Meredith L. Bartron, PhD USFWS Northeast Fishery Center Lamar, Pennsylvania

1. Atlantic salmon in Maine: How the structured decision making process has been used to refocus management activities for recovery and restoration Meredith L. Bartron, PhD USFWS Northeast Fishery Center Lamar, Pennsylvania

2. Background • Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment • Endangered (2009) • Threats: • Habitat loss • Historic overfishing • Ecosystem changes

3. Atlantic salmon management in Maine • Multiple agencies • Multiple stakeholders & partners (industry, NGO, academia, etc…) • Changing public interest and support

4. 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

5. Biological Planning Conservation Design Monitoring and Research Conservation Delivery Strategic Habitat Conservation Objectives stated as biological outcomes Models tie populations to sites and landscapes Deliver Conservation Monitor & evaluate results

6. Biological Planning Outcome-based Monitoring Conservation Design Strategic Habitat Conservation • Priority Species • Population Objectives • Synthesis of science (models) Build the scientific foundation for Management Program Accomplishments Net progress toward Population objectives Biological Planning Assumption –based Research Assumption-based Research Outcome-based Monitoring Conservation Design Spatially-Explicit Models; Decision Support Tools Habitat Objectives Program Priority Areas Conservation Delivery Conservation Delivery Defined actions

7. 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

8. Framework: requirements • Structured Decision Makingto be more explicit and transparent • Clear and agreed biological Objectives • Strategiesto achieve the biological objectives • Actions to achieve the strategies • Process is Adaptive • Direct link between each action and Assessment to determine outcome related to specific objectives • Governance structure with minimal layers but clear communication pathways and decision making protocols

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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) 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

14. Using SDM, identified path forward • Agreed upon objectives: • distribution & abundance, • short term (prevent extinction) & long term (contribute to eventual self-sustaining populations) • Identify existing agency Atlantic salmon resources ($) and how they are spent • Evaluate alternatives which emphasized different management strategies based on available resources • Compare the biological benefit of each alternative in terms of salmon recovery

15. 3. Actions For 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)

17. Identify existing agency resources Evaluate alternatives…

18. Compare biological benefit of strategies

19. 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

20. 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)

21. Monitoring & Assessment • Each action has incorporated an assessment component

22. 7. Governance

23. 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

24. Annual Schedule January – 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

25. Biological Planning Outcome-based Monitoring Conservation Design Strategic Habitat Conservation: Activities • Priority Species: ATS • Population Objectives: Distribution and Abundance Net progress toward Population objectives: Defined assessment linked to actions Assumption-based Research Spatially-Explicit Models: Biological benefit Decision Support Tools: SDM model Conservation Delivery Defined Actions: Identified Actions

26. Framework & Recovery Plan • Shared objectives • Integrated approaches and activities • Defined communication pathways between AT Chairs and Recovery Coordinator • Antonio Bentivoglio-FWS