a comprehensive, integrated model
will often be required to evaluate the effects of the temporal and
spatial interaction of salmon with aquatic habitat (cf., Nickelson and
Lawson 1998). One general model that has been frequently used is the
Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model (Mobrand et al. 1997). By
relating habitat attributes at the stream reach level to the watershed
capacity, productivity, and the diversity of the population, the model
provides a systematic method for developing hypotheses about the key
factors limiting the attainment of the VSP parameters. Results can be
presented at a stream reach by life stage scale, or summarized over life
stages for a subcomponent of the watershed (Appendix 1, Fig. 1).
Additional analyses addressing the effects of habitat on chinook
populations that have been applied in Puget Sound streams include Greene
and Beechie (2002) and Sharma et al. (2002). Analyses of current and
historical parameters for many listed species are available, including
chinook salmon in the Nooksack River, the Skagit River, the
Stillaguamish River, the Snohomish River, the Puyallup River, the
Nisqually River, the Dosewallips River, and the Dungeness River.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} ISAB (2001) provided a review of several
models used in the Columbia Basin, including EDT, a statistical model
(Cumulative Risk Initiative, (CRI)), and a decision analysis support
tool (Plan for Analysis and Testing Hypothesis (PATH)). The conclusions
were that:

1)  None of the models presently in use in the Columbia Basin is
    complete enough to serve as the sole decision support tool for the
    region.

2)  The models are best at ranking the expected effects of management
    alternatives.

3)  All the modeling efforts are severely constrained by lack of data.

4)  Decision-makers would be well served by drawing on all the available
    analytical tools.

5)  Effective communication between decision-makers and scientists is
    essential if scientific results are to play an integral role in the
    decision-making process.

The tools used to assess the effects of aquatic habitat conditions on
the VSP parameters of a population can be evaluated relative to several
criteria: 1) Was the analysis developed from data collected in the
watershed, from studies conducted in multiple watersheds, or from expert
opinion; 2) Do the prediction intervals from the model have a
coefficient of variation of less than 30%, more than 30%, or is no
prediction interval provided?; 3) Have all important processes been
included in the model structure?; 4) Has the model been validated; 5)
Have the assumptions of the model been identified and defended?; and 6)
How sensitive are the results to processes or parameters with
significant uncertainty?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The critical aquatic habitat factors
limiting the attainment of VSP parameters will be identified by the
watershed planning group.

Question: Part B. What are the plausible hypotheses describing the
mechanisms through which habitat management actions affect habitat
forming processes and the aquatic habitat conditions in the watershed?
What are the key assumptions and uncertainties?

Developing hypotheses on how habitat management actions have disrupted
the physical environment and processes controlling aquatic habitat
conditions is a crucial step in designing effective habitat restoration
and protection strategies. Key watershed processes and physical traits
to evaluate will be driven by the assessment of aquatic habitat
conditions, but are likely to include hydrology, erosion, succession
(riparian function), and geomorphology (including hydromodifications
such as levees).

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} The manual for watershed analysis
(WFPB 1997) provides a compendium of tools for process assessment,
including appendix chapters on mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrology,
riparian, and water quality. Table 5 provides examples of habitat
process-related analyses and models that have been applied in salmonid
watersheds. Additional applications of a sediment mass-wasting model
that has been used for landscape process planning in Puget Sound can be
found in Montgomery and Dietrich (1994) and Montgomery et al. (1998).

One valuable hydrologic model that is available for Puget Sound
watersheds is the Distributed Hydrology-Soil-Vegetation Model (DHSVM)
(Storck et al. 1998). Unlike the previous generation of spatially
aggregated models, DHSVM provides spatially explicit predictions of the
effects of land surface changes on hydrology. As described by Storck et
al. (?), DHSVM "provides a dynamic (one day or shorter time step)
representation of the spatial distribution of soil moisture, snow cover,
evapotranspiration, and runoff production...Model inputs are
near-surface meteorology (precipitation, temperature, wind, humidity)
and incoming short- and longwave radiation. Digital elevation data are
used to model topographic controls on incoming shortwave precipitation,
air temperature, and downslope water movement. Surface land cover and
soil properties are assigned to each digital elevation model (DEM) grid
cell or pixel. The

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183592 .anchor}Table 5. Examples of tools for
conducting analyses that include the effects of landscape-scale
processes on VSP parameters. \[Note: this table is draft and is not
complete.\]

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Approach/Tool</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Tool Fundamentals</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Ability to Assess VSP Parameters</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Action-VSP Links</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Benefits</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Uncertainties/Risks</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Applications</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>A</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>D</strong></td>
<td><strong>S</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Hydrologic Simulation Models</td>
<td>Models generate hydrographs based on land use/land cover attributes,
geology and soil characteristics. Some models possess water quality
analysis capability as well.</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Predicts unit hydrographs or for various basin scales. Models often
calibrate against gage data for varying durations--from 2-10 years or
are physically-based routing models. Various models in common use;
generally easy to develop and apply. Can illuminate spatial variations
in flow.</td>
<td>Validation and confidence depends on length of record used in
calibration. Absolute flow values often contain significant error in
flow prediction if calibration poor.</td>
<td>Bicknell et al. USEPA (1997); Storck (2002).</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF).</p>
<p>HSPF also has a water quality module that can be used to characterize
and compare water quality effects from various land uses.</p></td>
<td>Lumped parametric types of models that use catchment-based geology,
soil and land cover to generate hydrologic data that can be used for
comparative and predictive purposes.</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Generally easy to construct if land cover is known. Can provide
end-of-catchment flow predictions for almost any sized catchment. Output
makes analysis relatively straightforward for some flow parameters--peak
flows, durations.</td>
<td>Model accuracy depends on length of record used for calibration.
Generally poor at extreme low and extreme high flow events such as low
flow and 100-year floods. Unable to make reach-specific predictions
unless there is overlap with catchment output.</td>
<td>Bicknell et al. USEPA (1997)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Physical models. Storck (UW--under construction).</td>
<td>Physically-based distributive models attempt to capture the pathways
by which rainfall moves through the watershed and create the best
possible mathematical description of the processes operating in all
parts of the catchment. Are generally a series of linked mathematical
descriptions of evapotranspiration, sotrage, inter- and surface flow,
grounwater exchenge, etc.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Models do not require calibration against real records. They can
link to a variety of physical and chemical processes operating in
catchments such as solute transfer. Can have a strong spatial
component.</td>
<td>Must have considerable faith in hydrologic theory or have invested
in a large field verification process for the various processes
modeled.</td>
<td>Storck (2002), under construction but currently unavailable.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Ungaged watershed Methods</td>
<td>Methods that: 1) use flow from nearby gaged watersheds of similar
size, shape and composition to estimate runoff (regionalization); 2) use
coefficients related to landcover, soils and geology to estimate runoff
from rainfall events.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Methods can be applied in watersheds where gage data is absent or of
irregular duration or where data quality is poor. Inexpensive and
relatively simple to generate for most watersheds if basic watershed
features are known.</td>
<td>Methods generate relatively coarse estimates Formulas allow
estimates of total water yield, various rainfall-runoff events (25-year
flood, 100-year flood) but cannot be used to reliably reconstruct a
continuous hydrograph.</td>
<td>Dunne and Leopold (1978); Gordon, McMahon, and Finlayson
(1992).</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Solute and pollutant runoff estimation techniques</p>
<p>HSPF water quality modules</p></td>
<td>Land cover and land use based estimates of nutrient and contaminant
delivery to streams and rivers. These estimates are often tightly
coupled to surface erosion rates and locations.</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td>Flow generators such as HSPF are linked to land cover
characteristics through washoff models. Now in common use by federal,
state and local agencies for water quality predictions.</td>
<td>Models for the washoff of pollutants must be calibrated just as the
hydrologic models are calibrated. Regional parameters are often used but
can be misleading unless corrected for local conditions</td>
<td>USEPA (1997)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Surface erosion estimates</p>
<p>Empirical methods: RUSLE and MMF</p>
<p>Physically-based models: WEPP</p></td>
<td><p>Empirical methods are generally based on the Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) that links soil loss to rainfall, vegetation
cover and soil erosivity. Also, estimates as measured from particular
studies can be used.</p>
<p>Designed to replace the RUSLE, WEPP was designed for the NRCS and has
three components: a watershed module, a climate module, and an erosion
module. Available for free from the WEPP website at <a
href="http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/">http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu</a></p></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Empirical models and results can be applied to real time erosion
problems and can provide estimates for a variety of situations from
agricultural practices to urban practices.</p>
<p>Physically-based models such as WEPP are more useful at the small
catchment level and can reliably predict soil loss from surface and rill
erosion.</p></td>
<td>Most erosion methods are limited to areas and management conditions
and are difficult to extrapolate beyond the local data. The RUSLE can be
applied only to relatively small areas and cannot be extended to whole
catchments without considerable uncertainty. WEPP is useful at the small
catchment size (&lt; 500 Hectares) and would require a breakdown of
large watersheds into these catchments. It’s advantage is that it is now
Windows-based and relatively easy to run using regional climate data and
erosion information..</td>
<td><p>See Morgan (1995) for a description of RUSLE and for MMF (Morgan,
Morgan and Finney method);</p>
<p>Dunne and Leopold (1978); Dietrich and Dunne (1978); Montgomery et
al. (1998).</p>
<p>WEPP was developed by Nearing et al (1989) and has undergone
extensive testing..</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Mass Wasting</p>
<p>Inventory and volume estimation</p></td>
<td>Inventory throughout watersheds to identify landslide-prone areas.
May use field inventories together with remote sensor data and analysis
based on slope, geology and vegetation types.</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Field inventories are the most useful for quantifying sediment
delivery via mass wasting for recent decades.</p>
<p>Remote sensor data coupled with geologic and slope information can
rapidly locate areas with high risk of sediment delivery.</p></td>
<td>Field inventories are quite time consuming while remote sensor data
and landslide risk estimation are less accurate. Maps and aerial
photography may assist in finding historic landslides.</td>
<td>Montgomery et al. (1998); Lunetta et al (1997)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Debris torrent Inventories and mass loading estimates</td>
<td>Use topographic data and geology to locate steep, zero order
channels in forested areas. Aerial photo inventories and field
inventories are common. Remote sensor data can be used in conjunction
with topographic and geologic data to predict locations and risk of
debris torrents.</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Field and aerial inventories can provide confidence in estimates of
sediment and debris and can illuminate historic and recent debris flows.
The use of predictive attributes such as geology, slope, and hydrology
are somewhat less accurate but can produce useful levels of risk across
watersheds.</td>
<td><p>Field inventories are time consuming difficult to carry out in
steep terrain. Aerial inventories--especially color aerial photography
at 1:24000--provide considerable information about recent torrents.</p>
<p>Correlative methods are less accurate but can pinpoint areas with
high probabilities of such events, especially when calibrated with field
data.</p></td>
<td>Benda and Cundy (1990); Benda and Dunne (1987). Montgomery et al.
(1996); Lunetta et al (1997).</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Distribution and frequency of sediment and wood supply areas (and
their deposition zones) in the watershed. Depends on forest successional
patterns and past and present rates of mass wasting, debris torrents and
channel migration.</td>
<td>Inventories taken from erosional processes above are overlaid onto
forest succession and management patterns to map the spatial
distribution of sediment and wood sources to rivers throughout the
watershed. Depositional areas can also be mapped in this way. The use of
GIS map data and aerial photographs is required.</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Mapping the presumed sources of woody debris and sediment to the
river system provides a view to past and future distributions of these
important processes. Coupled with estimates of event frequency, a
picture of trends can be developed for each watershed.</td>
<td>Requires GIS data layers for various age categories of forest as
well as estimates of the frequency and age of mass wasting, debris
torrent sites, and channel migration zones.</td>
<td>Lunetta et al. (1997) comes closest in the technique for GIS
overlays.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Population Dispersal and Connectivity relative to disturbance in
aquatic ecosystems.</td>
<td>Inventories of population distribution over time; geomorphic models
that link segment scale of habitat disturbance and attributes with
population distribution (Core areas); spatially explicit population
models (SEPMs)</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Models can link populations explicitly to landscape patches and
rates of change in habitat. Some SEPMs address dispersal mechanisms and
their relation to patch turnover and location. Most useful in addressing
problems require considerations of the amount, geometry and rates of
change in habitats.</td>
<td><p>Most SEPMs are data hungry and lack of data at appropriate scales
limits application.</p>
<p>Core areas are the result of inventories of population dispersal
relative to fluvial and geomorphic attributes of the system. These are
poorly developed at this time but some efforts are underway in King
County, WA.</p></td>
<td><p>Noon and McKelvey (1996);Dunning et al. (1992);</p>
<p>Reeves et al (1995);</p>
<p>Lucchetti, Martin, Benda and Schrefler are developing geomorphic
correlates of population dispersal for King County, WA. Preliminary
results are due in January of 2003.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Succession models that link forest structure to disturbance and
watershed processes: CLAMS</p>
<p>LANDIS is a spatial model of disturbance, succession and
management.</p></td>
<td><p>Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study from the OR Dept of
Forestry is a multi-resource assessment developed for the Oregon Coast
Range. Can be used to assess the effects of management scenarios on
landscape processes.</p>
<p>LANDIS is an integrated model of disturbance and succession developed
in Wisconsin and applied to a 500,000 hectare forest landscape. While
not directly applicable to PNW forests, LANDIS provides some useful
linkages among disturbance patterns and successional
trajectories.</p></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>Models explicitly links spatial and temporal attributes of the
landscape to various processes such as sediment, wood recruitment and
successional trajectories. Can be used to evaluate management actions on
spatial and temporal attributes of the watershed.</td>
<td>Models are data intensive and requires a strong inter-disciplinary
team to carry off the assessment.</td>
<td><p>CLAMS: Bettinger et al (2000).</p>
<p>LANDIS:</p>
<p>Mladenhoff et al. (1996) and Mladenhoff and He (1999)</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

