Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget

The proposed budget is identical to the budgets for FY2004 and FY2005. Freezing the budgets in FY2003, FY2005 and FY2006 has and does not allow for increases in the cost of living and other wage increases, rising utility and fuel and other materials costs, and associated administrative costs let alone project costs that were unforseen when proposals were last submitted in 2002. We have absorbed these cost increases for the last 4 years. It will become more difficult if not impossible to implement the project properly without concurrent funding increases. To cover these additional costs, CTUIR requests that the project budget be increased by 10% from $190,000 to 209,000. This project represents a long-term core component of the F&W Program and proposed '06 increases represent a ramp up towards increased '07 costs that the NPCC must recognize as necessary to maintain past investments in this "base program".

Accomplishments since the last review

Project accomplishments include: McCoy Meadows Project - 2 mile restoration channel, 3.8 miles fence construction, 450 acre WRP-BPA easement, bridge construction, 2,000 ft. revetments, 10 crossvanes, 30 ac. seeding, planting 20,000 shrubs 1.2 miles channel reclamation; Longley Meadows Project - 1 mile Bear Cr restoration channel, 1,200 ft revetments, 19 crossvanes, 70 pcs.wood/whole tree additions to 1 mile reach Jordan Creek, planting over 40,000 trees/shrubs/sedge/rush plugs, seeding 20 ac., off-channel water sources (1 well, delivery pipe, 9 troughs), 5.7 miles fence, two water gaps, 0.5 miles channel reclamation; Phase 2 Mainstem Grande Ronde Project - 1.5 miles habitat enhancement, construction 950 ft restoration channel, 300 ft revetments, 2 crossvanes, 76 whole trees/lg wood, 3 ac. seeding, planting 10,000 trees/shrubs; Phase 1 Wallowa/McDaniel Restoration Project - 0.5 mile Wallowa restoration channel, 800 ft revetments, 5 rock cross vanes, 10,000+ trees/shrubs/sedges/rushes (ODFW), 3 ac seeding. Project planning, design, and implementation of listed projects has been facilitated through extensive interagency/staff coordination between ODFW, NRCS, CTUIR, and GRMWP and multiple funding organizations. Project preparation and implementation included design planning, completion of environmental compliance packages (BA's/consultations for ESA species, permit preparation (ODSL/Corps), preparation of NEPA checklists, and coordination of cultural resource investigations. In addition, subcontracting for construction services, subcontract administration and inspection, and field layout/survey for each project was accomplished. Project activities included maintenance of fences, structures, vegetation, monitoring/evaluation. M&E includes photo points, groundwater wells, water temperature, vegetation surveys, and cooperative fish habitat/morphological assessments, fish population evaluations. Project includes participation on GRMWP Board and Tech Co

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

5/06 - Conduct field education for local school district on fish habitat/channel morphology. 10/05-9/06 - participate on monthly GRMWP Board of Directors meetings. Participate on technical committee as needed to address resource issues and review annual project funding proposals. 10/05-9/06 - WE encompasses administrative functions to implement project. 3/05 - Annual report to meet BPA contractual requirements. 10/05-9/06 - report on quarterly progress (Pisces). 10/05 - 3/06 - Complete planning/design and permitting for End Cr/Rice Project. Project orginated with single landowner (600 acres) and expanded to include 2 additional landowners (250 acres contiguous)in 2005. Additional planning/design required to implement project. 6/06-8/06 - Implement End Creek/Rice Restoration Project. Includes construction to activate restoration channels constructed in 2005, reclamation of channelized stream segments, fish salvage/trap & haul, phase 1 construction on new project elements, and fence construction. Planting to be completed during fall-winter dormancy period. Project includes 3 landowners, approx 850 acres conservation easements, and 8-10 miles of fish bearing streams and spring fed tributaries in Willow Cr Watershed (tribuary to middle Grande Ronde River). Project goals/objectives are to restore natural channel/floodplain function in Willow Cr system substantially altered by channelization. 7/06 - Implement phase 2 Meadow Cr. Project involving activation of new/historic channel network and relcamation of existing channel network. Planting to be completed during fall-spring dormancy period. 5/06 - Conduct late spring field review of fences, water gaps, and water sources prior to May livestock turnout. Conduct necessary maintenance to ensure effectiveness. 5/06-8/06 - Maintain planted vegetation on project areas including protection tubes/devises and water application as necessary to improve survival. 10/06-9/06 Conduct M&E

