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 $244,544 to $268,998. 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

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

It is consistent with & implements Strategy D, Activity D3 (p. 260); Strategy E, Activities E1 & E2 (p. 263), E3 (pp. 263-4) & E4 (p. 264); Strategy G, Activity G2 (p. 270); Strategy H, Activities H1 & H3 (p. 273); Strategy I, Activities I1, I2, I3, I4 & I5 (p. 278); Strategy J, Activity J1 (p. 281); & Terrestrial Species under Herbaceous Wetlands, Objective 2, Strategies 2-5 (pp. 303-4); Upland Aspen Forest, Objective 3, Strategies 1-3 (pp. 307-8). These strategies relate to the following objectives listed in Table 69. (pp. 245- 7): improve channel stability, increase role & abundance of LWD; increase pool habitat, maintain & improve quality & quantity of spawning areas; decrease gradient; restore sinuosity; restore channel/floodplain connectivity; restore off-channel areas; trap sediment on the floodplain; moderate stream temperatures through improvement of width-to-depth ratios, increased shade & floodplain reconnectivity; manage subbasin fisheries for wild fish production; enhance base flows; moderate peak flows; restore natural hydrographic conditions; minimize direct mortality & stress to fish; minimize factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen; minimize rates of erosion from uplands; maintain riparian management objectives; provide adequate habitat components for focal species; create physical & educational conditions that provide for growth of fish & wildlife and enjoyment of natural resources; bring the stream channel in balance with water & sediment supplied by the watershed; & the following objectives listed under Terrestrial Species: restore, enhance &/or create wetland habitat where feasible (pp. 303-4); & target the enhancement, restoration & protection of upland aspen forest (pp. 307-8). Project implementations consistent with the strategies and objectives above include constructing riparian/floodplain livestock exclusion fencing & off-stream water sites, planting native vegetation, treating noxious weeds & conducting public outreach.

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

The project accomplishes priority work because it improves habitat for focal species, summer steelhead, spring Chinook, redband trout (p63), great blue heron & American beaver (Table 22., p64; Set 1.5), p286). The project implements enhancements in the North Fork Subbasin & Upper Camas Creek, Lower Camas Creek, Cottonwood Creek & Lower NF JDR Geographic Areas, 3 of these 4 areas are restoration priority areas in the Management Plan (pp 231-2; Set 1.2) p285); the Lower NF JDR Geographic Area provides habitat for focal species, but is not identified as priority & landowner interest is high (Set 1.3), p285); the project utilizes CTUIR’s Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project’s Monitoring Protocol, a practical, & cost-effective monitoring & evaluation strategy (Set 2.2), p286); the project has established partnerships with local organizations, such as NRCS, Grant County, Monument & Umatilla County SWCD's, & Grant & Umatilla County FSA's to partner & cost share on habitat projects. The CTUIR holds a seat on the watershed council & works closely with the watershed council coordinator to identify projects & funding opportunities (Set 3.1), p286); the project conducts outreach efforts to obtain input, identify landowner & agency concerns, provide educational opportunities, & promote habitat restoration & protection (Set 3.2), pp 286-7); the project frequently hires local subcontractors from within Umatilla & Grant Counties. Materials & fuel are purchased locally. Storage & tree refrigeration units are rented from locals (Set 3.3), p287); the watershed council promotes CTUIR's habitat improvement efforts, resulting in landowners providing feedback & contacting CTUIR for assistance, schools & interest groups requesting outreach, & contractors contacting CTUIR to bid on jobs (Set 3.4), p287); the project implements passive, natural recovery processes & integrates restoration efforts with other entities to achieve large scale, self sustaining benefits (3.5), p287).

Other comments

The project has only $22,162 in actual BPA dollars available for 2005 on-the-ground implementation efforts. While the project continues to develop partnerships and seek and secure cost share funds, obtaining these other dollars is not guaranteed, and it is difficult to leverage other funds with minimal BPA monies. The project has absorbed inflation increases, additional O&M costs (as more projects are secured)and desires to increase project monitoring. Willing landowners also become frustrated and relationships with these individuals can be damaged when projects are negotiated, and we are than unable to follow through due to lack of funds. Additional dollars are very much warranted to continue day to day project operations in this very important watershed.