Scientifically Defensible Fish Conservation and Recovery Plans: Addressing Diffuse Threats and Developing Rigorous Adaptive Management Plans

Abstract

We discuss the importance of addressing diffuse threats to long‐term species and habitat viability in fish conservation and recovery planning. In the Pacific Northwest, USA, salmonid management plans have typically focused on degraded freshwater habitat, dams, fish passage, harvest rates, and hatchery releases. However, such plans inadequately address threats related to human population and economic growth, intra‐ and interspecific competition, and changes in climate, ocean, and estuarine conditions. Based on reviews conducted on eight conservation and/or recovery plans, we found that though threats resulting from such changes are difficult to model and/or predict, they are especially important for wide‐ranging diadromous species. Adaptive management is also a critical but often inadequately constructed component of those plans. Adaptive management should be designed to respond to evolving knowledge about the fish and their supporting ecosystems; if done properly, it should help improve conservation efforts by decreasing uncertainty regarding known and diffuse threats. We conclude with a general call for environmental managers and planners to reinvigorate the adaptive management process in future management plans, including more explicitly identifying critical uncertainties, implementing monitoring programs to reduce those uncertainties, and explicitly stating what management actions will occur when pre‐identified trigger points are reached.

Characterizing and comparing marine fisheries ecosystems in the United States: determinants of success in moving toward ecosystem-based fisheries management

“…Each FMP and FEP was also examined for the total number of modifications (i.e., amendments, frameworks, motions, specifications, and addendums) it had undergone since its original release, and all values were summed per region. While low numbers of FMP modifications may reflect overall stability within a region, they may also reflect less attention to certain fisheries or stressors (Stram and Evans 2009) or a lower degree of adaptive management (Maas-Hebner et al 2016). We therefore assumed that mid-level numbers (closest to cross-regional mean value; see 7.…”

Big data challenges in overcoming China’s water and air pollution: relevant data and indicators

“…Resource management should be based on a rigorous adaptive management paradigm [ 50 , 96 ]. Rigorous adaptive management and plans are based on: (1) specifying clear sets of general goals and explicit objectives; (2) explicitly stating actions that will and will not be taken when pre-identified trigger points occur; (3) explicitly identifying what is and is not known about the problems and their resolution; (4) clearly explaining expected conditions; (5) designing and implementing monitoring programs for learning about the above uncertainties; and (5) using the monitoring information to revise predictive models and management actions.…”

Contrasting trends between species and catchments in diadromous fish counts over the last 30 years in France

“…Among them, salmonids and the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) have been the focus of many studies (e.g., Dekker, 2003a;Milner et al, 2003;Bonhommeau et al, 2008;Bal, 2011;Kettle et al, 2011;Chaput, 2012;Aalto et al, 2016;Nicola et al, 2018). A diversity of management plans has been implemented to protect these species (e.g., Haapasaari and Karjalainen, 2010;Maas-Hebner et al, 2016;Almeida et al, 2018). For instance, management measures can aim at improving the quality of the environment or at reducing anthropogenic pressures (e.g., fisheries and dams) but they also include fish stocking programmes.…”