National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

Land Protection Plan

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

July 2012
Weaver Point across Lake Chelan in Stehekin, Washington. Photo courtesy of volunteer photographer John Chao.
Cover: Early Morning on Lake Chelan. Photo courtesy of 

volunteer photographer John Chao.

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

Land Protection Plan

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

810 State Route 20

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

(360) 854-7200

Superintendent: Palmer (Chip) Jenkins
Stehekin Landing at Sunrise.
Summary | i

Summary

All National Park Service (NPS) units that contain private or 

other nonfederal land or interest in land within their authorized 

boundaries are required by policy to complete a Land Protection 

Plan in order to achieve management purposes consistent with 

public objectives of the unit. 

This plan revises the 1995 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

(LACH) Land Protection Plan, largely in response to the changing Stehekin River flood conditions within the Stehekin Valley 

since that time. Consistent with guidelines, this plan sets priorities 

for lands that may be suitable for the NPS to acquire an interest 

in to protect key features of importance to LACH, based on an 

objective set of eight criteria established through this plan revision. Although all criteria reflect resource concerns, of primary 

concern are those tracts that lie within the Stehekin River channel migration zone (CMZ), with a particular focus on sediment 

deposition zones within the CMZ. The CMZ is the channel of 

land through which the Stehekin River has migrated over the last 

1,000 years. 

This plan does not constitute an offer to buy or exchange property; all land acquisitions and exchanges with the NPS are handled 

individually, on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and are dependent upon Congressional allocations of funding.

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area:

1. Current ownership (acres):

Landowner Acres

Federal 59,337.01

State 1,994.43

Chelan County Public Utility District #1 198.94

Stehekin School District 3.20

Private 416.80*

* As of fall 2011 there are 416.80 acres in private ownership. Of those acres, 21.38 acres are under scenic easement 

or other deed restrictions with the NPS. An additional 3.40 

acres of Port of Chelan County and Stehekin School District 

lands are under easement as well.

2. Number of private tracts remaining: 168

3. Acquisition of interest priority (based on the criteria and 

scoring found in Appendix D):

Priority Tracts Acres

High 31 189.62

Medium 72 148.84

Low 65 78.34

4. Other actions:

Areas Tracts Acres

Federal land available for exchange 8 29.41

5. High priority: Properties that lie within sediment deposition 

zones within the Stehekin River CMZ and/or have other 

resource concerns that cumulatively elevate the need to 

protect the properties for resource protection are most 

likely to be suitable for exchange, acquisition, easements or 

other interest by the NPS. The full list of resource values 

considered for each parcel includes the relationship of each 

parcel to the Stehekin River CMZ, alluvial fan migration 

zone, or debris cones; location within a sediment deposition 

zone of the Stehekin River CMZ; wetlands; habitat for rare/

protected species; large undeveloped parcels; presence of a 

structure; visual sensitivity along the lakeshore; and cultural 

resources.
Stehekin Valley. Photo courtesy of O’Casey.
Table of Contents | iii

Table of Contents

Summary..........................................................................i

Chapter 1. Introduction.................................................2

1.1 Purpose of the Plan............................................................... 2

1.2 Disclaimer.............................................................................. 3

1.3 Management Goals ............................................................. 3

1.4 Management Objectives....................................................... 4

Chapter 2. Purpose of the Recreation Area and ..........

