Shared Strategy Conference
February 5, 2003, Tacoma, Washington
The purpose of the conference breakout sessions were to create dialogue
and foster mutual understanding among the many interests who must
come together to build a collaborative salmon recovery plan for Puget
Sound. The sessions varied in structure but all highlighted projects
and activities that improve salmon and watershed health and recognize
the other core values of local communities. Building on and learning
from existing success stories is a cornerstone of Shared Strategy's
approach to salmon recovery.
Common themes identified across breakout sessions included:
- build relationships and trust;
- identify a common vision and clear goals;
- expand knowledge and education;
- establish clear measurements for success;
- plan for the long-term;
- provide flexibility at the state and local levels; and
- broaden community engagement.
The Agriculture Breakout Session looked at the needs and challenges
facing farmers in Puget Sound, the key ingredients for successful
farming in the future and how the agricultural community can contribute
to improving the health of salmon and our watersheds.
The session was facilitated by Jagoda Perich-Anderson from Triangle
and Associates, and Vaughn Brown from Jeanne Larson and Associates.
- Jay Gordon, Washington State Dairy Federation
- Jason Vanderveen, Whatcom County Agriculture Preservation
- John Sayre, Northwest Chinook Recovery
- Anne Seiter, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Speakers provided an overview of the issues facing farmers in western
Washington, including stiff competition in the global market place,
pressure from development, increasingly complex regulation and declining
profits. The chilling rise in suicide rates among diary farmers facing
disastrously low milk prices was mentioned and exclaims the challenges
confronting farmers today. Presentations provided inspiring examples
of farmers in the Nooksack, Skykomish and Dungeness watersheds taking
action to protect and restore the environment while enhancing the
prosperity of their farms.
Audience discussion focused on several key questions. How can collaborative
actions support both agriculture and salmon recovery? What are the
keys to successful collaboration? What inhibits collaboration between
the agricultural community and salmon recovery advocates?
1. Building relationships with farm communities means building relationships
with individuals. No single organization (or conglomeration of organizations)
can truly represent the interests of every farmer in a watershed.
Building person to person relationships may require 100 cups of coffee
2. Tribal members were involved in the discussion and participants recognized
the "toughness" of both farmers and tribes. Both are survivors and
have strong ties to the land and natural resources. There are many common values
between them and a common experience with loss of wealth and experienced hardship.
3. Leadership to build a better future for agriculture and fish in Puget Sound
requires going against the grain of past experience and takes courage. In the
past farming has been pitted against salmon recovery. In the future, the needs
of salmon, tribal fishing rights and property rights should be addressed together.
4. Farmers are inspired to improve the health of their watershed if they are
respected and acknowledged for their historic knowledge. Farmers want to know
how their contribution will make a difference which will give them a sense
of good will and pride. They want to be given flexibility and incentives to
accomplish salmon and watershed health objectives rather than be handed detailed
prescriptions. Lastly, if the farming potential of their land is compromised,
farmers need to be compensated appropriately if their enterprise is to be sustainable.
The session provided a new sense of hope for how farmers can be
supported and productively engaged in their watershed, and how tribes
and farmers can build partnerships for the future health of farms
Conservation and Restoration (top
The Conservation & Restoration Breakout Session explored a variety
of successful conservation and restoration efforts in Puget Sound
and how each of them contributes to salmon recovery. The wide variety
of efforts examined included habitat preservation and both large-and
small-scale habitat restoration projects.
The session was facilitated by Lisa Dally-Wilson of Golder and Associates
and Dennis Canty of Evergreen Funding Consultants. Presenters included:
- Roger Hoesterey, Trust for Public Land and Maggie Coon, The
- Martha Bray, Skagit Land Trust and Bob Carey, The Nature Conservancy
- Randy Johnson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Neil Werner, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Presentations highlighted improvements in the strategic selection
of projects through studies such as The Nature Conservancy's Bioregional
Plan, watershed planning and development of strong criteria for project
prioritization. Presenters noted that success is being measured using
more sophisticated methods and the region can build on an already
strong network of volunteers and grassroots groups such as the Regional
Fisheries Enhancement Groups.
