Steelhead Trout, Coho, Chum, and Chinook Salmon

Lower Columbia Recovery Planning for Steelhead Trout, Coho, Chum, and Chinook Salmon Work Plan Summary

March 3, 2006

What? Who? When? Why Plan is Important NOAA 12/2005 Background NOAA 12/2005 ESU – Populations Structure ODFW/TRT/WDFW 3/2006 Desired Status – Goals Viability Criteria ODFW/TRT/WDFW 3/2006 Broad Sense Recovery Planning/Stakeholder Teams 4/2006 Current Status-Viability Assessment ODFW/TRT/WDFW 5/2006 Habitat Assessment ODFW 12/2005 Limiting Factors and Threats Analyses Qualitative Delphi Process ODFW/NOAA 5/2006 Quantitative Modeling ODFW/TRT/WDFW 7/2006? Planning Team Gap Analysis – Current Status vs. Viability Criteria ODFW/TRT/WDFW/ 5/2006 Planning Team Management Actions Current Actions and Effectiveness Planning Team 6/2006 Additional Actions Needed to Achieve Viability Planning Team 9/2006 Analysis of Activities Planning Team 10/2006 Cost Analyses NOAA 11/06 Preferred Management Action Scenarios Planning/Stakeholder Teams 11/06

Implementation and Adaptive Management Plan Planning Team 11/06

Recovery Plan Draft Plan Planning/Stakeholder Teams 12/06 Public Review 2/07 Final Plan Planning/Stakeholder Teams 4/07

4/7/2018 1 Work Plan for the Lower Columbia River Steelhead Trout, Coho, Chum, and Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan March 3, 2006

Plan leads: Governor’s Natural Resource Office – Louise Solliday Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Bruce McIntosh, Jay Nicholas, Dave Ward NOAA Fisheries – Patty Dornbusch

Dates in BOLD indicates products that are complete What? Who? When? 1. Executive Summary ODFW 12/2006 2. Table of Contents ODFW 12/2006 3. Why is this Plan Important? NOAA 12/2005 3.1. Roadmap is needed 3.2. Context and accountability for salmon/steelhead programs 2.3. How does NOAA expect to use the plan? 4. Background NOAA 12/2005 4.1. Overarching approach 4.1.1.1. Three key needs – Buy in, scientific credibility, accountability 4.1.1.2. Regional Domain approach, role TRT, etc. 4.1.1.3. All Hs, All stakeholders 4.1.1.4. Use Local subbasin/watershed plans 4.1.1.5. Address harvest, hatchery and hydro through appropriate forums 4.1.1.6. Relationship to other regional and local planning processes 4.2. Formal and informal guidance (statute, handbooks, sufficiency guidelines, policies, role of hatchery fish) 4.3. Relationship to other ESA mandates (listing decisions, critical habitat, section 7, section 10, etc.) 5. ESU Structure (NOAA 4.1.2) ODFW/TRT/WDFW 3/2006 5.1. Define and map ESU structure (ESU, Strata, (Draft Report Independent Populations) released) 6. Desired Status (NOAA 5.1 and 5.2) 6.1. Viability Criteria – ODFW and the TRT are ODFW/TRT/WDFW 3/2006 working to resolve differences in viability (Draft Report criteria. released) 6.2. Broad Sense Recovery Goals – 6.2.1. Produce Draft Recovery Goals Planning Team 3/2006 6.2.2. Define range of preferred broad sense Stakeholder Team 4/2006

4/7/2018 2 What? Who? When? recovery goals from past goals, consider alternatives 6.2.3. Identify preferred broad sense recovery Stakeholder Team 4/2006 goals

Expected Outcomes Viability Criteria ODFW/TRT/WDFW 3/2006 Draft broad sense recovery goals Planning Team 3/2006 Preferred broad sense recovery goals Stakeholder Team 4/2006 7. Current Status – Viability Assessment (NOAA 4.1.1 expanded) 7.1. Viability Assessment - ODFW has completed ODFW/TRT/WDFW 3/2006 preliminary status assessment for LCR coho based on draft viability criteria and ESU structure. Finalize draft report and present to TRT for discussion. 7.1.1. Based on TRT discussion, conduct new ODFW/TRT 5/2006 analyses and make revisions as necessary 7.2. Habitat Assessment – ODFW is conducting a ODFW 12/2005 status assessment of current habitat conditions (Draft based on the template developed for Coastal Report coho and will produce a draft report. complete)

Expected Outcomes Viability Assessment ODFW/TRT/WDFW 4/2006 Habitat Assessment ODFW 12/2005 8. Limiting Factors/Threats Analysis 8.1. Develop and conduct qualitative limiting factors/threats analyses 8.1.1. Describe expert panel approach (Delphi ODFW 10/2005 process) 8.1.2. Compile existing information on limiting factors/threats Freshwater habitat ODFW/NOAA Hydrosystem ODFW 10/2005 Harvest ODFW 10/2005 Hatcheries ODFW 10/2005 Compile above for other species NOAA 4/2006 8.1.3. Assemble Expert Panel ODFW 12/2005 8.1.4. Conduct Delphi process to identify life ODFW and Expert Panel Coho Only cycle limiting factors for all H’s and threats 8.1.5. Develop relative ranking of limiting factors ODFW and Expert Panel 12/2005 and how much each H (threats) contributes to viability gaps. Use Delphi process and summarize findings

4/7/2018 3 What? Who? When? 8.1.5.1. Complete for Other Species ODFW and Expert Panel 4/2006 8.2. Quantitative Methods 8.2.1. Develop and describe quantitative ODFW/TRT 4/2006 framework for limiting factors and threats analyses 8.2.2. Conduct quantitative All-H limiting factors ODFW/TRT 4/06 – 6/06 analyses, evaluating survival impacts (by life stage) and identifying limiting factors. Multiple approaches preferred.

