Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Icicle/Wenatchee Habitat Acquisition |
| Proposal ID | 29053 |
| Organization | Chelan-Douglas Land Trust (CDLT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Gordon Congdon |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 4461 Wenatchee, WA 98807 |
| Phone / email | 5096679708 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gordon Congdon, Executive Director |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Wenatchee |
| Short description | Acquire and protect a critical 50-acre area of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat at the confluence of the Icicle and Wenatchee Rivers. |
| Target species | spring chinook (Upper Columbia ESU, endangered), summer chinook, steelhead (Upper Columbia ESU, endangered) coho, bull trout (Upper Columbia Distinct Population Segment, threatened), sockeye salmon, and cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 47.5803 |
-120.6661 |
Confluence of the Wenatchee and Icicle Rivers, near the town of Leavenworth. This is about 25 miles from where the Wenatchee River enters the Columbia. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 150 |
NMFS |
In subbasins with listed salmon and steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at risk of being degraded, in accordance with criteria and priorities BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 2001 |
CDLT acquired nearly 3 miles of salmonid habitat on the Entiat River |
| 2001 |
CDLT is coordinating and collaborating with the U.S. Forest Service, WDFW, and Chelan County to protect habitat on the White River, the Wenatchee River, and the Entiat River. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Chelan County HCP |
Protects key habitat |
|
Rock Island and Rocky Reach HCP |
Protects key habitat |
|
Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Study Project |
Protects key habitat |
|
Icicle Creek Restoration Project |
Protects key habitat |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Identify highly functioning spawning and rearing habitat |
a. Identify and prioritize threatened habitat |
Done |
$0 |
|
| 1. |
b. Appraise property |
Underway |
$0 |
|
| 1. |
c. Obtain Title Report |
1 |
$0 |
|
| 1. |
d. Survey property |
1 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 1. |
e. Develop sale agreement |
1 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
|
2003 |
2003 |
$0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Acquire highly functioning spawning and rearing habitat |
a. Acquire property |
1 |
$250,000 |
|
|
b. Closing costs |
1 |
$0 |
|
|
c. Taxes |
1 |
$0 |
|
|
d. Personnel costs |
1 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Perform assessment of the property to determine baseline conditions of existing stream channel, bank conditions, and wildlife habitat. |
2004 |
2004 |
$50,000 |
| 2. Improve off-channel rearing habitat. |
2004 |
2006 |
$45,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $65,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Develop a management and stewardship plan for the property |
a. Collaborate with agencies, neighbors, and other groups to develop a management plan that addresses ecological, sociological, and recreational needs |
2 |
$5,000 |
|
| 2. Develop a vegetation management plan |
a. Collaborate with agencies, other groups, and neighbors to develop plan |
2 |
$2,500 |
Yes |
| 3. Implement vegetation management plan |
a. Allow passive revegetation to occur |
3 |
$0 |
|
| 3. |
b. Re-establish native riparian vegetation |
3 |
$0 |
|
| 3. |
c. Control noxious weeds and invasives |
3 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Develop property management plan |
2003 |
2004 |
$2,000 |
| 2. Develop vegetation management plan |
2004 |
2006 |
$1,000 |
| 3. Implement vegetation management plan |
2004 |
2006 |
$12,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $7,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Monitor the use of the property by spawning and rearing salmonids |
a. Work with the Regional Technical Team to develop a monitoring plan consistent with regional protocols |
3 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 2. Monitor stream channel conditions |
a. Refer to channel migration study conducted by Chelan County |
3 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 3. Monitor the growth of riparian vegetation and production of LWD. |
a. Use protocols established by RTT |
3 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Monitor the use of the property by spawning and rearing salmonids |
2004 |
2007 |
$9,000 |
| 2. Monitor stream channel conditions |
2004 |
2007 |
$6,000 |
| 3. Monitor the growth of riparian vegetation and production of LWD |
2004 |
2007 |
$6,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $7,000 | $7,000 | $7,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE 1/6 |
$5,000 |
| Fringe |
Payroll taxes |
$0 |
| Travel |
1000 mi at .345/mi |
$0 |
| Indirect |
Administrative, legal |
$0 |
| Capital |
Land acquisition (estimated price, appraisal not yet complete) |
$250,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Vegetation restoration planning |
$2,500 |
| Subcontractor |
Surveyor |
$0 |
| Other |
