Collaborative governance structures (CGS) have been increasingly adopted to address joint-jurisdictional management challenges. While the establishment of CGSs has been widely studied, their practical development has remained a conspicuous gap. CGSs are variable systems with several developmental stages (activation, collectivity, and institutionalization) which eventually lead to stabilization, decline, re-creation, or re-orientation. CGSs in decline may need to revisit earlier developmental stages if members choose to re-create or re-orient the structure. The Atlantic Salmon Recovery Framework (ASRF) was the CGS responsible for managing the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) from 2011 until 2019 when it was replaced by the Collaborative Management Strategy (CMS) pilot program. The CMS was designed to address concerns identified in the ASRF; 1. slow and ineffective decision-making, 2. confusion surrounding leadership, and 3. low adaptive capacity. Building upon a previous evaluation of the ASRF, we used a parallel design to compare the structural components and participant perceptions of the two structures using a comparative case study methodology. The changes that occurred between the ASRF and the CMS constitute a re-creation, providing a unique opportunity to study this developmental phase of a CGS. The issues observed in the CMS may result from a misalignment between participant expectations and the current developmental stage of the re-created CGS. The CMS reorganized ASRF members and created roles for participants without direct management jurisdiction. The implementation of the CMS addressed many concerns identified in the ASRF while others remained (i.e., high membership uncertainty and confusion surrounding decision-making procedures). Formal leadership roles have created more equal representation, but participants still reported uncertainty regarding status and formalization of non-leadership roles.