Audience discussion focused on a few key questions. What are the
best measures currently to assess the success of conservation and
restoration projects? Are there ways to better prioritize efforts
on a watershed and regional basis? What changes would encourage landowner
participation in conservation and restoration efforts? How can the
results from current efforts better inform decision makers and funding
1. Evaluating success is problematic when actions may take decades
before they are fully functioning and environmental factors such
as ocean-driven fish returns are so variable. Key measures, however,
should include the sustainability of a project after it has been
implemented and the amount of maintenance required to keep it functioning.
We need to define how projects contribute to ecosystem health in
addition to how they benefit individual species. Measuring success
will be easier once a recovery plan is in place and we can measure
efforts against desired environmental results and the goals of the
2. Watershed efforts to prioritize projects have been greatly improved over
the last few years. Increased attention is needed to social factors such as
building community support for long-term recovery efforts.
3. Landowner interest can be enhanced by improving the permit process for projects
beneficial to watershed health. Property owners need to be engaged at the start
of project planning. Disincentives to restoration projects created by application
of protective regulations should to be eliminated. For example, existing laws
can increase the liability of property owners who allow habitat restoration
on their land.
4. Assessing when to use acquisition of land and easements, and when to use
regulations, is an ongoing need. Concern remains that acquiring farm and timber
lands may limit the future viability of forestry and farming in Puget Sound.
Awareness of maintaining the land base for these vital economic sectors is
Participants were inspired to learn of the diversity of conservation
and restoration projects throughout Puget Sound. They identified
the strong need for a clearinghouse demonstrating the wealth of activities
and results across Puget Sound. Congress and the Legislature in particular
need continued demonstration of the mounting benefits salmon recovery
Growth Management and the Built Environment (top
The Growth Management & the Built Environment Breakout Session
looked at how growth management can be successfully integrated with
salmon recovery planning and at key actions to improve watershed
health in urban and urbanizing areas.
The session was facilitated by Brad Shinn of the Norton-Arnold Company
and Bruce Laing former King County Councilmember and private consultant.
- Christine Endresen, Kitsap County
- Paul Nelson, Kitsap County, Chico Watershed Plan
- Peter Orser, Quadrant, Green Communities
- Denise Andrews, City of Seattle, Using Natural Systems
in an Urban Environment
Presentations illustrated the importance for local communities to
integrate growth management with salmon recovery and watershed planning.
Current economic conditions demand increased efficiency to meet competing
demands on local governments and affected parties. Examples from
both the public and private sectors demonstrated how they are meeting
growth demands and providing environmental benefits in existing and
developing urban centers.
New strategic information, like the Seattle Urban Blueprint, is
available to prioritize actions in urban areas and help guide wise
investments. Addressing human needs together with environmental concerns
energizes local communities to think about their future. The Chico
Watershed Plan illustrated how people with very diverse interests
can create a common vision for the future for their community and
move beyond conflicts between environmentalists and property owners.
Audience discussion focused on two key questions. How do we engage
local community members in watershed health and salmon recovery in
a way that recognizes their growth related needs? What broad incentives
will encourage land owner and development community members to engage
in growth management and salmon recovery?
1. Successful integration of growth management, salmon recovery
and watershed planning requires agreement on ultimate goals and outcomes.
Success requires a broad and effective engagement of both advocates
and affected parties. An inclusive process is needed to identify
common interests and develop a vision for the future that respects
and addresses specific needs in the community.
2. Flexibility and efficiency in state and federally mandated processes is
required for local communities to develop a plan for their interests. Numerous
and conflicting state and federal mandates lead to redundant processes at the
local level, consuming precious resources and community capital.
3. Planning for future growth and salmon recovery can be controversial and
risky for community leaders. Local and regional support is critical to allow
private and public leaders to take necessary risks and build consensus in their
4. Better enforcement of existing laws that support watershed health and salmon
recovery should occur before creation of new, more stringent regulations.
5. Attention to both economic costs and environmental protection is required
to ensure the most cost-effective approaches.
Session participants pointed to the need to identify the most effective
means to support salmon in urban environments and the need to encourage
integration of growth planning and salmon recovery.
