Atlantic salmon in Maine: How the structured decision making process

has been used to refocus management activities for recovery and restoration

Meredith L. Bartron, PhDUSFWS Northeast Fishery Center

Lamar, Pennsylvania

Background

• Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment

• Endangered (2009)• Threats:

– Habitat loss– Historic overfishing– Ecosystem changes

Atlantic salmon management in Maine

• Multiple agencies

• Multiple stakeholders & partners (industry, NGO, academia, etc…)

• Changing public interest and support

The need for change• Expansion of the DPS• Multiple management &

technical teams• Policy & priorities• Incorporating focus to include

ecosystem• Program review by SEI (2007)

– Recovery program lacks a clear conceptual framework

– Key elements of the recovery program need to be better integrated

BiologicalPlanning

ConservationDesign

Conservation Delivery

Mon

itorin

g an

dRe

sear

chStrategic Habitat Conservation

Objectives stated as biological

outcomes

Models tie populations to sites

and landscapes

Deliver Conservation

Monitor & evaluate results

Priority Species

Population Objectives

Synthesis of science (models)

Defined actions

Build the scientificfoundation for Management

ProgramAccomplishments

Net progress towardPopulation objectives

Out

com

e-ba

sed

Mon

itorin

g

ConservationDelivery

ConservationDesign

BiologicalPlanning

Spatially-ExplicitModels; Decision Support Tools

Habitat Objectives

Program PriorityAreas

Assumption-basedResearch

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Biological PlanningConservation Design

Out

com

e-ba

sed

Mon

itorin

g

Conservation Delivery

Assumption –based Research

Structured decision making

• NCTC Rapid Prototyping workshop– Attended by a few key participants– Identified and defined both the biological and

governance problem– Defined what recovery looked like– Buy-in from agencies to move forward!

2007

Framework: requirements1. Structured Decision Making to be more explicit

and transparent 2. Clear and agreed biological Objectives3. Strategies to achieve the biological objectives 4. Actions to achieve the strategies5. Process is Adaptive6. Direct link between each action and Assessment to

determine outcome related to specific objectives7. Governance structure with minimal layers but clear

communication pathways and decision making protocols

2. Objectives• Abundance

– A recovered Atlantic salmon DPS will be at a higher abundance than that currently existing in the US

– Majority of fish are wild origin• Distribution

– Distributed across a wide geographical area

– Distributed in a wide diversity of habitats• Ecosystem function and diversity

– Required and fundamental components– Functioning and diverse community– Genetic diversity

3. Areas of focus

• Identified components where we could focus efforts to achieve the objectives– Marine & estuary survival– Freshwater production– Hatchery programs– Genetic diversity– Connectivity– Education and outreach

• Each team has a Strategy and Metric to measure progress to objectives

Action Teams

Action teams

• Marine & estuary survival: John Kocik (NOAA)• Freshwater production: Oliver Cox (MDMR)• Hatchery programs: Scott Craig (USFWS)• Genetic diversity: Meredith Bartron (USFWS)• Connectivity: Rory Saunders (NOAA)• Education and outreach: Peter Steenstra

(USFWS)

Genetic Diversity Action Team

• Strategy:Maintain the genetic diversity of Atlantic salmon populations over time

• Metric:Estimates of genetic diversity based on comparable suites of molecular markers will be assessed and monitored over time

Conservation Hatchery Action Team

• Strategy: Increase Adult Spawners through the Conservation Hatchery Program (CHP)

• Metric: Adult return per egg equivalent, reported by SHRU (salmon habitat recovery unit)

Using SDM, identified path forward

1. Agreed upon objectives: • distribution & abundance,• short term (prevent extinction) & long term (contribute

to eventual self-sustaining populations)2. Identify existing agency Atlantic salmon resources ($)

and how they are spent3. Evaluate alternatives which emphasized different

management strategies based on available resources4. Compare the biological benefit of each alternative in

terms of salmon recovery

3. ActionsFor each action:• Life stage impacted (egg, fry, parr,

smolt, marine, FW adult)• Geographic impact (SHRUS)• Timeframe of benefits• Resourcing (cost including FTEs)• Social/political issues• Possible genetic risks• Possible benefits to other species• Possible risks to other species• Short term benefits (prevent extinction)• Long term benefits (long term recovery)