DEM resolution is arbitrary, but the land surface is usually represented
with pixels of dimension less than 100 m by 100 m."

Beamer et al. (2002) describes the application of several tools in the
Skagit River, where the Skagit Watershed Council has developed a
"scientific framework that strives to identify: 1) the natural landscape
processes active in a watershed; 2) the effects of land-use on natural
processes; and 3) the causal relationships between land-use and habitat
conditions." Models were developed to describe the hydrology, sediment
supply, riparian function, channel-floodplain interactions, and
isolation of habitat. The hydrologic analysis indicated that increased
peak flows led to the impairment of 23% of the mountain sub-basins in
the Skagit, where impaired was defined as a subbasin with more than 50%
of the watershed area in hydologically immature vegetation due to
land-use or more than 2 km of road length existed per km^2^ of watershed
area. active in a watershed, 2) the effects of land use on natural
processes, and 3) the causal relationships between land use and habitat
conditions."

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See section 3.3.2.1.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The habitat forming processes linked to the
critical aquatic habitat characteristics will be identified by the
watershed planning group.

#### Harvest

***Question: What are the plausible hypotheses for how harvest
management actions affect the demographic, genetic, and ecological
processes that determine the current and future VSP characteristics of a
population? What are the key assumptions and uncertainties?***

Our objective in this section is to evaluate harvest management actions
in the context of the current VSP parameters of the population (section
3.3.1) and identify the characteristics of a harvest management regime
that are consistent with achieving the planning targets. In completing
the evaluation, it is often helpful to look for trends in harvest or
harvest rates that can be related to trends in population attributes,
especially related to the VSP parameters. Examples of the type of
questions to ask include:

-   Have catches or exploitation rates increased while
    [abundance]{.underline} of returning adults and/or escapement
    declined? This would also result in a decreasing overall [growth
    rate]{.underline}.

-   Has harvest targeted (on purpose or inadvertently) larger and,
    therefore, more productive fish, thereby reducing spawning
    [productivity]{.underline}? In this case, spawning productivity
    could be have been decreased while [growth rate]{.underline}
    remained constant (if some other mortality was reduced to compensate
    for the decrease in productivity).

-   Has the timing of the fishery selected early or late returning fish,
    thereby reducing the [diversity]{.underline} of the run timing?

-   Has the timing or location of harvest impacted one segment of the
    population (e.g., early returning fish that spawn in the higher
    reaches or larger fish that spawn in faster currents with larger
    substrate) more than another, thereby reducing [spatial
    distribution]{.underline}?

These examples are not comprehensive. One should look for relationships
between harvest and other biological traits. Often relationships will
not be obvious and alternative hypotheses can be developed, to be tested
during subsequent steps and in the monitoring stage. The working
hypothesis may be refined in an iterative fashion as the assessment
develops.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Table 6 provides examples of
analyses and models that have been used to address the effects of
harvest on VSP parameters. To answer these questions, one would start
with correlation analyses to determine if harvest management practices
and harvest are possible candidates for affecting the VSP parameters.
While correlation analysis does not prove cause, especially when many
factors (e.g. other H's) are working at once on the population, it does
help guide where to look for cause.

The temporal and spatial scale of analysis should be sufficient to
detect differences or relationships, with special attention to this when
addressing diversity and spatial structure correlations.

[Evaluation]{.underline}. Evaluation of relevant information to
formulate the working hypotheses can be made in part by looking at the
literature and other situations where the cause and effect have been
shown. Also, previous changes in harvest practices for the population in
question can be compared to observed changes in the VSP parameters.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The harvest hypotheses will be identified by
the Puget Sound treaty tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183593 .anchor}Table 6. Examples of tools for
conducting analyses for the effects of harvest management actions on VSP
parameters. The section number where these tools are discussed is given
in parentheses in the first column. \[Note: this table is draft and is
not complete.\]

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 19%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Approach/Tool</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Tool Fundamentals</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Ability to Assess VSP Parameters</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Action-VSP Links</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Benefits</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Uncertainties/Risks</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>A</strong></td>
<td><strong>P</strong></td>
<td><strong>D</strong></td>
<td><strong>S</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Correlation Analysis (5.2.2)</td>
<td>Looks for relationships between factors</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>Look for correlations between harvest practices and any of the VSP
parameters.</td>
<td>Shows possible areas to address.</td>
<td>Does not identify causes.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>FRAM (Pacific Fisheries Management Council) (5.4.2)</td>
<td>Harvest Simulation Model</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Not often at population level</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>CTC (Pacific Salmon Commission) (5.4.2)</td>
<td>Harvest Simulation Model</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Not often at population level</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>NMFS Hydro BiOp; Kareiva et al. 2002; Greene, in prep.</td>
<td>Matrix population model. Specify life-stage transition probabilities
(for 2+ life stages); calculate sensitivity of population growth rate to
changes in life-stage specific mortalities.</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X?</td>
<td>X?</td>
<td></td>
<td>predicts effects of improvements in life-stage specific mortalities
on population growth rate; allows tradeoff analyses</td>
<td>Does not help in identifying links between actions and
life-stage-specific mortality rates; data-intensive</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>PasRas Model for chinook (Gretchen Osterhout)</td>
<td><p>Based on Nickleson/ Lawson coho model.</p>
<p>structured.</p></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>?</td>
<td>?</td>
<td>?</td>
<td></td>
<td>Models the effects of havbitat quality, eatuaries, disease, harvest
regimes, etc. on population and is age-</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Proportional Migration, Lawson and Comstock (2000) (5.4.2)</td>
<td>Models abundances over two dimensions of space (multiple sequential
fisheries) and time. Uses cohort analysis</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>?</td>
<td>?</td>
<td></td>
<td>Includes incidental mortalities and sampling recognition rates.</td>
<td>Has been used for impacts of selective fisheries and could be
adapted to relate results for the timing and spatial aspects of the VSP
parameters.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Newman model (Newman 1999) (5.4.2)</td>
<td>Cohort analysis; one fishery</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Impacts on wild stocks when hatchery stocks are targeted.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>VRAP</p>
<p>Puget Sound chinook 4d rule. (5.4.2)</p></td>
<td>Spawner-Recruit simulation of population based on model, management,
and environmental stochasticity</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Risk assessment of various harvest proposals on extinction given
current abundance and productivity parameters</td>
<td>Allows static or changing environmental factors, uncertainty in
management, and process error for spawner-recruit function. Isolates the
effects of harvest relative to other H’s</td>
<td>Is sensitive to assumptions of survival and starting population
size.</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Frieberg Model (in prep)</td>
<td>Cohort run reconstruction</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>Tests effects of various harvest strategies on population
abundance</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

#### Hatcheries

Question: What are the plausible hypotheses for how hatchery management
actions affect the demographic, genetic, and ecological processes that
determine the current and future VSP characteristics of a population?
What are the key assumptions and uncertainties?

