The systematic use of models can be used to identify and avoid trivial pursuits, compare the outcome of alternative scenarios, examine uncertainty and statistical confidence, and provide transparency to the public. Ideally, we expect quantitative projections of likely benefits for fish population distribution, abundance, and productivity to result from the improvements identified under step two. Projections from models may have uncertainty associated with them, because specific information is not available. Using qualitative predictions, indicators or indexes can help, as long as they are based on formal models describing their linkage to fish distribution, abundance, and productivity and incorporate critical expert review of existing information and best estimates. Monitoring is a key element in all aspects of the recovery program.
Monitoring provides accountability and learning.
Monitoring is necessary to determine whether projects were implemented, whether they were effective, and whether the scientific relationships upon which the expected benefits were based were appropriate. Understanding and documenting responses from recovery actions demand monitoring of sufficient intensity to detect a change if it occurs. Many responses that we are interested in are so variable, however, that detection of change requires effort and cost beyond what have been expected in the past. Experimental designs to control for variation may be complex. These factors may make it unreasonable to proceed with many projects that seem otherwise to hold great promise unless monitoring and project funding are approached systematically.