< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200708600 - UPA Wenatchee Subbasin Riparian Enhancement Proposal

Sponsor: Chelan County Natural Resources Department

Budgets: FY07: $99,898 | FY08: $96,648 | FY09: $96,646

Short description: The Wenatchee Riparian proposal will involve planting native vegetation and fencing to establish a properly functioning riparian buffer in the Wenatchee Assessment Units. This project will benefit Upper Columbia steelhead, spring Chinook and bull trout.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $100,000 | FY08: $100,000 | FY09: $100,000

Comment: ISRP fundable qualified:sponsors should address the ISRP comment about riparian planting during contracting.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part


This project will construct up to 1,000 feet of livestock exclusion fence and plant up to 2.14 acres of native riparian vegetation in the Wenatchee subbasin. Two sites have been selected: a farm on the lower reaches of Icicle Creek, and the Wenatchee River at the Leavenworth golf course. Other potential sites are identified, but landowner agreements have not yet been finalized. The technical background describes the need to restore damaged streambanks and riparian zones in the subbasin. It is not clear whether the sites selected represent high priority areas based on an analysis of riparian condition, or were selected because the landowner was willing to cooperate with a restoration project. A general list of species that might occur at the sites is given, but no site-specific fish data were presented nor were there any statements of what life history stages would benefit from riparian fencing and planting at the areas in question, or how long it might take to realize the benefits of the riparian plantings. The fencing objective is well grounded in concept and is not very expensive. The riparian restoration part of the proposal was not adequately justified at the sites in question; specific benefits to fish populations in those areas were not described. The option of passive restoration – allowing riparian vegetation to re-grow naturally – was not considered as a lower cost option. Actively managing the riparian plant communities through planting, watering, and weeding is expensive and time-consuming, and this activity commands a major part of the budget proposal. It might be possible to achieve similar benefits without much of the expense by allowing for natural vegetation recovery. At the very least, it ought to be possible to actively manage part of the area and allow the other part to recover naturally - this would create an interesting management experiment. The ISRP believes funding to complete the landowner agreements is warranted, and further funding can be justified for planning the projects once agreements are finalized. The sponsors note that additional projects will be pursued in the future using a proposal for each project.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Washington

Review group: Washington list

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: See Washington guidance