The Forestry Breakout Session looked at the roles of public and
private forest management in improving watershed health and how to
integrate the efforts of forestry interests, local governments and
The session was facilitated by Margaret Norton-Arnold of the Norton-Arnold
Company and Brenda Kramer from Seattle Parks and Recreation. Presenters
- Ann Goos, Washington Forest Protection Association
- Debora Brown-Munguia, Washington Department of Natural Resources
- John Gorman, Simpson Resources
- Gene Duvernoy, Cascade Land Conservancy
Presentations highlighted unprecedented efforts by public and private
forest interests to improve watershed health and maintain the economic
viability of forestry. Timber interests over the last two decades
have developed a scientifically sound approach to reducing impacts
and improving conditions for salmon by addressing sediment, slope
stability, water quality and fish passage.
Management plans implemented on private and public forest lands
over the next 15 years will provide significant improvements for
watershed health and support sustainable forestry long into the future.
Extensive monitoring and adaptive management efforts are underway
in private and public forests.
Audience discussion focused on the following questions. How are
forests managed to benefit salmon and what are the impacts of recovery-related
decisions on the forest industry? What are the key elements for connecting
forest management with watershed groups? What lessons about collaboration
in forest management apply to collaborative efforts to recover salmon?
1. People are tired of the timber wars and see the benefit of collaboration
among forestry and other interests working in common watersheds.
Monitoring and adaptive management in the forestry sector can inform
other watershed efforts.
2. An effective and efficient way to engage forestry interests in salmon recovery
and watershed planning is needed. Effective engagement requires understanding
and respect for existing agreements on environmental standards and processes
between the forestry sector and the federal and state governments. Economic
constraints limit the ability of private timber companies to participate in
all the meetings and activities of watershed groups. The timber industry, however,
is very interested to plug into watershed planning efficiently and according
to strategic priorities for them and other work in the watersheds.
3. More work is needed on how to integrate data and results from forestry into
our overall understanding of watershed function.
4. Regional support is needed to keep timberlands into the future and meet
the demands of new sustainable management methods. Many private forest areas
are being lost to housing or commercial development. Building political support
at the regional level is needed to keep land in forestry.
5. A venue is needed to connect timberland owners and farmers. In many areas
timberlands border active farms. They share common interests and challenges
that need be to addressed.
Session participants identified the need to strengthen relationships
among public and private forest owners and other interests working
for watershed health.
The Fisheries Breakout Session looked at harvest management and
how it can be integrated with hatcheries and habitat to increase
The session was facilitated by Bill Ross and Gail Gatton of Ross & Associates.
- Jeff Koenings, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Randy Kinley, Lummi Nation and commercial fisher
- Mike Grayum, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
- Curt Kraemer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Kit Rawson, Tulalip Tribes
Presentations focused on the value of harvest, how it is managed
and the need for its integration with habitat and hatcheries at the
watershed level. Statewide, harvest supports more than 24,000 jobs
and generates more than $2.4 billion in related spending per year.
There have been dramatic changes to harvest practices over the last
ten years allowing more fish to reach spawning grounds. Harvest of
wild stocks is managed to support recovery. Harvest cut backs have
come at a significant cost to tribal and non-tribal fishers. Current
favorable ocean conditions offer an opportunity to jumpstart salmon
recovery and to provide more fishing while they persist.
Audience discussion focused on the following questions. What issues
at the watershed level must be addressed for coordination of harvest,
habitat and hatcheries (Hs) management? What additional measures
can be taken, or information provided, to support a collaborative
approach to harvest at the state, regional and watershed levels?
1. Current trends indicate harvest is being managed to support recovery.
Delivering accessible information about harvest reform to people
and communities in the watersheds is critical to building support
for management efforts by the tribes, state and federal governments.
The people affected by harvest management need to be connected with
people working on habitat and hatcheries.
2. Limiting restrictions to harvest alone won't be sufficient to achieve recovery
of wild stocks. An integrated approach is necessary that provides a consistent
approach to management of all Hs. Harvest reforms can have immediate benefits
while results take longer to manifest from habitat protection and restoration.
Harvest can be managed to provide more spawners as habitat improves.
3. Monitoring harvest results can help determine the effect of integrated management
but more monitoring is needed to adaptively manage across all Hs.
Participants expressed support for the state and tribes in their
approach to harvest management. Information provided on the need
for integration of the Hs was clear and useful. Participants agreed
more work is needed to clearly explain the effect of harvest management
on results at the watershed level.
Hatchery Reform (top
The Hatcheries Breakout Session looked at how collaborative planning
can make hatcheries effective tools to recover wild salmon and support
The session was facilitated by Krystyna Wolniakowski of National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Betsy Daniels of Long Live the Kings.
