Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget

The reccommended FY 06 budget of $48,000 for renewal of this project is equal to the contracted budget amount for FY 2005. However, increasing fuel costs, the need for a vehicle to perform surveys, and increases in overhead and personnel costs result in the need for increased funding. We are asking for an increase of $15,000 in FY 06, for a total of $63,000, to allow for these increases. During FY 05, no vehicle was available specifically for use during surveys and other project activities. One had to be borrowed when not in use for other LMWA business. We would like to make a vehicle available at least half time for project monitoring and O&M. Further, increased fuel costs will increase the amount necessary to operate the vehicle. Increases in overhead have reduced the amount of the contracted budget that can actually be used for project M&E and O&M. An increase in funding will help make up that deficit. Additionally, personnel costs will increase in FY 06 due to cost of living increases as well as the need for greater time spent on the project. The project M&E Plan requires a repeat of the Rosgen stream channel survey conducted in fall of 2001. This survey and analysis will be labor intensive and will require additional time by project personnel to complete. We will also install and monitor the fish trap in Ladd Creek during FY 06. This activity was previously paid for by Ducks Unlimited.

Accomplishments since the last review

This project is currently in O&M and M&E. Past accomplishments are noted based on the objectives and tasks in the proposal accepted during the 2002 Provincial Review process. Project accomplishments prior to 2002 were noted in that proposal. Planning and Design Phase: 1. Engineering and design - Complete 2. Assess Baseline Conditions - Complete 3. Complete Pre-Conservation Easement Activities for lands adjacent to the LMWA - Complete 4. Develop Management Plans - Complete 5. Project Management -Complete Construction and Implementation Phase: 1. Restore Habitat Conditions - Implement Management Plans - Complete 1. Project Management– Complete Operations and Maintenance Phase: l. Maintain Current and Enhanced Habitat Values - Implement Operations & Maintenance Plans a. Control habitat enhancement activities as necessary to maintain habitat values – Ongoing b. Maintain water control structures – Ongoing c. Maintain minimal infrastructure – Ongoing d. Annual SOW and budget - Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation Phase: l. Measure Effectiveness of Restoration Plan - Implement M&E Plans a. Conduct vegetation surveys to monitor changes in plant communities (using HEP survey data, photopoints/transects – Ongoing b. Conduct wildlife surveys to monitor species response to habitat changes (using HEP survey data from periodic HEP sampling, wildlife inventory data, stream surveys – Ongoing c. Conduct hydrological surveys to establish most efficient techniques for restoring wetland function – Ongoing d. Prepare M&E reports – Complete for 2002-2004; Ongoing

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

Continue O&M and M&E activities to keep instream structures functioning properly and continue to monitor fish and wildlife use of the restoration area. The following are objectives and tasks on which work will be continued in FY 06. Operations and Maintenance Phase: l. Maintain Current and Enhanced Habitat Values - Implement Operations & Maintenance Plans a. Control habitat enhancement activities as necessary to maintain habitat values – Ongoing b. Maintain water control structures – Ongoing c. Maintain minimal infrastructure – Ongoing d. Annual SOW and budget - Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation Phase: l. Measure Effectiveness of Restoration Plan - Implement M&E Plans a. Conduct vegetation surveys to monitor changes in plant communities (using HEP survey data, photopoints/transects – Ongoing b. Conduct wildlife surveys to monitor species response to habitat changes (using HEP survey data from periodic HEP sampling, wildlife inventory data, stream surveys – Ongoing c. Conduct hydrological surveys to establish most efficient techniques for restoring wetland function – Ongoing d. Prepare M&E reports – Complete for 2002-2004; Ongoing

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

This wetland restoration project was/is consistent with the goals, objectives & strategies in the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan (GRSP;May 2004) and the Supplement to the GRSP (Supplement; Dec 2004). The acquisition and restoration of the project lands is consistent with the overall terrestrial habitat goals (GRSP p.267). Wetlands were identified as a priority habitat in the GRSP. The project addresses the strategies (p.268-269) of restoration of wetland function through reestablishment of native plant communities, restoration of riparian area function through vegetative enhancement and restoration of historic or near-historic stream channels. The project also addresses the priority aquatic attributes (Supplement p. 40) for the Catherine Creek watershed of key habitat quality, habitat diversity, sediment, flow and temperature. By restoring approximately 3 miles of Ladd Creek to a near-historic channel, planting woody riparian vegetation, planting herbaceous wetland vegetation, reconnecting Ladd Creek to a portion of its floodplain, adding in-channel LWD to the restored Ladd Creek channel, and reducing irrigation withdrawal by acquiring water rights with land acquisition, this project employs many of the strategies, some of which are repeated for several attributes, for low flows and irrigation diversions, sediment conditions, channel conditions and riparian conditions (Supplement p. 42-45). Further, the project, now in the Operations and Maintenance and Monitoring and Evaluation Phases, is consisitent with the M&E objectives of the GRSP and Supplement and with the Council's M&E guidelines. The project M&E plan, now in implementation, calls for the collection of biological data to determine the efficacy of restoration activities and management and allows for adaptive management based on data collected. This project is part of a larger plan to restore up to 80% of Ladd Cr. within the Grande Ronde Valley to near-historic conditions via other non-BPA funded projects.

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

The work accomplished in this project is a priority as shown in the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan (GRSP; May 2004) and The Supplement to the GRSP (Supplement; Dec. 2004). Wetlands are shown as a priority habitat in the terrestrial section of the GRSP (p. 268); this project restored about 600 acres of valley emergent wetland habitat. The project also fits within the Prioritization Framework presented in the GRSP Supplement (p.46).

Other comments

The Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions Mitigation Project has completed its planning and construction/implementation phases and is in Operations and Maintenance and Monitoring and Evaluation phases. The above responses regarding consistency with the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan are relevant to the entire restoration project, not just the current (FY06) funding request for M&E and O&M. The O&M funding is required to maintain the effectiveness of the project through water and vegetation management as well as project administration. Funding for the M&E phase is necessary to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the project for the fish and wildlife of the area. Many of the benefits of the project will not be seen for several years as the riparian habitats mature and the stream settles into its restored channel. It is important to document this process and take advantage of opportunities for adaptive management. Additionally, the results of monitoring of this project will inform the efforts of other projects in the area.