This question asks planners to identify a conceptual model that links
hatchery actions and their effects on demographic, genetic, and
ecological processes that could change the current characteristics of a
population towards the desired future characteristics.

Hatchery actions can influence the demographic, genetic, and ecological
process operating on a population. These in turn affect abundance,
productivity, spatial structure and diversity of natural populations,
depending on 1) the magnitude of the hatchery effects on the
demographic, genetic, and ecological process and 2) the degree of
reproductive and ecological separation between the hatchery-produced and
naturally produced fish. For example, large hatchery programs that
control the photoperiod, rearing environment, feeding, and growth and
size of the fish may have potentially greater effects than small
hatchery programs that use natural rearing conditions. Likewise,
hatchery programs where most of the hatchery produced fish spawn in the
wild are more likely to affect the characteristics of the natural
population than hatchery programs where most of the fish do not spawn in
the wild.

The key VSP characteristics can be described quantitatively using a
variety of metrics (e.g., number of reproducing adults or juvenile
outmigrants, number of recruits per spawner, number of redds per
kilometers, or number of outmigrant life history types, etc.) or
qualitatively by status relative to viability (e.g., high, moderate, or
low risk). Descriptions of key characteristics are necessary for current
conditions and future conditions, such as short-term (1-5 years), or
moderate-term (5-25 years), or long-term planning horizons (\> 25
years).

An important characteristic of hatchery actions is that they may have
unavoidable conflicting effects on population characteristics. These
should be identifiable from the conceptual model. For example, using
hatcheries to increase juvenile survival and the number of adults
spawning in the wild may increase overall abundance of naturally
produced fish but decrease productivity or diversity.

There are many ways to begin formulating a conceptual model. One
approach would be to list types of hatchery actions, their effects on
current and future population characteristics, and the assumption and
uncertainties about the effects of those actions on ecological, genetic,
and demographic processes (Table 7).

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} The following tools and
applications may help develop a conceptual model that links hatchery
actions and their effects on demographic, genetic, and ecological
processes that could change the current characteristics of a population
towards the desired future characteristics. For general overviews, the
reports of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) include matrices
showing the effects of each hatchery program on each wild population
within a river basin.

1)  Stock Assessment Reports---Recent characteristics of chinook salmon
    populations are available from a variety of sources. These include:

    a.  Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI; WDFW and WWTIT
        1994)

    b.  Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI;
        http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/sassi/intro.htm)

    c.  NMFS Status Reviews (Myers et al. 1998)

    d.  Resource Management Plans (WDFW and WWTIT 2001, 2002)

    e.  Consultants' Reports (e.g., Cramer et al. 1999)

    f.  Unpublished, watershed-specific analyses by the co-managers.

2)  Watershed Recovery Planning. Watershed recovery groups are
    developing desired future characteristics of populations as
    watershed recovery planning targets (see Section 4.2).

3)  Literature Reviews. The general effects of hatcheries on population
    characteristics have been described in a variety of scientific
    reviews and texts, including but not limited to Allendorf and Ryman
    1987; Steward and Bjornn 1990; Hard 1992; Tave 1993; Busack and
    Currens 1995; Campton 1995; Flagg et al. 2000.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} The working hypothesis may be judged relative
to how well it addresses each of the following questions:

1)  Do the desired characteristics of the populations address VSP
    characteristics?

2)  Does the description of recent conditions use the best available
    data?

3)  Does the conceptual model of hatchery actions relate current and
    future characteristics of the population?

4)  Does the analysis describe the uncertainty of the conclusions?

[Who Provides?]{.underline} The working hypothesis for hatcheries will
be developed by WDFW and the Puget Sound treaty tribes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183594 .anchor}Table 7. Collecting information
for a conceptual model of the effects of hatchery actions on abundance
(A), productivity (P), diversity (D), and spatial structure (SS) in a
watershed for current conditions (C) and desired future conditions (F).

  ------------- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ------------ --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- -------------- ---------------
                Effects                                Effects on                                               
                on Target                              Non-Target                                               
                Species                                Species                                                  
                NORs                                                                                            

                A             P       D       SS       A                P       D       SS                      

  Activity      C         F   C   F   C   F   C    F   C            F   C   F   C   F   C    F   Assumptions    Uncertainties
                                                                                                 about          
                                                                                                 Processes      

  Brood                                                                                                         
  selection                                                                                                     

  Brood                                                                                                         
  collection                                                                                                    

  Mating                                                                                                        

  Rearing                                                                                                       

  Release                                                                                                       

  Management of                                                                                                 
  returning                                                                                                     
  adults                                                                                                        

  Other fish                                                                                                    
  disposition                                                                                                   

  Facility                                                                                                      
  Impacts                                                                                                       
  ------------- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ------------ --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- -------------- ---------------

#### Integrated

***Question: What are the characteristics of an integrated plan for
harvest, hatchery, and habitat that we hypothesize would be consistent
with achieving the planning targets for the VSP parameters of the
population?***

The status of salmon populations is a result of the cumulative effects
of natural and human-caused environmental factors on salmon throughout
their life cycle (Fig. 2). Considering the effects of one factor at a
time (e.g., harvest, habitat, or hatchery management actions) on salmon
population characteristics is more tractable from a technical
standpoint, but such estimates of effects are sure to be wrong in most
instances. The question above asks managers to consider suites of
habitat, harvest, and hatchery actions together, especially with a view
towards how these factors interact to affect salmon population
characteristics.

Developing an "integrated" plan for management of hatcheries, harvest
and habitat to achieve desired salmon population responses will involve
technical comparisons of actions in one sector with different
combinations of actions in the other "H's". The comparison of isolated
vs. integrated actions can be both within an "H" or among "H"'s. For
example, a comparison of habitat actions might reveal that an upstream
improvement to spawning gravel quality will not result in increased
population size because a downstream blockage is not going to be
reversed. A comparison of hatchery and habitat actions might reveal that
planned release numbers will overwhelm a habitat slated to be improved;
thereby preventing the expected effect of the habitat action from
occurring.

Through the process of examining the interactions between suites of
actions in habitat, hatchery and harvest management, an hypothesis(es)
can be developed that describes the predicted cumulative effects of
management in all "H" sectors. For each set of management
characteristics hypothesized to be consistent with achieving planning
targets, a strategic approach to identifying specific actions can be
developed (see Section 3.3.3).

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} There are a number of analyses and
tools that have the capability to predict that cumulative effects of
more than one "H" on salmon populations. Most of the tools listed in
Table 8 link the effects of "H's" on abundance and productivity of
salmon populations, thus, tools for predicting the integrated effects of
"H's" on diversity and spatial structure will be much more qualitative.
The EDT model is useful for predicting the cumulative effects of habitat

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183618 .anchor}Figure 2. Example of the
interactions among habitat, hatchery, and harvest management actions and
their potential effects on the VSP parameters of a population.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="8.375in" height="3.76875in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183595 .anchor}Table 8. Examples of tools for
conducting analyses that integrate the potential effects of habitat,
harvest and hatchery management actions on VSP parameters. \[Note: this
table is draft and is not complete\].

  ------------------- ---------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------- ------------------
  **Approach/Tool**   **Tool           **Ability to                           **Action-VSP   **Benefits**   **Uncertainties/Risks**   **Applications**
                      Fundamentals**   Assess VSP                             Links**                                                 
                                       Parameters**                                                                                   

                                       **A**          **P**   **D**   **S**                                                           

  Matrix population   Specify          X              X       X                              predicts       Does not help in          NMFS Hydro Biop;
  models              life-stage                                                             effects of     identifying links between Kareiva et al.
                      transition                                                             improvements   actions and               2002; Greene, in
                      probabilities                                                          in life-stage  life-stage-specific       prep.
                      (for 2+ life                                                           specific       mortality rates;          
                      stages);                                                               mortalities on data-intensive            
                      calculate                                                              population                               
                      sensitivity of                                                         growth rate;                             
                      population                                                             allows                                   
                      growth rate to                                                         tradeoff                                 
                      changes in                                                             analyses                                 
                      life-stage                                                                                                      
                      specific                                                                                                        
                      mortalities.                                                                                                    

  Population dynamic                   X              X       X       X                      Integrates                               Hilborn model
  models using                                                                               well with EDT                            (SHIRAZ---Sharma
  recruit/spawner                                                                            approach to                              et al. 2002);
  functions                                                                                  habitat                                  
                                                                                             modeling.                                

  Nickleson and       Habitat-based,   X              X               X                      Spatially                                Nickleson and
  Lawson              spatially                                                              explicit.                                Lawson (1998)
                      explicit                                                                                                        
                      life-cycle                                                                                                      
                      model. Can                                                                                                      
                      predict a                                                                                                       
                      population's                                                                                                    
                      response to                                                                                                     
                      changes in                                                                                                      
                      habitat                                                                                                         
                      condition and                                                                                                   
                      harvest                                                                                                         
                      management.                                                                                                     
  ------------------- ---------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------- ------------------

actions throughout a watershed. Similarly, the SHIRAZ model can be used
to predict the effects of habitat conditions and processes on salmon
throughout a watershed, and it also can be used to explore interactions
among hatchery, harvest and habitat management on salmon populations
(Sharma et al. 2002). The Viability and Risk Assessment Procedure (VRAP)
is useful for predicting the integrated effects of habitat actions and
harvest management strategies.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} The certainty of the integrated working
hypothesis can be evaluated by addressing the following questions:

1)  Do desired characteristics of the populations address all four VSP
    characteristics?

2)  Does description of recent conditions use the best available data?

3)  Are the conceptual models of habitat, harvest, and hatchery actions
    related to each other so that one can predict the current and future
    characteristics of the population?

4)  Does the analysis describe certainty of the information included and
    the resulting conclusions?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The integrated working hypothesis will be
developed by WDFW, the Puget Sound Treaty tribes, watershed planning
groups, and the TRT.

### Identify Strategies

A strategy describes the general approach that, when viewed in the
context of the working hypothesis, is likely to improve the status of
the population. Strategies are not specific actions, but provide
guidance for the subsequent identification of projects and/or management
actions.

#### Habitat

Question: What types and sequence of habitat management strategies does
the working hypothesis suggest will be needed to achieve the planning
targets? How do these strategies address uncertainty?