Resources to be Protected.............................................6

2.1 Purpose and Significance ...................................................... 6

2.2 History, Development, and Use ............................................. 7

2.3 Laws, Regulations, and Policies...........................................10

Chapter 3. Nonfederal Ownership and Uses ............12

3.1 History and Current Status of Land Protection Actions .......12

3.2 Characteristics of Non-federal Landowners.........................14

3.3 Compatible and Incompatible Uses.....................................16

3.4 Compatibility Criteria ..........................................................18

3.4.1 General Criteria.......................................................18

3.4.2 Request for Determination of Compatibility............18

3.4.3 Incompatible Uses of All Property within Lake 

Chelan NRA...........................................................20

3.4.4 Incompatible Uses of Public Property Within Lake 

Chelan NRA...........................................................20

Chapter 4. Techniques for Protecting Resource Values 

on At Risk Land ............................................................22

4.1 Agreements ........................................................................22

4.1.1 Application..............................................................22

4.1.2 Effectiveness............................................................22

4.2 Zoning and Public Review ...................................................22

4.2.1 Application..............................................................22

4.2.2 Effectiveness............................................................23

4.2.3 Overlay District ........................................................23

4.3 Regulations.........................................................................24

4.3.1 Application..............................................................24

4.3.2 Effectiveness............................................................24

4.4 Acquisition..........................................................................25

4.4.1 Fee ..........................................................................25

4.4.2 Easements...............................................................25

4.5 How NPS Can Secure Interest in a Property .......................26

4.5.1 Donation.................................................................26

4.5.2 Exchange.................................................................26

4.5.3 Purchase..................................................................27

4.5.4 Purchase and Sellback .............................................27

4.5.5 Reservation of Life or Term Estates..........................27

4.5.6 Condemnation........................................................27

Chapter 5. Recommendations ...................................30

5.1 Guidelines.........................................................................30

5.2 Process For Establishing Priority Interests in Parcels...............31

5.3 Land Protection Priorities.....................................................48

5.4 Land Available to Exchange ................................................56

5.4.1 Criteria for Decision-Making Between Multiple 

Interests in New Land Exchanges...........................57

Appendices and List of Preparers...............................64

Appendix A: Status of Land Protection Program .............. 64

Appendix B: Nonfederal Land Acquired in Fee as of 2011; Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area.......................................65

Appendix C: Stehekin Overlay District........................................66

Appendix D: Resource Analyses for All Criteria for Private 

Property in Stehekin...........................................................69

Appendix E: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Enabling 

Legislation (Public Law 90-544) .........................................76

List of Preparers..........................................................................80
iv | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Tables

Table 1: Stehekin population and tract information ..................... 8

Table 2: Current Non-federal Ownership in Lake Chelan NRA ..14

Table 3: Distribution of Total Private Acreage in Stehekin (2011) 14

Table 4: Parcel Evaluation Criteria...............................................35

Table 5: Overall Tract Priority.......................................................48

Table 6: Scenic easement interest priority based solely on visual 

sensitivity ...........................................................................48

Table 7: Priorities for Land Protection interests for each Tract.....50

Table 8: NPS Lands Available for Exchange.................................57

Table B-1: Nonfederal Land Acquired in Fee in Lake Chelan 

National Recreation Area (1968-2011) ..............................65

Table D-1: Points Assigned to Private Property in Stehekin Based 

on Resource Analysis.........................................................69

Figures

Figure 1: Private Land in Lake Chelan NRA, by acreage (1969-

2011).................................................................................15

Figure 2: NPS Land Acquisitions in Lake Chelan NRA.................15

Figure 3. Private Land Ownership in the Lower Stehekin Valley 17

Figure 4: General NPS Approach to Responding to Requests from 

Property Owners Interested in Selling or Exchanging Land 28

Figure 5: Channel Migration Zone vs. Floodplain in the Lower 

Stehekin Valley ..................................................................32

Figure 6: Net Gravel Deposition and Transport Zones................36

Figure 7: Channel Migration Zone - River Miles 8-9 ..................37

Figure 8: Channel Migration Zone - River Mile 6........................38

Figure 9: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mile 5........................................................................39

Figure 10: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mile 4........................................................................39

Figure 11: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Miles 2-3...................................................................40

Figure 12: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mile 2........................................................................40

Figure 13: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mouth.......................................................................41

Figure 14: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Miles 8-9 ....42

Figure 15: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Mile 5..........43

Figure 16: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Miles 2-3 .....43

Figure 17: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Mouth ........44

Figure 18: McGregor Meadows Urgency Zones........................45

Figure 19: Debris Cone Hazards - Purple and Imus Creeks........46

Figure 20: Debris Cone Hazards - Hazard Creek.........................46

Figure 21: Debris Cone Hazards - Fourmile Creek ......................47

Figure 22: Debris Cone Hazards - Flick Creek.............................47

Figure 23: Number of Parcels by Priority....................................49

Figure 24: Exchange Land Availability........................................58

Figure 25: Possible Exchange Lands, Stehekin Valley Ranch and 

Airstrip Areas.....................................................................59

Figure 26: Possible Exchange Lands, Rainbow Falls and Stehekin 

School Areas......................................................................60

Figure 27: Possible Exchange Lands, Boulder Creek Area..........61
1

Introduction

Chapter
2 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Plan

This Land Protection Plan (LPP) is a revision of the 1995 Lake 

Chelan NRA (LACH) Land Protection Plan in response to changes that have occurred to the Stehekin River since 1995. Research 

on and documentation of impacts associated with flooding along 

the Stehekin River has led to a greater understanding of the everchanging Stehekin River. The primary issue that this revised LPP 

addresses is the threat posed by erosion of cabins, septic systems, 

and other infrastructure, and their incorporation into the river. 

This LPP is based on the understanding that both private property and NRA values such as aesthetics and water quality may be 

compromised by impacts from future floods.

Impacts associated with this plan revision are analyzed as part 

of the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan (SRCIP) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Both the SRCIP and the 

revised Land Protection Plan implement the goals and objectives of the 1995 General Management Plan by incorporating 

new information and by using that information to respond with 

appropriate management actions to changing conditions within 

the lower Stehekin Valley. NPS Management Policies (2006) also 

directs that Land Protection Plans be periodically updated. 

