Fish & wildlife Subbasin planning Level 2 - Oregon

Guidance on mainstem planning

Related link: general Oregon guidance

prepared by Oregon Coordination Group, February 20, 2003

Introduction

Subbasin plans are required for mainstem reaches of both the Columbia and Snake rivers. Mainstem reaches are typically comprised of the mouths of tributaries, small tributaries to the mainstem that do not warrant their own subbasin plans, and habitat along the mainstem and small tributaries (general descriptions for these reaches can be found in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program). In Oregon, mainstem reaches include the Columbia River Estuary, Lower Columbia, Columbia Gorge, Columbia Lower Middle, Snake/Hells Canyon, Snake Upper Middle and Snake Lower Middle. 

Subbasin Summaries have previously been prepared for major sections of mainstem reaches in the Columbia and Snake rivers.

Mainstem Plan

The Council is currently preparing Mainstem Amendments to its Fish and Wildlife Program (Program) that will define management objectives and action measures for the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, including general objectives and strategies for mainstem habitat protection and enhancement, and detailed measures for system-wide water management and dam passage. The Council's draft Mainstem Amendments, which were released for public review and comment in October 2002, include objectives and strategies relating to, among other matters:

• Protection and enhancement of mainstem habitat, including spawning, rearing, resting and migration areas for salmon and steelhead and resident salmonids and other fish;
• System water management;
• Passage spill at mainstem dams;
• Adult and juvenile passage facility modifications at mainstem dams;
• Juvenile fish transportation;
• Adult survival during upstream migration through the mainstem;
• Reservoir elevations and operational requirements to protect resident fish and wildlife;
• Water quality conditions; and
• Research, monitoring, evaluation and in-season decision-making.

Planning Focus

Any subbasin planning for specific mainstem reaches should take the objectives and strategies in the Council's draft Mainstem Amendments into consideration. Once adopted by the Council, the final Mainstem Amendments should be taken as a given. However, because the final Mainstem Amendments will likely not describe specific objectives, strategies or measures to protect and restore habitat, nor will they describe specific objectives, strategies or measures for natural and artificial production for mainstem reaches, the need exists for reach-specific plans. The focus of these reach-specific plans should be on the land and water in the mainstem corridor itself and, presumably, on the small tributaries that feed into these reaches but which, because of their size, will not be the subject of individual planning efforts. 

Functional Distinctions and Planning Areas

Columbia and Snake River mainstem reaches fundamentally differ in how they function and the threats to their ecological integrity. Because of these distinct differences, mainstem planning areas can be geographically divided based upon their ecologies or ecosystems:

• Below Bonneville Dam ?  estuarine/tidal-influenced ecosystem
• Hanford Reach ?  free-flowing, ?big? river ecosystem
• Above Bonneville Dam, excluding the Hanford Reach ?  reservoir ecosystem

Based upon these ecosystems, it is recommended that Oregon mainstem reaches be combined when feasible for planning purposes within the same or similar ecological systems. Specifically, it is recommended that subbasin plans be prepared as follows:

• Combined, single plan for the Columbia River Estuary and the Lower Columbia reaches;
• Combined, single plan for the Columbia Gorge and Columbia Lower Middle reaches;
• Stand-alone plan for the Snake/Hells Canyon unblocked reach; and
• Combined, single plan for the Upper Mid Snake and Lower Mid Snake blocked reaches.

Focal and Indicator Species

Subbasin plans for mainstem reaches should address both focal and indicator species. Focal species are a limited set of species for which management objectives are established that describe a future desired condition for the species. Indicator species are a broader set of species whose status is monitored and evaluated to track and assess how the community at large (ecosystem) responds to subbasin management strategies. The subbasin plan should focus primarily on describing objectives, strategies and measures for protecting and restoring habitat and for natural and artificial production and include technical information on focal species. The emphasis should primarily be on species that spend the majority or critical stages of their lifecycles within the mainstem, rather than in subbasin tributaries. 

For each of the three ecosystems identified, mainstem planning should focus on the following key species and factors for decline.

(1) Focal species have not yet been identified.

Coordination

By definition, mainstem reaches include areas in more than one state. Subbasin planning project managers have agreed that a single, unified subbasin plan for a mainstem reach (or combination of reaches as discussed above), rather than separate plans for each state, is desirable. The states have several options for producing a unified plan: (a) they may  designate a single lead entity to prepare a single subbasin plan; (b) they may create a new bi-state entity to lead the planning effort; or (c) one state may defer to the other to produce the plan. Finally, (d) where designating a single lead entity is not feasible, the following procedures and standards apply:

• The states may designate separate lead entities, each with its separate work plan.
• Work plans and budgets must be demonstrably integrated to show delivery of a single subbasin plan, including coordinated mechanisms for public involvement.
• Work plans and budgets must be accompanied by a letter of support from the other state(s).
• Joint approval by the respective state coordinating groups will be required before contracting can be initiated.
• A single, coordinated subbasin plan must be jointly submitted by the lead entities to the Council.
• Each state coordinating group must recommend approval of the plan before Council will consider initiation of the appropriate Program amendments.
• Equitable distribution of funding is expected.

^ top