Recognition of the complexities of the environment, and the limitations
of single species management, has resulted in new approaches to natural
resource planning that emphasize landscape scale processes and the
interconnections of populations, communities, and ecosystems
(Christensen et al. 1996; Spence et al. 1996). This approach recognizes
that actions that "reduce complexity and diversity in order to increase
productivity of particular ecosystem components may be deficient in key
ecosystem processes and, therefore, less stable and less sustainable"
(Christensen et al. 1996). Habitat management strategies that emphasize
the role of habitat forming processes and their interconnections are
most likely to result in the persistence of the aquatic habitat
conditions necessary to sustain a salmonid population (see Box 2).

Strategy selection should be driven by the working hypothesis, but
socio-economic factors that influence the time frame, funding, and
societal constraints on habitat management actions will also influence
the identification and evaluation of a strategy. Restoration of
pre-disturbance aquatic functions and related physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics may not be feasible throughout the entire
range of a population. Under these conditions, the certainty of
achieving the VSP parameters for the population is reduced, and
long-term anthropogenic intervention will likely be required.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Numerous references are available
to identify potential strategies consistent with the working hypothesis
(cf. NRC (1992; 1995); Frissell (1993); Frissell et al. (1996); Spence
et al. (1996); and Roni et al. 2002; Beechie et al. 2002). These
typically group potential strategies by the habitat attribute or process
that they address (Gregory and Bisson 1996; Mobrand et al. 1997), or
provide a matrix that links a single strategy with one or more habitat
attributes or processes (Table 9).

The NRC (1992) provided guidance on a preferred sequence for restoring
watershed processes:

1)  Restore the natural sediment and water regime. Regime refers to at
    least two time scales: the daily-to-seasonal variation in water and
    sediment loads, and the annual-to-decadal patterns of floods and
    droughts.

2)  Restore a natural channel geometry, if restoration of the water and
    sediment regime alone does not.

3)  Restore the natural riparian plant community, which becomes a
    functioning part of the channel geometry and floodplain/riparian
    hydrology. This steps is necessary only if the plant community does
    not restore itself upon achievement of objectives 1 and 2.

4)  Restore native aquatic plants and animals, if they do not recolonize
    on their own.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} Does the plan explain: 1) the linkage between
the planning target, the working hypothesis, and the strategy; 2) the
rationale for the selection of this strategy versus other options; 3)
the sequencing of elements included in the strategy; and 4) how the
strategy addresses uncertainty and preserves options if the working
hypothesis proves to be incorrect?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} Habitat strategies will be identified by the
watershed planning groups.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="0.12291666666666666in"
height="5.6402777777777775in"}![](media/image3.wmf){width="0.12291666666666666in"
height="5.6402777777777775in"}![](media/image3.wmf){width="0.12291666666666666in"
height="5.6402777777777775in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183596 .anchor}Table 9. Examples of alternative
habitat management strategies associated with habitat forming processes
or aquatic habitat characteristics.

+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| **      | *       | **        | **        | **Reha     | **Sub     |
| Aquatic | *Linked | Protect** | Restore** | bilitate** | stitute** |
| Habitat | P       |           |           |            |           |
| Ch      | hysical |           |           |            |           |
| aracter | Enviro  |           |           |            |           |
| istic** | nmental |           |           |            |           |
|         | C       |           |           |            |           |
|         | haracte |           |           |            |           |
|         | ristics |           |           |            |           |
|         | and     |           |           |            |           |
|         | Proc    |           |           |            |           |
|         | esses** |           |           |            |           |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Channel | Geomor  | Maintain  | 1         | 1)  Move   | 1)        |
| Scour   | phology | natural   | )  Remove |     dikes  |   Install |
|         |         | processes |           |     back   |     s     |
|         | Hy      | in        |    dikes. |     from   | tormwater |
|         | drology | watershed |           |            |           |
|         |         | through   | 2)  Allow |   channel. | retention |
|         | S       | e         |           |            |           |
|         | ediment | ducation, |   natural | 2)         |   system. |
|         | Tr      | con       |     cycle |  Institute |           |
|         | ansport | servation |     of    |            | 2)        |
|         |         | e         |     s     |   land-use | Construct |
|         |         | asements, | uccession |     r      |           |
|         |         | or        |     to    | egulations |  off-site |
|         |         | acq       |     occur |     that   |           |
|         |         | uisition. |     t     |     reduce |  spawning |
|         |         |           | hroughout |     the    |           |
|         |         |           |     the   |            |  channel. |
|         |         |           |     w     | impervious |           |
|         |         |           | atershed. |     area   |           |
|         |         |           |           |     within |           |
|         |         |           |           |     the    |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           | watershed. |           |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Water   | Hy      | Same      | 1)  Allow | 1)         | 1)  Store |
| Temp    | drology |           |           | Revegetate |     and   |
| erature |         |           |   natural |            |           |
|         | Suc     |           |     cycle |   riparian |   provide |
|         | cession |           |     of    |     areas  |     water |
|         |         |           |     s     |     as     |     as    |
|         |         |           | uccession |     needed |           |
|         |         |           |     to    |     to     | necessary |
|         |         |           |     occur |            |     to    |
|         |         |           |     in    |   maintain |           |
|         |         |           |     all   |     water  |  maintain |
|         |         |           |           |     te     |     ap    |
|         |         |           |  riparian | mperature. | propriate |
|         |         |           |     areas |            |     water |
|         |         |           |     of    | 2)         |     tem   |
|         |         |           |     the   |  Institute | perature. |
|         |         |           |     w     |            |           |
|         |         |           | atershed. |   instream |           |
|         |         |           |           |     flow   |           |
|         |         |           |           |     r      |           |
|         |         |           |           | egulations |           |
|         |         |           |           |     to     |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           |   maintain |           |
|         |         |           |           |     a      |           |
|         |         |           |           | ppropriate |           |
|         |         |           |           |     water  |           |
|         |         |           |           |     te     |           |
|         |         |           |           | mperature. |           |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Fine    | Geomor  | Same      | 1)  Close | 1)         | 1)        |
| Se      | phology |           |     roads |  Institute |   Install |
| diments |         |           |     in    |            |           |
|         | Hy      |           |     areas |   improved |  sediment |
|         | drology |           |     with  |     road   |           |
|         |         |           |     steep |     m      |    traps. |
|         | S       |           |           | aintenance |           |
|         | ediment |           |   slopes. |            | 2)        |
|         | Tr      |           |           | procedures | Construct |
|         | ansport |           | 2)  Allow |            |           |
|         |         |           |           | 2)         |  off-site |
|         |         |           |   natural | Revegetate |           |
|         |         |           |     cycle |            |  spawning |
|         |         |           |     of    |   riparian |           |
|         |         |           |     s     |     areas  |  channel. |
|         |         |           | uccession |     as     |           |
|         |         |           |     to    |     needed |           |
|         |         |           |     occur |     to     |           |
|         |         |           |     t     |            |           |
|         |         |           | hroughout |   minimize |           |
|         |         |           |     the   |            |           |
|         |         |           |     w     |   sediment |           |
|         |         |           | atershed. |            |           |
|         |         |           |           |    inputs. |           |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Es      | Geomor  | Same      | 1         | 1)  Remove | 1         |
| tuarine | phology |           | )  Remove |     dikes  | )  Create |
| Acreage |         |           |           |            |     new   |
|         | Hy      |           |    dikes. |   blocking |           |
|         | drology |           |           |     access | estuarine |
|         |         |           |           |     to     |           |
|         | S       |           |           |            |  habitat. |
|         | ediment |           |           |    habitat |           |
|         | Tr      |           |           |     likely |           |
|         | ansport |           |           |     to be  |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           |    usable. |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           | 2)         |           |
|         |         |           |           |  Institute |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           |   land-use |           |
|         |         |           |           |     r      |           |
|         |         |           |           | egulations |           |
|         |         |           |           |     p      |           |
|         |         |           |           | rohibiting |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           |    adverse |           |
|         |         |           |           |     mo     |           |
|         |         |           |           | dification |           |
|         |         |           |           |     of     |           |
|         |         |           |           |            |           |
|         |         |           |           |  estuarine |           |
|         |         |           |           |     areas. |           |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+-----------+

#### Harvest

Question: What types and sequence of fishery management strategies do
the working hypotheses suggest will be needed to help achieve the
planning targets? How do these strategies address uncertainty?

Using the population assessments and working hypotheses identified
above, recovery planners can begin to develop strategies. The strategies
describe a general approach to adjusting harvest practices that will
help achieve the planning targets for abundance, productivity,
diversity, and spatial structure. More specific actions will be
addressed in section 3.3.2. The examples given below are for
illustration only; they do not encompass all possible situations. A
given solution may not work in all systems or may be discarded for an
alternate approach. Strategies must be developed that are workable for
the water basin, conditions, and population in question.

Examples of strategies for given working hypotheses are:

1)  *Situation*: Escapements for population X have remained relatively
    constant while recruitment [abundance]{.underline} has declined;
    harvest practices have decreased harvest rates in an attempt to
    increase escapement without success. *Hypothesis*: The current
    harvest rate is not limiting recruitment of population X. If other
    factors were held constant, the number of recruits would increase.
    *Strategy*: An analysis of allowable exploitation rates resulting in
    less than a 5% chance of extinction and an increase in spawners
    given all other factors remain constant or improve gives an
    allowable rate of x% for all fishing mortality on this population.
    Continue to monitor annual exploitation rate and spawning
    escapement. Monitor other mortalities that might take place between
    fishing and spawning; these could confound the relationship between
    harvest and escapement abundance. Monitor other factors and the
    abundance and productivity to outmigration to determine if assumed
    conditions have been met or detect changes in productivity and
    capacity.

2)  *Situation*: The [productivity]{.underline} of population Y is
    decreasing over time measured in adult recruits per spawner, even
    during the period of relatively low but constant marine survival.
    Ocean fishery F1 has been demonstrated to take mostly 5 year old
    fish. *Hypothesis*: The productivity of population Y is being
    reduced by the selective removal of age 5 fish, which have more eggs
    than age 3 or 4 fish. *Strategy*: An upper size limit or gear
    modification will be implemented on fishery F1 to reduce harvest
    rate on the older fish. If age samples from the escapement have not
    been taken before, a program should be started to get annual age
    distribution of the spawners to see if the proportion of 5+ year
    olds changes.

3)  *Situation*: The run timing (when the population enters the river
    basin) of population Z is shortening over time, reducing the
    [diversity]{.underline} of the population concerning run spawning
    timing. An inriver fishery targeting hatchery returns, but also
    causing indirect mortalities on the wild population Y, takes place
    early in the season. *Hypothesis*: The mortality to the wild fish
    early in the season has altered the average return timing of the
    population to later in the year. *Strategy*: The fishery should be
    regulated to allow more wild fish to spawn early in the season to
    restore the original range of spawn timing. This may include
    drastically reducing or eliminating, for a while, fisheries early in
    the season. Catch and return timing of the run should be monitored
    on a daily or weekly time scale. (The eventual solution might also
    entail a hatchery strategy of changing hatchery timing to not
    interfere with the wild timing, but for now we are looking for
    possible harvest solutions. Hatchery/harvest interactions will be
    addressed under the integrated section below.)

4)  *Situation*: Population AA is has been observed spawning in the
    lower reaches of its historical spawning area; the populations use
    of its [spatial structure]{.underline} is expanding . The coho
    fishery that takes place inriver within the chinook lower spawning
    area has recently instituted chinook non-retention regulations.
    *Hypothesis*: The chinook non-retention regulation is resulting in
    rebuilding of the spatial structure of the spawning population
    *Strategy*: Maintain the chinook non-retention regulations. Harvest
    managers might alternatively choose to move the coho fishery below
    all chinook spawning grounds or employ pulse fishing to pass chinook
    through to their spawning grounds.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Strategies need to be developed
that will work for the circumstances of the water basin and population.
Simulation models can help determine whether the general approach
defined by the strategy will give the desired results. Harvest models
such as FRAM can be used to determine effects of varying harvest rates
by fisheries. Matrix models based on stage specific mortalities can be
used to determine effects of changing mortality on specific age or size
groups. Habitat use surveys, biological data sampling by appropriate
time strata will provide the data necessary to determine whether the
hypotheses were correct and monitor the effects of the harvest actions.

[Evaluation]{.underline}. Does the plan explain: 1) the linkage between
the planning target, the working hypothesis, and the strategy; 2) the
rationale for the selection of this strategy versus other options; 3)
the sequencing of elements included in the strategy; and 4) how the
strategy

addresses uncertainty and preserves options if the working hypothesis
proves to be incorrect?

Strategies need scientific and public review. Changes in management
actions should include a monitoring and evaluation plan that collects
the type of data and in such a way that is can be used to test the
hypotheses.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The strategies will be developed by the
Puget Sound treaty tribes and WDFW.

#### Hatcheries

Question: What types and sequence of hatchery management strategies do
the working hypotheses suggest will be needed to help achieve the
planning targets? How do these strategies address uncertainty?

This question asks planners to 1) classify hatchery actions into
strategies, 2) identify alternative strategies that are consistent with
achieving planning targets over different planning horizons based on
which key populations characteristics are most important to protect or
recover immediately versus later, and 3) to choose between the
strategies.

The overall strategy for hatcheries should be to minimize negative
effects on viability by balancing the potential conflicting effects of
hatchery actions on the key population characteristics (abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). This involves
identifying conflicts, agreeing on priorities, and making trade-offs
over time, space, and different species. For example, in the short-term
using hatcheries to increase abundance rapidly to prevent immediate risk
of extinction may be necessary even though it results in loss of
diversity. The same hatchery actions to increase abundance at the cost
of diversity when populations are no longer at immediate risk of
extinction may not minimize negative effects on viability. Consequently,
to balance risks and benefits over time, the hatchery strategy would
need to change once the population was no longer at immediate risk of
extinction.

Identifying planning horizons that link key desired population
characteristics and different hatchery strategies is essential for
accomplishing the overall hatchery strategy. These planning horizons
need to be consistent with the expected timeframe for the effects of
different actions for harvest and habitat to occur, because they also
affect the population characteristics. Consequently, hatchery strategies
and other recovery actions should be explicitly linked by the planning
horizons.

Identifying hatchery strategies involves combining the key
characteristics of hatchery programs to have different effects on the
population characteristics, such changes in direction (e.g., increases
versus decreases in abundance) or levels of risk (e.g., low risk of loss
of diversity versus moderate risk). Potential key characteristics of
hatchery programs include the 1) target species, 2) goals (e.g.,
enhancement of harvest or maintenance, recovery, or reintroduction of
natural populations), 3) its duration (e.g., short-term, long-term, in
perpetuity), 4) its size, and 5) the degree of reproductive and
ecological similarity and separation between the hatchery-produced fish
and naturally produced fish. For example, a small, short-term program
for reintroduction is a different strategy than a large, long-term
population maintenance program or a small, harvest enhancement program
where hatchery and natural fish are isolated. Table 10 illustrates the
risks and benefits of four different strategies for coho salmon
hatcheries (WDFW and WWTIT 199?), which were classified based on
management intent of the hatchery (recovery or harvest) and degree of
reproductive integration with natural stocks. If the key characteristics
of a hatchery program are not obvious, describing the assumptions about
how hatchery actions affect genetic, ecological, and demographic
processes and the uncertainties (Fig. 1) will help identify these
characteristics.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Examples of tools include:

1)  Comprehensive Coho Salmon Management Plan (WDFW and WWTIT 199?)

2)  Comprehensive Chinook Salmon Management Plan (WDFW and WWTIT 2002)

3)  Artificial Production Review?

[Evaluation.]{.underline} Does the plan explain: 1) the linkage between
the planning target, the working hypothesis, and the strategy; 2) the
rationale for the selection of this strategy versus other options; 3)
the sequencing of elements included in the strategy; and 4) how the
strategy addresses uncertainty and preserves options if the working
hypothesis proves to be incorrect?

Do the hatchery strategies have different effects on VSP population
characteristics?

1.  Does the plan explain the link between the working hypothesis, the
    strategies, and the planning targets?

2.  Does the plan identify and justify priorities for sequencing the
    strategies?

3.  Do the hatchery strategies address uncertainty?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The strategies will be developed by the
Puget Sound treaty tribes and WDFW.

#### Integrated

Question: What integrated set of management strategies does the working
hypothesis suggest will be needed to achieve the planning targets?

This question asks planners to 1) consider the proposed habitat,
harvest, and hatchery strategies together, 2) identify alternative sets
of strategies that are consistent with achieving planning targets
according to the hypothesis(es). These strategies should be developed
over different time-planning horizons, based on which key population
characteristics are most important to protect or recover immediately
versus those that can be recovered later, and 3) to narrow the possible
combinations of strategies to one or very few alternatives for
implementation. More than one management strategy may be chosen as an
interim approach in order to account for uncertainty in the predicted
outcomes of alternative strategies.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} General guidance on how to develop
management strategies from hypotheses about how salmon populations are
affected by the "H's" is scarce. \[cite refs of examples from existing
plans or guidance? EDT's Yakima or Nisqually plans? \] Both EDT and
SHIRAZ have the capability to incorporate information about management
actions in hatchery, harvest and habitat arenas into predictions of
resulting salmon population characteristics.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} Does the strategy explain: 1) the linkage
between the planning target, the working hypothesis, and the strategy;
2) the rationale for the selection of a particular strategy versus other
options; 3) the sequencing of elements included in the strategy; and 4)
how the strategy addresses uncertainty and preserves options if the
working hypothesis proves to be incorrect?

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The integrated strategy will be developed by
WDFW, the Puget Sound Treaty tribes, and watershed groups.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc32183597 .anchor}Table 10. Four strategies from
the Comprehensive Coho Salmon Management Plan based on the management
goal (harvest or recovery) and degree of reproductive integration with
the naturally produced fish (integration or isolation), and their risks,
benefits, and critical elements.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Integrated Recovery Project**    | **Integrated Harvest Project**  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| [Potential Biological              | [Potential Biological           |
| Hazards]{.underline}:              | Hazards]{.underline}:           |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Loss of genetic diversity,     | -   Loss of genetic diversity,  |
|     loss of fitness in the wild    |     loss of fitness in the wild |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Increased competition,         | -   Increased competition,      |
|     predation on wild fish of same |     predation on wild fish of   |
|     or other species.              |     same or other species.      |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Masking of natural population  | -   Masking of natural          |
|     status                         |     population status           |
|                                    |                                 |
| [Potential Biological              | -   Unintentional overharvest   |
| Benefits]{.underline}:             |     of wild fish while fishing  |
|                                    |     for artificially propagated |
| -   Increased population abundance |     fish.                       |
|     and distribution               |                                 |
|                                    | [Potential Harvest              |
| -   Prevent extinction             | Benefits]{.underline}:          |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Accelerated recovery           | -   Provide fishery when        |
|                                    |     alternative strategies      |
| -   Avoidance of inbreeding and    |     would not                   |
|     genetic bottlenecks            |                                 |
|                                    | -   Provide opportunity to      |
| -   Increase in ecological         |     transition from non-native  |
|     diversity and nutrients        |     to locally adapted stocks   |
|                                    |                                 |
| [Summary:]{.underline} Integrated  | [Summary:]{.underline}          |
| recovery provides a way of         | Integrated harvest provides a   |
| increasing numbers of at-risk,     | way of using the adaptations of |
| naturally spawning fish.           | a local brood stock to increase |
| Successfully creating a composite  | returns to fisheries. It also   |
| natural/artificial population      | makes managing some risks       |
| without risking the long-term      | associated with artificial      |
| natural sustainability of the      | production more difficult than  |
| natural population involves        | (successfully) isolated         |
| careful planning and is likely to  | propagation because negative    |
| be technically and logistically    | genetic and ecological impacts  |
| difficult in many cases.           | may be amplified due to the     |
|                                    | high level of interaction       |
| [Critical Elements:]{.underline}   | between natural and hatchery    |
|                                    | fish. Ability of program to     |
| -   Analysis of extinction risk    | succeed may depend heavily on   |
|     versus risks of project        | successful harvest management.  |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Causes of decline must be      | [Critical                       |
|     addressed in order for the     | Elements:]{.underline}          |
|     natural population to          |                                 |
|     recover - an artificial        | -   Healthy local stock         |
|     propagation project on its own |                                 |
|     is unlikely to be sufficient   | -   Careful monitoring of       |
|     to achieve recovery            |     health natural production   |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Multiple safeguards and        | -   Multiple approaches to      |
|     intensive monitoring to reduce |     spread risk and optimize    |
|     uncertainties and detect       |     success                     |
|     hazards                        |                                 |
|                                    | -   Successful integration with |
| -   Multiple approaches to spread  |     harvest management          |
|     risk and optimize success      |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Performance measures and       |                                 |
|     endpoints for judging success  |                                 |
|     or failure.                    |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