Miscellaneous |
$0 |
| $257,500 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $257,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $257,500 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Salmon Recovery Funding Board |
Cash |
$1,337,800 |
cash |
| Icicle Canyon Coaliton |
Maintenance and monitoring |
$0 |
in-kind |
| Trout Unlimited |
Maintenance and monitoring |
$0 |
in-kind |
| Icicle Fund |
Acquisition and Restoration |
$0 |
cash |
| U.S. Forest Service (Possible Wyden Amendment Funds) |
Restoration |
$0 |
cash |
| U.S.F.W.S. possible source of wetland mitigation funds |
Acquisition and Restoration |
$0 |
cash |
| Chelan and Douglas PUDs Tributary Fund |
Maintenance and Restoration |
$0 |
cash |
| WDFW |
Habitat improvement, monitoring |
$0 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Fundable if an adequate response is provided. The two page objectives, tasks and methods section is too brief for scientific review. Supporting documentation and detailed methods should be given for each of the tasks. In particular a detailed monitoring and evaluation section should be given with reference to actual methods to be used to select study sites and collect data. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. Perhaps the consultants and cooperators can provide this information. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
This property seems to include important complex channel-off-channel, wetland, etc. habitat. The side channel adjacent to the property is apparently connected to the main channel during high spring flows. The proponents should further discuss the possibility of reconnecting this side channel for year round flow. The adjacent WDFW land and the Audubon center make it particularly appealing, however the proponents should clarify how much of the property (say, in feet) is adjacent to the Icicle and Wenatchee Rivers. In comparison, how much of the WDFW adjacent 22-acre site is adjacent to the Icicle and Wenatchee Rivers. A map of the area would be helpful.
There is an abundance of important species to protect. It is especially valuable to have been supplied the numbers of redds for various species in the WDFW index site. The Icicle is a key watershed designated by the Forest Service. The organization seems to be quite reputable with in-kind cost shares.
The proponents need to work with the game division of the WDFW to include a HEP analysis for value to wildlife, and identification of mitigation credit to BPA for loss of wildlife habitat. See the other proposals for examples of computing the amount of credit for wildlife in land acquisition or protection projects.
Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
Appraisal price will likely be less than budget amount. Encourage cost share. Potential lost opportunity. The review group would like to see alternative strategies for acquiring this property (cost share, riparian parcels only, conservation easements). This project received $1,337,800 from the WA SRFB for 2003. The budget has been adjusted by the project sponsor to reflect this. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Fundable for establishment of options to purchase the property at high priority. There is an abundance of important species to protect. This property seems to include important complex channel-off-channel, wetland, etc. habitat. The side channel adjacent to the property is apparently connected to the main channel during high spring flows. It is especially valuable to have been supplied the numbers of redds for various species in the WDFW index site. The Icicle is a key watershed designated by the Forest Service. The organization seems to be quite reputable with in-kind cost shares.
The ISRP appreciated the careful response to most of our questions and concerns; however, the response did not reference or provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of results of the project including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of purchase. The proponents propose that monitoring and evaluation will be conducted by other agencies including the Chelan County PUD (annual redd counts for spring and summer Chinook), the WDFW (counts steelhead redds), the USFWS (monitors use of the site by bull trout), and the Yakama Nation (counts coho redds in the lower Icicle). Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before purchase of the property. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary ISRP review criteria is that we review and recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results."
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Protect high quality riparian/shoreline area along lower Icicle Creek and the Wenatchee River.Comments
It is not clear that the portions of the property that provide fish habitat are vulnerable to development. While the property supports an array of ecologically important and robust habitats, it appears that much of it would be unsuitable for development. Would it be possible to purchase conservation easements for the sensitive portions of the parcel?
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning. This kind of activity could support RPA 150.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: