1. Overview of the Process
PrOACT
The Problem - A problem statement was developed by the
coaches and the team prior to the workshop at NCTC.
Objectives – the coaches and team identified fundamental
and mean objectives during the first part of the workshop.
Alternatives – examples of alternatives based on changes
to hatchery production and stocking strategies were developed
by the team during the workshop. Other alternatives related
to reducing production costs (changes in fish feed; eliminate
heating or pumping of hatchery water…..).

2. Overview of the Process
PrOACT
Consequences – The development of a model was initiated by the
coaches and the team during the workshop to determine the potential
consequences of the different alternatives with regards to effective
population size (used as a surrogate for extinction probability) and
hatchery budget constraints. The model will be finalized by the end of
August, 2013.
Trade-Offs and Take Action – Once the model is completed and the alternatives have
been evaluated in terms of meeting our Fundamental and Means Objectives, trade-offs
will be discussed and evaluated. A decision will be made by October 1, 2013 on how
best to manage conservation hatchery production in a manner that meets our objectives
and budget constraints. NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AT THIS TIME.
The decision will be implemented in partnership with our state, federal, tribal,
and non-government partners within the auspices of salmon recovery framework
and governance structure.

3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Problem Statement
How should the USFWS, in partnership with NOAA, MDMR, PIN and NGO's use Atlantic salmon brood stock and the hatchery system to minimize risk of Atlantic salmon decline in terms of abundance, distribution, and genetic diversity within the three Salmon Habitat Recovery Units given current and future budget constraints? In addressing this problem it is particularly imperative that the decision process be transparent and recognizes the importance and values of our partners.

4. “OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY”
Minimize p(Extinction), (model derived, est. growth rate)
Maximize number of habitat units occupied across the SHRUs
Maximize p Number of River Basins (In accordance with Broodstock Management Plan and available resources)
Maintain genetically and behaviorally distinct GOM population
Maximize genetic isolation of river specific stocks
Maximize p(genetically fit populations)
Minimize p loss of hatchery established family groups
Maximize adult returns (# of adult fish)
Maximize total viable hatchery product
Maximize Effective Population Size
Maximize natural spawning (redd counts)
Minimize insitu competition between hatchery fish and wild
Minimize domestication effects (time in hatchery, # females)
Maximize stage specific survival (of individuals)
Maximize p(Self-Sustaining Wild GOM salmon)
Maximize p(balanced budget) $$
“OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY”
Fundamental Objectives
Means Objectives

5. Alternatives
The following seven alternatives represent examples of how salmon production
at Craig Brook NFH and Green Lake NFH can be managed and in some examples
changed to meet the fundamental and means objectives of the conservation
hatcheries. Each alternative will be evaluated in terms of its consequences to
maintaining effective population size, adult salmon returns and work within the
budgetary constraints of the hatcheries.
The status quo
Increase parr in Downeast SHRU (and no Penobscot smolts)
20% reduction across the portfolio
Reduced Penobscot river smolt production; increase in Penobscot River parr
Increase smolt and parr production in Downeast SHRU; reduce smolts
for Penobscot River
6. No fry production or stocking; egg planting in each of the three SHRU’s
7. Add kelts to status quo

6. Alternative #1
1. The Status Quo

7. Alternative #2
2. Increase parr in Downeast SHRU – (no smolts in Penobscot River)

8. Alternative #3
3. Across the board reduction – approx. 20%

9. Alternative #4
4. Reduced Penobscot smolt targets; increase Penobscot parr targets

10. Alternative #5
5. Add smolt and parr stocking to Downeast SHRU; No egg planting in that SHRU

11. Alternative #6
6. Eliminate fry production and stocking; add egg planting to all SHRU’s

12. Alternative #7
7. Add kelts to the Status Quo

13. Summary of Alternatives
Recognizes need to maintain the seven existing broodstocks - to achieve goals
of distribution, diversity, and extinction prevention.
Alternatives represent different stocking strategies, final production numbers will be
determined by USFWS Fisheries budget constraints and availability of resources
from partners. Alternatives may be weighted to reflect programmatic objectives and
values of partners involved in the decision making process.
Highest value will be assigned to production portfolio that meets budgetary goals,
minimizes the probability of extinction and maximizes adult returns.
Reflect the need for more balance among the broodstocks.
Adult returns in the context of the conservation hatchery program should be viewed
as a potential source of genetic diversity and the hatchery program is one of several tools
necessary to move closer to recovery of the species.

14. Hatchery Wild H. Egg W. Egg H. Fry H. Fry W. Fry Freshwater H. Parr
W. Parr 1
W. Parr 2
H. Smolt
H. Smolt
W. Smolt
H. Adult
H. Salmon
H. Salmon
Marine
H. Return
W. Return
Definition of Effective Population Size:
The average size of a population in terms of the number of individuals that can contribute genes equally to the next generation. The effective population size is usually smaller than the actual size of the population.
How we manage Ne

15. Next Steps Further develop and complete the Model - End of August
Test alternatives using the model once completed
Reconvene the team in September to discuss trade-offs
and make decision
Implement decision based on results from short-term model;
longer term model development initiated to guide future
hatchery production
Communicate, communicate, communicate…throughout the
proceed to achieve goal of transparency and inclusiveness

16. The Team The Coaches Conor McGowan - USGS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Coaches
Conor McGowan - USGS
Jonathan Cummings – University of Vermont
Sarah Jacobi – Chicago Botanic Garden
The Team
Mike Millard – USFWS
Meredith Bartron – USFWS
John Sweka – USFWS
Laury Zicari – USFWS
Jed Wright - USFWS
Joe Zydlewski – USGS/UMO
John Kocik – NOAA
Dan Kircheis – NOAA
Oliver Cox – ME DMR
Dan McCaw – PIN
Dwayne Shaw – DSF
Peter Lamothe - USFWS