**Table 7. Continued.**

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Isolated Recovery Project**      | **Isolated Harvest Project**    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| [Potential Biological              | [Potential Biological           |
| Hazards]{.underline}:              | Hazards:]{.underline}           |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Genetic or phenotypic change   | -   Loss of genetic diversity,  |
|     during captivity may           |     loss of fitness in the wild |
|     jeopardize successful          |                                 |
|     reintroduction                 | -   Increased competition,      |
|                                    |     predation on wild fish of   |
| -   Unrecoverable losses due to    |     same or other species.      |
|     hatchery facility failure      |                                 |
|                                    | -   Masking of natural          |
| [Potential Biological              |     population status           |
| Benefits]{.underline}:             |                                 |
|                                    | -   Unintentional overharvest   |
| -   Prevention of extinction/      |     of wild fish while fishing  |
|     recovery of population         |     for artificially propagated |
|                                    |     fish.                       |
| -   Preservation of genetic        |                                 |
|     diversity (i.e. a gene bank)   | [Potential Harvest              |
|     for future uses                | Benefits]{.underline}:          |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Speeding of recovery compared  | -   Provide harvest in areas    |
|     to non-hatchery alternatives   |     where wild populations are  |
|     (can produce a large increase  |     unproductive or not viable  |
|     in abundance relatively        |                                 |
|     quickly)                       | [Summary]{.underline}: If       |
|                                    | successful, isolated harvest    |
| [Summary:]{.underline} Isolated    | can provide substantial harvest |
| recovery projects may provide      | augmentation while minimizing   |
| insurance against population       | impacts on wild fish, but       |
| extinction, but should be          | isolation may be difficult to   |
| considered to be experimental due  | achieve or have only limited    |
| do to limited experience with      | applications. Ability of        |
| these programs. The likelihood of  | program to succeed may depend   |
| successfully reintroduction to the | heavily on successful harvest   |
| wild is likely to decrease with    | management.                     |
| increasing generations in an       |                                 |
| artificial environment.            | [Critical                       |
|                                    | elements]{.underline}:          |
| [Critical elements]{.underline}:   |                                 |
|                                    | -   Strategy that will assure a |
| -   Analysis of extinction risks   |     high degree of isolation of |
|     versus risks of project        |     hatchery and natural fish   |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Causes of decline must be      | -   Ability to separate wild    |
|     addressed in order for the     |     and hatchery fish           |
|     natural population to          |                                 |
|     recover - an artificial        | -   Adequate monitoring to      |
|     propagation project on its own |     assess degree of isolation  |
|     is unlikely to be sufficient   |                                 |
|     to achieve recovery            | -   Successful integration with |
|                                    |     harvest management          |
| -   Multiple facility and          |                                 |
|     operational safeguards         |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Monitoring and evaluation      |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Multiple approaches to spread  |                                 |
|     risk and optimize success      |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| -   Performance measure and        |                                 |
|     endpoints standards for        |                                 |
|     judging success                |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

### Evaluate Management Actions In Place

It is important to understanding the potential effects of the management
actions already in place prior to identifying what additional actions
are necessary to achieve the planning targets. In some watersheds,
extensive modifications to management may already have occurred,
including the Forest and Fish Agreement, habitat restoration and
protection projects, and the comanagers' resource management plans for
hatcheries and harvest. In this section, all management actions in place
that will affect the population are compiled and evaluated.

#### Habitat

Question: What habitat management actions are in place? In conjunction
with other ongoing changes to the watershed (buildout, delayed response
to changes in habitat forming processes), what will be their net effect
on the VSP parameters of the population? What are the key unknown or
uncertainties?

Habitat management actions that are in place include the Forest and Fish
Agreement (1999), habitat conservation plans, and habitat restoration
and protection projects funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB). Many watersheds also have a prioritized list of projects that,
assuming funding is provided in the future, may also have a beneficial
impact on the population. All actions may not have beneficial effects.
For example, increased human population density and buildout, although
conducted in a manner consistent with current ordinances, could have a
negative impact on some populations.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} See Section 3.3.2.1.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See Section 3.3.2.1.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} Identification and evaluation of the habitat
management actions in place will be completed by the watershed planning
groups with assistance from the TRT, WDFW, and the Puget Sound treaty
tribes.

#### Harvest

Question: What harvest management actions are in place? In conjunction
with other ongoing changes in fisheries, what will be their net effect
on the VSP parameters of the population? What are the key unknowns or
uncertainties?

How do fishing regimes (including those that target or incidentally
impact mixed populations of chinook) affect the population in question?
How is the fishing mortality for this population distributed over space
and time relative to the population's migration pattern, spatial
structure, age structure, and run timing? Are all sources of fishing
mortality (direct and indirect, ocean and terminal, commercial,
recreational, subsistence, and ceremonial) accounted for? What harvest
actions have been taken to address effects on VSP parameters? What is
known about the response of the population to their implementation?

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Habitat use surveys,
mark-recapture studies, and biological data sampling by appropriate time
strata will provide the data necessary to determine whether the
hypotheses were correct and monitor the effects of the harvest actions.
Managers may use focused harvest management strategies such as pulse
fishing, non-retention regulations, and temporal and spatial fishery
shaping to achieve goals.

Most harvest tools currently used to project the effects of proposed
harvest plans on abundance do not directly address impacts on
productivity, growth rate, diversity, or spatial structure at the
population level. However, in some cases, these models can provide
information about these other VSP parameters. For example, the FRAM
model used by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the CTC Model
(CTC 1993) used by the Pacific Salmon Commission both model the effects
of mixed stock fisheries on abundance of individual populations or
population aggregates. The models are age-specific for harvest, and thus
to some extent address the issues of gear selectivity on size or age. A
change in age distribution over time could theoretically be detected.

To determine if changing fishing harvest patterns will affect abundance,
productivity, diversity, or spatial distribution, one needs a model that
looks at fishing mortalities over a fine time (less than a year) and
spatial grid. The models developed or adapted for evaluating selective
fisheries do this, as they are evaluating the effect of different types
of fisheries on the ultimate escapement. The "Proportional Migration"
(PM) model ( Lawson and Comstock 2000) and the Newman model (1999) both
were developed to determine the amount of mortality to hatchery and
natural stocks given selective fisheries (selective on a visual mark,
e.g., adipose fin clip). The PM model allows multiple fisheries and
gears, selective and non- selective.

To measure the effect of harvest rate fishery plans on the extinction
rate, the Viability and Risk Assessment Procedure (VRAP) model has been
used. This model estimates extinction probabilities for a range of
harvest rates given assumptions/data about the stock spawner recruit
function, environmental stochasticity, and management precision. This
model addresses abundance and growth rate.

The Nickelson and Lawson (1998) metapopulation model, originally
developed for Oregon coastal coho salmon, could be used to project
changes in spatial structure occurring as a result of different harvest
management regimes under different habitat conditions. The time scale
for this analysis would be over several generations of chinook salmon.

Tools/analyses to measure the effect of harvest actions on diversity and
spatial structure would require examining the harvest and spawning
population at a finer scale of space and time than river basin and year.
Test fisheries could be used to mark fish followed by spawning ground
recapture studies to determine where which fish from proposed fishing
sites are being impacted (see Skagit run reconstruction efforts, ref??).

[Evaluation]{.underline}. An evaluation of the estimation technique used
should examine the assumption and data needs of the various models and
compare with data availability for the population in question. Does the
population have a coded-wire-tagged indicator stock that can be used in
the harvest models to estimate harvest rates? Or must a surrogate
(hopefully similar, but from another area) or aggregated indicator stock
be used? What is the length of the time series of escapement and harvest
data? Does the model assume constant survivals and mortalities from
other factors over this period of time and is that reasonable? How
accurate/reliable are harvest and escapement estimates? Changes in
management actions should include a monitoring and evaluation plan that
collects the type of data and in such a way that is can be used to test
the hypotheses. Models should be peer reviewed.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The current actions will be reviewed by the
Puget Sound treaty tribes and WDFW.

#### Hatcheries

Question: What hatchery management actions are in place? In conjunction
with changes occurring in hatcheries, what will be their net effect on
the VSP parameters? What are the key uncertainties and assumptions?

This question asks planners to evaluate whether current hatchery
management actions are consistent with the proposed strategy and what
the expected net effects of these actions will be.

This step is important to be able to allow planners to identify whether
current hatchery management actions alone will lead to desired future
characteristics of the population and whether current actions of all the
hatchery programs in the watershed are consistent with the with the
desired strategy. An important part of this assessment is identifying
the key assumptions and uncertainties that the conclusions are based on
and evaluating how much violations or changes in these assumptions might
affect the overall conclusion.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Examples of sources of information
on the operation of hatchery programs and an evaluation of their impacts
include:

1.  HGMPs. Provide a detailed description of the operation of a hatchery
    program.

2.  Equilibrium Brood Document and Future Brood Planning Document.
    Documents required under the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan that
    describe brood stock, egg take, and production goals.

3.  HSRG reviews. Evaluate the consistency of the goal and operation of
    a hatchery program.

4.  ESA Section 7, 10, or 4(d) Resource Management Plan reviews.
    Provides description of operation of hatchery program and evaluates
    consistency with the ESA.

5.  Benefit Risk Assessment Procedure. Analyses used by WDFW to evaluate
    the risks of artificial production in the ecological context of the
    watershed.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The current actions will be reviewed by the
Puget Sound treaty tribes and WDFW.

#### Integrated

***Question: What is the predicted status of the VSP parameters of the
population in 20, 50, and 100 years, after accounting for the management
actions that have been implemented?***

This question asks managers and planners to project the combined effects
of all the planned harvest, hatchery, and habitat management actions on
the population at three different points in the future. There are
several important considerations that arise in this exercise. One
important one is that, along with the effects of an action, the time
scale of the effect must be predicted. A change in harvest rate, for
example, will immediately affect the population performance within one
or a few generations, while the effects of converting streambank
vegetation from a plowed field to old growth forest will take several
centuries to fully manifest themselves.