Action

Minimum Resourcing (FTE)

Minimum Resourcing ($k)

Generous Resourcing (FTE)

Generous Resourcing ($k)

# SHRUs

Biological Benefit Index (BBI)

Geographic Scope

% Occupied

Endurance of Benefits

Benefit Time Frame

Initiation Timescale

Optimize practices to reduce risks of inadvertent selection that might reduce fitness in the wild YES YES     3 15.15 52 0.712 ONGOING 1 1-3 yrs

Utilize broodstock database to track spawning history for all salmon held for broodstock purposes and implement spawning protocols described in the Broodstock Management Plan YES YES     3 12.15 52 0.712 ONGOING 1 1-3 yrs

Implement stocking practices that broadly distribute genetic groups (families) throughout the stocking sites YES YES     3 12.15 52 0.71 ONGOING 1 1-3 yrs

Implement pedigree lines if demographic, family recovery, aquaculture escape event, or other parameter limits the potential collection of a broodstock year class YES YES     3 12.15 52 0.71 ONGOING 1 1-3 yrs

Allocation of resources (percentage)

Action teams

Status quo Marine

Hatchery + estuary

Hatchery +

freshwater

FW connect + diadromou

s

Marine +

estuaryMarine Survival

10% 40% 5% 5% 5% 30%

Estuary / Coastal Survival

6% 4% 20% 3% 16% 25%

Genetic Diversity

5% 5% 8% 10% 5% 4%

Hatchery 32% 32% 50% 50% 32% 20%Freshwater 25% 17% 15% 30% 40% 19%Population Assessment

22% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Identify existing agency resourcesEvaluate alternatives…

Compare biological benefit of strategies

5. Adaptive

• Marine AT Marine & Estuary AT• Estuary AT Connectivity AT• Incorporated short and long term into

objectives– Preventing extinction– Contributing to recovery

• Developed additional strategies to maximize biological benefit to identify final strategy

6. Monitoring & Assessment

• Two major types– Integrated into each individual action – intended

to answer whether the action had the anticipated effect, and what effect it had on the overall biological objectives (distribution and abundance)

– Monitoring of progress toward the biological objectives (abundance and distribution)

Monitoring & Assessment

• Each action has incorporated an assessment component

Culture & Stocking: artificial redd / egg stocking in Kennebec (Sandy River)Eyed eggs are taken from Green Lake NFH and planted in artificial redds in the Sandy River, a large tributary of the Kennebec River. The eggs are Penobscot River F2 produced from the backup domestic brood population, and can number up to approximately 800,000. This action is the 2nd highest priority conservation use for these eggs. This project is the primary stocking strategy for the Sandy River, and the goal is to produce juvenile that is in better synchrony with environmental conditions that is subjected to less domestication pressure than a comparable fry stocked product. Includes resources for staff and operations for stocking and assessment.

7. Governance

Implementation Plan• Being developed by AT

Chairs and Assessment Team

• Identifies which actions will be implemented for next 5 years

• Includes the strategy and metric for each team

Annual ScheduleJanuary – March• Winter Recovery Meeting of the Policy Board, Management Board, and Action

Team Chairs• Open to the Public • Written and verbal reports provided by each Action Team on previous years

implementation activities • Report on population status and progress toward biological objectives • Review and agree plan for the coming year of implementation • Annual Report on Framework Implementation prepared

July – September• Mid-year meeting held • Action Team Chairs highlight any obstacles to meeting end of year targets • Any new findings or information is presented and discussed

• The Action Team Chairs and Management Board will hold periodic meetings as needed to resolve issues, when appropriate joint meetings will be held

Priority Species: ATS

Population Objectives: Distribution and Abundance

Defined Actions: Identified Actions

Net progress towardPopulation

objectives: Defined assessment linked to

actionsO

utco

me-

base

dM

onito

ring

ConservationDelivery

ConservationDesign

BiologicalPlanning

Spatially-ExplicitModels: Biological benefit

Decision Support Tools: SDM model

Assumption-basedResearch

Strategic Habitat Conservation: Activities

Framework & Recovery Plan

• Shared objectives• Integrated approaches

and activities• Defined communication

pathways between AT Chairs and Recovery Coordinator – Antonio Bentivoglio-FWS