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

The Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan & Supplement (December 31, 2004) contains numerous references in the Mgt Plan (Plan)(Section 5, pgs. 31-52) where the CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration Project can be tiered to. Habitat limiting factors are presented in Section 3.5.1.2, pgs 11-14. Sections 3.5.2, pgs. 14-18 illustrate priority areas for restoration and key limiting factors for chinook salmon and steelhead. Sections 3.6.3.1 through 3.6.1.4 (pgs 21-30) present desired conditions, anlaysis of restoration scenarios, and project outputs/findings as DFC's are achieved for various scenarios. High priority watersheds and accompanying limiting factors for both salmon and steelhead are addressed by the Project: Upper GR (upper and mid Grande Ronde, Lower Meadow Cr)-habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, sediment and temperature; Catherine Cr (mid Catherine Cr)- habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, and temperature. Several ongoing and planned efforts under the Project clearly and directly address these watersheds and limiting factors (e.g., Meadow Cr Restoration, Mainstem Grande Ronde River Enhancement, End Creek Restoration, and Ladd Creek Restoration). Specific actions to address limiting factors include: habitat prote channel restoration and floodplain activation to improve channel dimension, pattern, profile and associated instream habitat complexity, width:depth ratios, channel gradients, streambank stability, and associated hydrophytic plant communities. The GR Subbasin Plan supports active restoration and summarizes anticipated impacts of restoration actions for focal species in Section 3.6.3.1.5, pg. 30. This section notes that the Upper GR summer steelhead population "has the highest potential population increases through restoration." For spring chinook, the Plan indicates that implementation of the comp restoration package in the Catherine Creek and Upper Grande Ronde could drammatically increase chinook populations.

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

A common goal between the Plan (Section 5.0, pg. 31) and the Project is the restoration of a healthy ecosystem with abundant, productive, and diverse populations of aquatic and terrestrial species. In simple terms, the Project goal is to restore fish habitat and water conditions that support healthy, sustainable salmon and steelhead populations. Several sections of the Plan address goals, limiting factors, and priorities as presented above. Section 5.2.5, pgs 45-49, and Table 5-5 summarizes priority limiting factors, geographic areas, and strategies. The Project is focused primarily in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek Watersheds, which are consistently prioritized in the Plan. Subbasin Plan objectives (in order of priority)(Pgs. 40-45) include: 1)low flows/irrigation diversions, 2) sediment reduction, 3) channel condition, and 4) riparian function. Past and planned habitat restoration through the Project address multiple limiting factors and priorities, particularly sediment reduction, channel condition, and riparian function through habitat protection, facilitation of natural/stable channel development, and floodplain connectivity. Key strategies addressed in the Plan (pgs. 42-44) are consistently employed on our restoration/enhancement projects (e.g, , protecting high quality habitat, re-establishing historic wet meadows, livestock grazing mgt, re-establishing riparian vegetation, relocating channelized stream reaches, improving floodplain connectivity, development of conservation easements, weed control, and wetland creation.

Other comments

FY 2006 planned project activities are based on planning and design efforts initiated at this time associated with the End Creek and Meadow Creek Restoration Projects initiated in FY2005. Ongoing efforts include continued efforts through the GRMWP and project partnerships to develop additional opportunities to address Subbasin Plan limiting factors and priorities to benefit instream habitat diversity and water quality for ESA listed Snake River Basin salmon and steelhead stocks. In addition to priority habitat restoration efforts presented in this proposal, future project opportunities continue to be developed. Examples of future project priority areas include Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area in association with ODFW, mainstem Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek in the Grande Ronde Valley, Upper Grande Ronde River mine dredge restoration in headwater reaches located on National Forest System lands, and continuation of habitat enhancement along the mainstem Grande Ronde both upstream and downstream of Longley Meadows in cooperation with the USFS and private landowners. The project has been highly successful in partnering with basin stakeholders in developing and implementing projects that protect key habitat, restore channelized/incised stream channels which increases habitat quantity and quality, and provides examples for other private landowners that may have a future to improve their streams in the future. We believe that funds expended on this project have been well prioritized and utilized to develop match funds opportunties through various programs (OWEB, GRMWP-BPA, CREP, WRP, WHIP, EPA 319, NAWCA, and local county funds)which results in on the ground resource benefits.