Another key consideration in the integrated analysis is that the
harvest, hatchery, and habitat actions work together synergistically.
For example, historically functioning salmon habitat contained
marine-derived nutrients that were provided by adult salmon returning
from the ocean. Harvest management actions must consider marine-derived
nutrient requirements in restored freshwater habitats so that sufficient
adult fish are returned to those areas for needed ecological
functioning. As another example, hatchery programs must be designed to
complement the current needs of natural production and must change as
habitat improvements change the factors limiting natural production. A
supplementation program may be designed to take advantage of rearing
habitat that is underutilized because poor quality spawning habitat
limits overall production. The size of this type of program should be
reduced once spawning habitat is improved and no longer limits the
ability of natural production to supply juveniles to the rearing
habitat. One can easily construct a complex network of "H" management
interactions such as these, and such considerations should be part of
planning for recovery.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} Current efforts to integrate the
assessment of habitat, hatchery, and harvest effects involve developing
interfaces between existing models that focus on one of these areas. One
critical point of interface among such models is that population status
needs to be expressed in common units by all models. This is why we
stress the use of the four VSP parameters so strongly in this guidance.
If the individual models express abundance, productivity, diversity, and
spatial distribution in common units, then the next step of combining
the models will be possible. Besides common units for expressing
population status, models for the individual "H"'s need to be compatible
in terms of geographical and temporal scale in order to be compatible.

The SHIRAZ model appears to have many of the characteristics necessary
for investigating the cumulative effects of actions in the three "H"'s
(Sharma et al. 2002). The within-river geographical scale is appropriate
for investigating the effects of habitat attributes on salmon life
stages, the model treats the effects of hatchery and wild fish that
coexist in freshwater reaches, and the model expresses population
performance in a way that allows the effects of different harvest
management strategies to be compared.

The Nickleson and Lawson (1998) habitat-based life-cycle model also
lends itself to some integrated analyses. This approach deals with
spatial distribution as well as abundance and productivity. It treats
the way that fish use the available habitat, dependent upon both
environmental attributes and abundance. It is unique in that it can
address the combined effects of habitat and harvest management and that
it addresses spatial distribution as well as abundance and productivity.

Either of these models, or others that may be considered, would have to
be extended to include interactions among all the H's as they affect all
four VSP parameters. The effort would be worthwhile because there are
likely to be unanticipated interactions among the H's that would not be
revealed by focus on each H individually.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} Useful models will include significant effects
from harvest, hatchey, and habitat management and will address
population performance in terms of all four VSP parameters. Furthermore,
as additional "H's" are included in models, incorporating uncertainty in
the reporting of results becomes ever more important.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The integrated analysis of actions already
in place will be conducted by WDFW, the Puget Sound Treaty tribes, and
watershed groups.

### Identify and Evaluate Action Scenario

#### Habitat

***Question: In addition to the action scenarios already in place, what
habitat action scenario is needed to provide the aquatic habitat
conditions, habitat forming processes, and population characteristics
that are consistent with the planning targets for the VSP parameters?
How does this action scenario address uncertainty?***

Site-specific management actions are a required element of a recovery
plan (section 4(f)(B)(i)). Selection of the management actions will
likely require an evaluation of the costs, benefits, and uncertainties
associated with a range of alternatives. Predicting the benefits of
potential management actions will often involve three steps: 1)
predicting the effect of the action on habitat forming processes; 2)
predicting the effect of the habitat forming process on aquatic habitat;
and 3) predicting the effect of the change in aquatic habitat on the
abundance, growth rate/productivity, diversity, and spatial structure of
the population.

Management actions can be categorized as follows: 1) active restoration;
2) passive restoration; and 3) preservation. Preservation is often
identified as the highest priority due to the high costs often
associated with active restoration and the extended time frame for
passive restoration (Lestelle et al.1996).

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} EDT provides a systematic method
to help identify the stream reaches of subbasins with the greatest
importance for restoration or preservation (Appendix 1, Figure 2). The
preservation splice algorithm in EDT sequentially degrades a stream
reach, predicts the change in population productivity, abundance, and
diversity, resets the reach to current habitat conditions, and moves to
the next reach. The benefits of preserving each reach can then be
compared and prioritized.

EDT also provides a method predicting the benefits of other habitat
management actions, but those actions that restore access to isolated
habitat, improve fish passage, or provide screening are likely to be the
simplest to evaluate. The evaluation of other actions are likely to have
a high level of uncertainty, and/or require expert opinion in the
absence of an empirically derived model. As discussed previously, the
manual for watershed analysis (WFP 1997) provides a compendium of tools
for process assessment, including appendix chapters on mass wasting,
surface erosion, hydrology, riparian, and water quality.

An extensive review of methods for evaluating action scenarios is
provided by Beechie et al. (2002).

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See section 3.3.3.1.

#### Harvest

***Question: In addition to the actions already in place, what harvest
action scenario is needed to provide the population characteristics that
are consistent with the planning targets for VSP parameters? How does
this action scenario address uncertainty?***

Which of these strategies are not addressed by current harvest
practices? If current harvest management actions are not deemed to be
addressing critical aspects of improving VSP parameters of the
population, additional scenarios may be developed. These may consist of
several alternative scenarios, as there is usually more than one way to
approach/solve a problem.

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} See section 3.3.4.2.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See section 3.3.4.2.

[Who Provides]{.underline}. The comanagers will develop harvest action
scenarios. Implementation of any of these scenarios must be done through
the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, Pacific Salmon Commission, and
Pacific Fisheries Management Council processes. Thus it is important to
have alternative scenarios for these bodies to consider, and the bodies,
working with the comanagers, may come up with other scenarios that will
address the concerns presented in the working hypotheses.

#### Hatcheries

***Question: In addition to the actions already in place, what hatchery
action scenario is needed to provide the population characteristics that
are consistent with the planning targets for VSP parameters? How does
this action scenario address uncertainty?***

This question builds on the assessment needed for the previous question
(see 3.3..4.3). If current conditions are unlikely to achieve planning
targets within the desired time, planners need to identify what
additional actions will be necessary to achieve the targets. The
question also builds on the answers to the earlier question that
addressed sequencing alternative strategies. In this question, the
planners have the opportunity to describe the sequences or alternative
sequences.

[Tools and Applications]{.underline}

1.  HSRG review

2.  ESA Section 7, 10, or 4(d) Resource Management Plan reviews

3.  Risk Analyses

[Evaluation]{.underline}

1.  Are the actions consistent with the strategy?

2.  Was the model for the analysis of effects described and justified?

3.  Did the analysis address all VSP parameters?

4.  Were all the relevant processes affecting VSP included in the model?

5.  Does the analysis describe uncertainty?

6.  

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The action scenario will be developed by the
Puget Sound treaty tribes and WDFW.

#### Integrated Assessment

***Question: What are the predicted effect of the proposed harvest,
hatchery, and habitat management actions on the VSP parameters of the
population in 20, 50, and 100 years?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline} See section 3.3.4.4.

[Evaluation.]{.underline} See section 3.3.4.4.

[Who Provides.]{.underline} The integrated assessment of action
scenarios will be provided by WDFW, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes, and
watershed groups.

### Frame Monitoring Plan

#### Habitat

***Question: What types of monitoring should be linked to the action
scenarios to assess if the actions were implemented as proposed? How
will we determine if the actions had the hypothesized effect on the
habitat and the VSP parameters of the population?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Harvest

***Question: What types of monitoring should be linked to the action
scenarios to assess if the actions were implemented as proposed? How
will we determine if the actions had the hypothesized effect on harvest
and the VSP parameters of the population?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Hatcheries

***Question: What types of monitoring should be linked to the action
scenarios to assess if the actions were implemented as proposed? How
will we determine if the actions had the hypothesized effect on
hatcheries and the VSP parameters of the population?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Integrated

***Question: How will we determine if the recovery plan had the
hypothesized effect on the VSP parameters of the population?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

### Frame Adaptive Management Plan

#### Habitat

***Question: How will the results from the monitoring program be used to
modify habitat programs?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Harvest

***Question: How will the results from the monitoring program be used to
modify harvest programs?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Hatcheries

***Question: How will the results from the monitoring program be used to
modify hatchery programs?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Integrated

***Question: How will the results from the monitoring program be used to
develop an integrated harvest, hatchery, and habitat response?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

## Review Regional Recovery Scenarios

Question: Does the suite of proposed actions result in a set of
populations meeting the criteria for recovery of the ESU?

## Finalize Plan

### Finalize Action Scenarios

Question: What additional management actions are necessary for the
populations to achieve the planning targets and for a set of populations
to meet the criteria for recovery of the ESU?

### Finalize Monitoring Plan

#### Habitat

***Question: Were habitat management actions implemented as proposed?
Did the actions have the hypothesized effect? Did the VSP parameters of
the population respond as hypothesized?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Harvest

***Question: Were harvest management actions implemented as proposed?
Did the actions have the hypothesized effect? Did the VSP parameters of
the population respond as hypothesized?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Hatcheries

***Question: Were harvest management actions implemented as proposed?
Did the actions have the hypothesized effect? Did the VSP parameters of
the population respond as hypothesized?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Integrated

***Question: Did the recovery plan have the hypothesized effect on the
VSP parameters of the population?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

### Finalize Adaptive Management Plan

#### Habitat

***Question: How will results from the monitoring program be used to
modify habitat programs?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Harvest

***Question: How will results from the monitoring program be used to
modify harvest programs?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Hatcheries

***Question: How will results from the monitoring program be used to
modify harvest programs?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

#### Integrated

***Question: How will results from the monitoring program be used to
develop an integrated habitat, harvest, hatchery management response?***

[Tools and Applications.]{.underline}

[Evaluation.]{.underline}

[Who Provides.]{.underline}

# Administrative Criteria

#  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

# Assistance

# References 

Beamer, E. M., T. J. Beechie, B. S. Perkowski and J. R. Klochak. 2002.
Appendix B. Restoration of habitat-forming processes: An applied
restoration strategy for the Skagit River. Pp. 241-282 in Beechie, T.J.,
P. Roni and E.A. Steel (eds.) 2002. Ecosystem recovery planning for
listed salmon: An integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat.
NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Beechie, T.J., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid
habitat-forming processes in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries
24(4): 6-15.

Beechie, T.J., P. Roni, and E.A. Steel (eds.). 2002. In prep. Ecosystem
recovery planning for listed salmon: An integrated assessment approach
for salmon habitat. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
Available at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ec/wpg/reports.htm.

