3-Year Implementation Schedule

1. 3-Year Implementation Schedule

2. What is the 3-Year Implementation Schedule? • A list of prioritized projects for implementers with a time frame to complete all phases of a project • A plan action (50-Trib) • A set of high priority projects across the ESU (currently limited to restoration) • Developed from LCR Plan actions (meant to target key and secondary LF’s) • Sited in priority locations • A vehicle for tracking and early warning indicators

3. What do we do with a 3-Year Implementation Schedule? • The Implementation Team members prioritize their work to accomplish the goals of the schedule • The Implementation Team makes other implementers and public within their watershed aware of the schedule • The Implementation Team members seek assistance from others for meeting the goals of the schedule • The schedule is shared with funding entities and requested to adopt the schedule into their prioritization scheme • The schedule may also be a vehicle to implement Adaptive Management in the future, especially if prioritization schemes are developed for other type of plan actions (i.e. critical uncertainty research, ect). There may be circumstances where reach scale assessments or basin specific action plans will need to be developed. In this case we will use best professional judgment in developing the 3YIS.

4. Development of the 3-Year Implementation Schedule • IC leads the process • Implementation Team Develops-envision local groups within watersheds • Done every 3 years • First one done with a core team chosen to assist with prioritization of actions and projects • Covers years 2012-2014 and captures all planned projects • Desire to create a list of high priority conceptual projects in 2014 for the next 3YIS (2015-2017) • The 2012-2014 3YIS is found on the Departments web site at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp

5. Action Prioritization • A big step in prioritization occurred during plan development when the planning team identified primary and secondary LF’s and actions to address those Priority Areas Actions Threats Limiting Factors Strategies Relationship between key components of developing and implementing actions for recovering LCR fish • Actions can be further prioritized to aid development of a 3YIS, proposals and funding decisions

6. Creating a Prioritization Scheme for 3YIS Development • This document will be updated as new information becomes available and is found at: • http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp

7. Action Prioritization-Guiding Principles • For populations targeted for lower risk levels, it is critical that action be implemented as quickly as possible to achieve risk level goals • The plan will achieve the highest likelihood of success in the shortest time if actions which address key and secondary LF’s can be implemented in those geographic area where the greatest benefit will result • A more detailed prioritization will occur between actions and by location within actions during 3YIS development. • The plan lists 8 guiding principles to assist with action prioritization: Actions for populations which must achieve viability status (Low or Very Low extinction risk) are a priority Actions addressing a threat reduction need (i.e., a decrease in a specific threat category's mortality rate going from the Current Status to the Delisting Scenario in Chapter 6241) are a priority Actions which address a key limiting factor are a priority Actions which address a greater gap between current and desired status or a greater threat reduction need are a priority Actions in locations which will result in or protect accessible and connected high quality habitat are a priority restoration actions in high intrinsic potential (IP) locations are a priority Actions intended to protect threatened high quality or highly productive habitat are a priority Actions which provide resiliency against climate change are a priority

8. Action Prioritization-Guiding Principles continued • Many of the guiding principals are location dependent • Action prioritization was limited to 3 metrics (viability status, addressing a LF and the conservation gap) • Assigned a point scheme and created an action importance rating (1-5) • Provided a general strategy to compare actions across threat categories

9. Project Prioritization • Focus for this meeting is prioritization for Tributary Habitat threats! • Developed with a “core group” of IT members representing all populations within the ESU • The core group met one time, then the IC met one on one or in smaller groups multiple times over the year to refine the tool • Participation level varied but all given multiple opportunities to provide comments • Worked through multiple iterations of the guidance document • Projects are location dependent • 7 of the 8 guiding principles are used in the prioritization process (the remaining metric pertains to resiliency to climate change which an analysis has not yet been conducted) • Added 3 additional metrics, geographic priority, other species benefited, wild fish sanctuaries

10. 2012-2014 3YIS The first 3 YIS is a schedule that has all known projects across the ESU Each project was run through the formula developed from the Guidance Document Each project received a score and assigned a high, medium or low priority (scores are not seen by the public only the H/M/L tab) The 3YIS is available on the ODFW internet (address previously shown) Projects in the cue that have considerable investment in time and expenditures should not stop due to priority tab Plan recommends that a majority of effort in terms of projects and funds be directed at high priority projects, but not all. Desire for next 3 YIS (2015-2017) to be formed by local workgroups where needed.

11. Questions?