- Barbara Cairns, Long Live the Kings
- Don Campton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Paul Seidel, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Pat Crain, Clallam County
- David Troutt, Nisqually Tribe
Presentations provided an overview of how hatcheries have been managed
in the past, why changes were needed, and how the Hatchery Reform
Project identifies management changes to support sustainable fisheries
and recovery of wild salmon. Hatcheries are no longer viewed as isolated
production facilities independent of the habitat and harvest practices
that affect them. Through independent science and sound policy, hatchery
reform is directing hatchery management to reflect current habitat
and wild stock conditions and restoration goals.
Audience discussion focused on the following questions. How are
hatcheries changing to address reform recommendations? What are key
points and means for integration of hatchery changes with other efforts
in the same watershed? How do we start the integration process?
1. Enormous progress has been made in a short period of time due
to strong, independent science and the commitment of tribes and the
state. Work remains to finish the reform process and implement its
recommendations, including integration with habitat and harvest.
2. Integration with harvest and habitat work is needed at the watershed level
to maximize the potential for salmon recovery. People in each watershed need
better information about local hatchery management, proposed reforms and about
the vision for hatcheries to move beyond the "hatchery versus wild" conflict.
3. Integration needs to begin by connecting the people and organizations working
on hatchery reform with those working on habitat protection and restoration.
Participants noted the hatchery reform process has made impressive
progress in a short period of time. Participants pledged to help
tell the story of how hatchery management has evolved and that integration
is underway at the watershed level.
Marine Waters and the Nearshore (top
The Marine Waters and Nearshore Breakout Session was a forum for
building a collaborative dialogue and understanding about the roles
nearshore and marine ecosystems play in Puget Sound salmon recovery
The session was facilitated by Megan Smith, staff to the King County
Council and Dan Siemann with the Dan Evans School of Public Policy
at the University of Washington. Presenters included:
- Bernie Hargrave, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and PSNER
- Scott Redman, Puget Sound Action Team
- Hugh Shipman, Department of Ecology and PSNER Science
- Kurt Fresh, NOAA Fisheries and PSNER Science Team
- Tim Smith, Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and PSNER
- Curtis Tanner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and PSNER
- Jacques White, People for Puget Sound
- George Blomberg, Port of Seattle
- Curtis Tanner, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Presentations provided a comprehensive overview of current knowledge,
analysis and challenges in the nearshore environment as they relate
to salmon. Significant efforts have been made over the last two decades
to improve the overall quality and functioning of Puget Sound marine
waters. Efforts to understand the functions and opportunities for
protection and restoration in the nearshore, however, are just beginning.
Presenters discussed draft principles to guide action in the nearshore
and provided examples of how recent projects address those principles.
Audience discussion focused on the following questions. What are
the best actions to protect and improve the nearshore for all species?
How can the Puget Sound Nearshore Project aid salmon recovery? How
should groups organize across Puget Sound to maximize their benefit
to the nearshore environment?
1. All of Puget Sound - both fresh and marine environments - is
important to all species of salmon. Scientists can't answer how much
protection and restoration of nearshore habitat would be enough to
meet recovery goals but they know the nearshore is critical to salmon.
Principles are needed to guide effective protection and restoration
efforts in the near term and to provide a qualitative guide for building
the regional recovery plan.
2. People working on the nearshore are frustrated by the lack of visibility
and support for nearshore projects at the watershed and state levels. The lack
of scientific certainty about project priorities coupled with a strong desire
to take advantage of near-term action opportunities makes planning difficult.
3. Region-wide interests and concerns about marine and nearshore environments
must be integrated into locally-driven efforts to recover salmon. Institutional
arrangements should be sought to improve the flow of information among region-wide
efforts, lead entities in the watersheds and other organizations working locally.
The Marine Resource Committees of the seven northern Puget Sound counties were
recognized as key players for informing local decisions about marine and nearshore
aspects of salmon recovery.
4. Projects are likely to be more effective if they are linked to a science-based
strategy. Although findings of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration
Study won't be available for several years, it's important to think now about
an institutional framework to successfully implement projects.
Session participants learned the value of the science developing
under The Nearshore Project and see opportunities for further collaboration
among project members and people working on related issues at the
(top of page)