Benda, L.E. and T. Dunne. 1987. Sediment routing by debris flows. *In*
R.L. Beschta, G.E. Grant, G. Ice and F.J. Swanson, eds. *Erosion and
Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim*. IAHS Publication 165, International
Association of Hydrological Sciences, Wallingford, UK.

Benda, L.E. and T.W. Cundy. 1990. Predicting deposition of debris flows
in mountain channels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27: 409-417.

Bettinger, P., K.N. Johnson, J. Brooks, A.A. Herstrom, and T.A. Spies.
2000. Phase I Report on Developing Landscaape Simulation Methodologies
for Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Resources in Western Oregon.
CLAMS Simulation Modeling Report. Oregon Department of Forestry. Salem,
OR.

Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, jr., A.S, Donigian, and R.C.
Johanson. 1997. HSPF: User's manual for versioin 11. USEPA National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. EPA/600/R-97/080. 755 p.

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids
in streams. Pages 83-138 *in* W.R. Meehan, ed. Influences of forest and
rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special
Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C.
D'Antonio, R. Francis, J.F. Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F. Noss, D.J.
Parsons, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner, and R.G. Woomansee. 1996. The
report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific
Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Society of America,
Washington, D.C.

Collins, B.D., and D.R. Montgomery. In press. Importance of archival and
process studies to characterizing pre-settlement riverine geomorphic
processes and habitat in the Puget lowland. *In* J.M. Dorava, D.R.
Montgomery, B. Palcsak, and F. Fitzpatrick (eds.). Geomorphic processes
and riverine habitat. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

CTC (Chinook Technical Committee). 1993. Users guide for the Pacific
Salmon Commission Chinook Technical committee chinook model. Pacific
Salmon Commission, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Dietrich, W. E., and T. Dunne. 1978. Sediment budget for a small
catchment in mountainous terrain. *Z. Geomorph. N.F. Suppl. Bd*. 29:
191-206.

Dunne, T. and L. Leopold. 1978. *Water in Environmental Planning*.
University of Washington Pres, Seatle, WA.

Dunning, J.B., B.J. Danielson, and H.R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological
processes that affect populatioins in complex landscapes. *Oikos* 65:
169-175.

Fieberg, J. In prep. Role of model uncertainty in assessing harvest
strategies for chinook salmon.

Ford, M., P. Budy, C. Busack, D. Chapman, T. Cooney, T. Fisher, J.
Geiselman, T. Hillman, J. Lukas, C. Peven, C. Toole, E. Weber, and P.
Wilson. 1999. Upper Columbia River steelhead and spring chinook salmon
population structure and biological requirements. Draft report prepared
by the Upper Columbia River Steelhead and Spring Chinook Salmon
Biological Requirements Committee, dated 14 December 1999. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Frissell. C.A. 1993. A new strategy for watershed restoration and
recovery of Pacific salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Rivers
Council, Eugene, Oregon.

Frissell, C.A., and R.K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence of causes of physical
failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of western Oregon
and Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:
182-197.

Gordon, McMahon and Finlayson. 1992. *Hydrology for Ecologists*. J.
Wiley and Sons, New York.

Greene, C. and T. Beechie. 2002. Habitat-specific population dynamics of
ocean-type chinook salmon (*Oncorhynchus tshawytcha*) in Puget Sound. In
review.

Gregory, S.V., and P.A. Bisson. 1996. Degradation and loss of anadromous
salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 277-314 *in* D.J.
Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman, eds. Pacific salmon and their
ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.

Haas, A. and B. Collins. 2001. A historical analysis of habitat
alterations in the Snohomish River Valley, Washington, since the
mid-19^th^ century: Implications for chinook and coho salmon. Report
prepared for the Snohomish County Dept. of Public Works, Surface Water
Management Division for the Tulalip Tribes. Everett and Marysville,
Washinton.

Holsinger, L. 2002. Appendix A. Estimating chinook spawner capacity for
the Stillaguamish River. Pages 215-240 *in* T.J. Beechie, P. Roni, and
E.A. Steel (eds.). Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: An
integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. NOAA Fisheries,
Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

ISAB (Independent Science Advisory Board). 2001. Model synthesis report.
An analysis of decision support tools used in Columbia River basin
salmon management. Executive summary. ISAB 2001-1a. Northwest Power
Planning Council., Portland, Oregon.

Lawson, P.W. and R.M. Comstock. 2000. The proportional migration
selective fishery model. Pages 423-433 *in* E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward,
D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser, eds. Sustainable
fisheries management. Lewis Publishers, New York, New York.

Lucchetti, G., D. Martin, L. Benda, and D. Schreffler. In development.
Core Areas for Salmon Recovery in King County, WA. Department of Natural
Resources and Parks, King County, WA.

Lunetta, R.S., B. Cosentino, D.R. Montgomery, E.M. Beamer, and T.J.
Beechie. 1997. GIS-based evaluation of salmon habitat in the Pacific
Northwest. *Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing* 63(10): 1219-1229.

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelhaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P.
Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of
evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156p.

Mladenoff, D.J., G.E. Host, J. Boeder and T.R. Crow. 1996. LANDIS: a
spatial model of forest landscape disturbance, succession and
management. *In*: M.F. Goodchild, L.T. Stayaert and B.O. Parks, eds.
*GIS and Environmental Modeling*, pp. 175-180. National Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barnara, CA.

Mladenoff, D.J. and H.S. He. 1999. Design and Behavior of LANDIS, an
object oriented model forest landscape disturbance and succession. *In*
D.J. Mladenoff and W.L. Baker, eds, *Spatial Modeling of Forest
Landscape Change: Approaches and Applications*, pp. 125-162. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Mobrand, L. E., J. A. Lichatowich, L. C. Lestelle, and T. S. Vogel.
1997. An approach to describing ecosystem performance "through the eyes
of salmon". Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:
2964-2973.

Montgomery, D. R., T. B. Abbe, N.P. Peterson, J. M. Buffington, K.M.
Schmidt and J. D. Stock. 1996. Distribution of bedrock and alluvial
channels in forested mountain drainage basins. Nature 381: 587-589.

Montgomery, D.R., and J. M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes,
classification, and response. Pages 13-42 *in* R. Naiman and R. Bilby,
eds. River ecology and management: Lessons from the Pacific coastal
ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

Montgomery, D.R., and W.E. Dietrich. 1994. A physically based model for
the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour. Res. 30:
1153-1171.

Montgomery, D.R., K. Sullivan, and H.M. Greenberg. 1998. Regional test
of a model for shallow landsliding. Hydrol. Process. 12: 943-955.

Morgan, R.P.C. 1995. *Soil Erosion and Conservation*. Longman Group,
London, UK.

Nearing, M.A. , G.R. Foster, L.J. Lane, and S.C. Finkner. 1989. A
process-based soil erosion model for USDA-Water Erosion Prediction
technology. *Trans. American Soc. Agric Eng.* 32: 1587-1593.

Newman, K.B. 1998. State space modeling of animal movement and mortality
with application to salmon. Biometrics 54: 274-297.

Newman, K.B. 2000. Hierarchic modeling of salmon harvest and migration.
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics. 5(4):
430-455.

Nickelson, T E and P W Lawson. 1998. Population viability of coho
salmon, *Oncorhynchus kisutch*, in Oregon coastal basins: application of
a habitat-based life cycle model. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 55: 2383-2392.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Coastal salmon
conservation: Working guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration
initiatives on the Pacific Coast. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region.

Noon, B.R. and K.S. McKelvey. 1996. A common framework for conservation
planning: linking individual and metapopulation models. *In* D.R.
McCullough, ed. *Metapopulationns and Wildlife Conservation*, pp.
139-166. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Norris, J.G. 2000. Defining equivalent exploitation rate reduction
policies for endangered salmon stocks. Pages 451-466 *in* E.E. Knudsen,
C.R. Steward, D.D. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser, eds.
Sustainable fisheries management. Lewis Publishers New York, New York.

NRC (National Research Council). 1992. Restoration of aquatic
ecosystems: Science, technology, and public technology. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in
the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

NWPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 2001. Technical guide for
subbasin planners. NWPPC document 2001-20, 24p. Portland, Oregon.

Reeves, G. H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.K. Sedell.
1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and
restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of
anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. *American Fisheries
Society Symposium* 17: 334-349.

Roni, P., T.J. Beechie, R.E. Bilby, F.E. Leonetti, M.M. Pollock, and
G.R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a
hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest
watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1-20.

Ruckelhshaus, M., T. Beechie, E. Buhle, C. Busack, K. Currens, J. Doyle,
W. Graeber, L. Holsinger, A. Marshall, K. Rawson, N. Sands, J. Scott. In
prep. Independent populations of chinook salmon in Puget Sound. NOAA
Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Schaller, H. and T. Cooney. 1992. Draft Snake River fall chinook
life-cycle simulation model for recovery and rebuilding plan evaluation.
Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Sharma R., A. B. Cooper and R. Hilborn. 2002. A quantitative framework
for analysis of habitat and hatchery practices on Pacific salmon. In
review.

Simenstad, C. 2000. Commencement Bay aquatic ecosystem assessment:
Ecosystem-scale restoration for juvenile salmon recovery. Contract
report for City of Tacoma, Washington Department of Natural Resources,
and U.S. Environmental Protection Report. Wetland Ecosystem Team, School
of Fisheries,University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An
ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech
Environmental Services Corp., Corvallis, Oregon.

Storck, P., L. Bowling, P. Wetherbee, and D. Lettenmaier. 1998.
Application of a GIS-based distributed hydrology model for prediction of
forest harvest effects on peak stream flow in the Pacific Northwest.
Hydrological Processses 12: 889- 904.

WDFW and PNPTT (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No
Point Treaty Tribes). 2000. Summer chum salmon conservation initiative.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WFRB (Washington Forest Practices Board). 1997. Standard methodology for
conducting watershed analysis. Version 4.0. Washington Forest Practices
Board, Olympia, Washington.

Appendix 1. Examples of diagnostics available from EDT.

![](media/image4.png){width="5.041666666666667in" height="8.5in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="5.528472222222222in"}

Appendix 1, Figure 2. Relative importance of geographic areas for
protection measures for Puyallup chinook salmon. Areas are ranked and
assigned to benefit categories according to potential (A is highest) to
affect population performance. (Source: Mobrand Biometrics 2001)