CRITICAL JUNCTURE: DEVELOPING ROBUST AND DEFENSIBLE TOOLS TO CONDUCT QUANTITATIVE LIMITING FACTORS/THREATS ASSESSMENTS CRITICAL TO REDUCING UNCERTAINTLY IN GAP ANALYSES

8.3. Integrate qualitative and quantitative limiting Planning Team 6/06 – 7/06 factors and assess relative biological significance in relationship to viability criteria

Expected Outcomes Qualitative Limiting Factors and Threats Analyses ODFW and Expert Panel 12/05 & 4/06 Quantitative Limiting Factors and Threats ODFW/TRT/Planning 7/2006 Analyses Team 9. Gap Analysis (Current vs. Viability Criteria, NOAA 6.1) 9.1. Determine the differences (gap) between current ODFW/TRT 5/2006 status and viability criteria based on viability assessment. Expected Outcomes Gap analyses to include with viability ODFW/TRT 5/2006 assessment 10. Describe short- and long-term management strategies to address limiting factors/threats (NOAA 6) 10.1. ESU viability scenarios (rollup) 10.1.1. Describe methods for identifying Planning Team 4/2006 combinations of populations to achieve viability 10.1.2. Describe the range of scenarios and Planning Team 4/2006 associated risks 10.1.3. Critical uncertainties associated with ESU Planning Team 4/2006 viability 10.1.4. What limiting factors and threats have Planning Team 6/2006 been addressed with current management

4/7/2018 4 What? Who? When? actions? 10.1.5. Review OR recovery plan, BiOp, subbasin Planning Team 6/2006 plans, etc. 10.1.6. Based on the results from the qualitative limiting factors/threats analysis, describe what current actions are in place to reduce threats and their likely effectiveness. 10.2. What actions are needed to reduce existing limiting factors and current threats and ensure they do not reoccur? 10.2.1. Based on the results from the qualitative Planning & Stakeholder 5/2006 limiting factors analysis, describe what Teams/TRT actions are needed to reduce threats and their likely effectiveness. 10.2.2. For each of the viable combinations of Planning Team/TRT 8/2006 populations/strata, describe limiting factors and threats constraining viability. 10.2.3. Describe and assess the relative likelihood Planning Team/TRT 9/2006 of meeting viability criteria for each set of management actions that would alleviate the threats for each viability combination (need to evaluate likelihood of closing the gaps for all viability criteria; probabilities) 10.2.4. Integrate results from All-H quantitative Planning Team, TRT 10/2006 analysis into a final determination of what actions are needed to reduce threats and their likely effectiveness. 10.3. What are potential future Planning Team/TRT 10/2006 threats/limiting factors? 10.4. What are the top actions to address Planning Team/TRT 10/2006 future threats/limiting factors?

Expected Outcomes Probable ESU Preferred Viability Scenario Plan/Stakeholder Team 5/2006 Current Management Actions to Address Threats Plan/Stakeholder Team 6/2006 Future Management Actions Needed to Achieve Plan/Stakeholder Team 10/2006 Viability Assessment of Likelihood of Actions Leading to Plan/Stakeholder Team 10/2006 Recovery 11. Cost effectiveness analysis NOAA 11/2006 11.1. Biological/economic effectiveness for each scenario 11.2. Evaluate socio-political feasibility 12. Select Preferred Management Scenarios Stakeholder/PlanningTeam 11/2006 12.1. Recommended viability scenario

4/7/2018 5 What? Who? When? 12.2. Prioritized recovery actions 12.3. To what extent do existing programs address priority actions? 12.4. What additional actions are needed? 13. Implementation and Adaptive Management Planning Team 12/06 Framework (NOAA 7) 13.1. Critical Uncertainties Planning Team 10/06 13.1.0. What are they? 13.1.1. What RME is addressing them now? 13.1.2. What additional RME should be added to address priority uncertainties? 13.2. Implementation Schedule Planning Team 11/06 13.3. Cost Estimate NOAA 11/06 13.4. Monitoring and Evaluation Planning Team 11/06 12.5. Feedback – Reviewing and Updating Planning Team 11/06 Recovery Plans 12.6. Literature Cited Planning Team 12/06 14. Produce Recovery Plan Products 14.1. Draft Outline ODFW 9/05 14.2. Work Plan and Timelines ODFW 3/06 14.3. Draft Recovery Plan ODFW 12/2006 14.4. Integration of Oregon and Washington ODFW, WDFW, TRT 6/06 -3/07 Products 14.5. Design and Produce Story Boards ODFW 11/06 – 3/07 14.6. Peer Review (Federal Register Notice) NOAA 2/07 – 4/07 14.7. Produce Final Report ODFW 6/2007

4/7/2018 6