atlantic salmon in maine: how the structured decision making process has been used to refocus...
TRANSCRIPT
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
ConservationD
esign
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
ConservationD
esign
BiologicalPlanning
Spatially-ExplicitModels; Decision Support Tools
Habitat Objectives
Program PriorityAreas
Assumption-basedResearch
Strategic Habitat Conservation
Biological PlanningConservation D
esignO
utco
me-
base
d M
onito
ring
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 ($) and how they are spent
3. Evaluate alternatives which emphasized different management strategies based on available resources
4. Compare the biological benefit of each alternative in terms of salmon recovery
3. ActionsFor each action:• Life stage impacted (egg, fry, parr,
smolt, marine, FW adult)• Geographic impact (SHRUS)• Timeframe of benefits• Resourcing (cost including FTEs)• Social/political issues• Possible genetic risks• Possible benefits to other species• Possible risks to other species• Short term benefits (prevent extinction)• Long term benefits (long term recovery)
Action
Minimum Resourcing (FTE)
Minimum Resourcing ($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 +
estuary
Marine 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…
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.
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
ConservationD
esign
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