The guiding principle behind a Land Protection Plan is to ensure 

the protection of the applicable unit of the national park system 

consistent with its enabling legislation and the stated purposes 

for which the unit was created and is administered. Land Protection Plans are also guided by NPS Management Policies, applicable laws and regulations, and park general management plans. 

According to NPS policy, Land Protection Plans are prepared to 

determine:

1. What lands or interests in land would advance park purposes 

through public ownership;

2. What means of protection are available and appropriate to 

achieve park purposes as established by Congress;

3. The protection methods and funds that will be sought or 

applied to protect resources and to provide for visitor use and 

park facility development; and

4. Acquisition priorities within the park unit.

This plan revises the 1995 LACH Land Protection Plan primarily by developing new criteria to respond to threats to resources 

caused by unsustainable development on private property. This 

revision takes advantage of new or updated information on natural and cultural resources identified through ongoing research 

and monitoring programs. Based on this research, the Stehekin 

River has changed from a spring-dominated flooding regime to 

a fall-dominated flooding regime. This change has resulted in 

larger and more frequent floods within the lower Stehekin Valley, 

which have caused considerable damage to public and private development. This Land Protection Plan would protect the purposes of the public lands within LACH primarily by identifying the 

properties most at risk from severe or long-term flooding before 

they affect the Stehekin River and other park resources. This plan 

also identifies NPS land available for exchange to facilitate the 

removal of development from the Stehekin River floodplain. This 

plan identifies the relative priority of interest the NPS has in each 

parcel in the Stehekin Valley. 

Land Protection Plans are periodically revised to reflect changed 

conditions in the ability to protect national park system units. 

Similarly, this plan will be revised as river, upland, or other resource conditions or management objectives change. It is anticipated this plan will guide park management for 5-15 years.

Photo on Chapter Cover: Stehekin Marina at Dawn.
Chapter 1: Introduction | 3

1.2 Disclaimer

Nothing in this Land Protection Plan constitutes an offer to purchase private property, a taking of private property, or a usurpation of the responsibility of the state of Washington and Chelan 

County to regulate the use of private land within the Stehekin 

Valley. This plan is intended to guide subsequent land protection 

activities subject to the availability of funds and other concerns 

for resource impacts or administrative requirements. All land 

management actions outlined in this plan are based on a willing seller/willing buyer agreement. The NPS does not purchase 

property on the open market (e.g. from real estate agents); rather, 

the NPS only purchases land from property owners who approach the NPS for the sale or exchange of their property.

1.3 Management Goals 

This plan is consistent with the Lake Chelan NRA General Management Plan and Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 

goals, which are to:

•	 Sustainably operate and maintain NPS administrative 

facilities, public access (via roads, including motor vehicle 

access to High Bridge, and trails), and campgrounds;

•	 Protect water quality, scenic values, habitat, and natural 

processes of the Stehekin River; and

•	 Partner with the Stehekin Community to provide services, 

facilities, and experiences for visitors. 

Coon Lake.
4 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Additional goals of this Land Protection Plan are to:

•	 Identify private developments most threatened by new 

floodplain conditions;

•	 Prevent structures and septic systems from entering the river;

•	 Create new opportunities for land exchanges in sustainable 

areas outside the channel migration zone;

•	 Preclude the installation of more bank hardening and river 

manipulation; and

•	 Identify the relative priority in each parcel to guide NPS 

decisions if approached by a private property owner seeking 

to exchange or sell their property.

 This plan is consistent with implementing the direction provided 

in the 1995 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area General Management Plan.

1.4 Management Objectives

The following specific management objectives are designed to 

help this plan meet the goals identified above:

•	 Protect Lake Chelan NRA from land uses and development 

that is incompatible with the purposes of the recreation area.

•	 Cooperate with Chelan County to facilitate implementation 

of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Shoreline 

Management Act, and other laws and regulations applicable 

to private property.

•	 Provide Chelan County additional means for the public, 

including Stehekin residents, to participate in land use 

decisions regarding the regulation of private lands in 

Stehekin.

This Land Protection Plan will enable the NPS to: 

•	 Effectively respond to private property owners who 

willingly and voluntarily approach the NPS with the goal of 

exchanging or selling their land or interest in lands. 

•	 Provide a basis for meaningful and constructive NPS review 

of proposals for land use change on private land within the 

Stehekin Valley to ensure that new or modified land use and 

development is compatible with the purposes of Lake Chelan 

NRA and/or consistent with sustainable practices within the 

Stehekin River channel migration zone.

•	 Fulfill federal policy requirements to have a plan that makes 

use of the full range of land protection authorities to augment 

the land protection measures provided by Chelan County and 

Washington State land use laws, regulations, and policies.

•	 Use land protection strategies such as easement, exchange, 

or acquisition to relocate or remove threatened development 

from the Stehekin River channel migration zone and/or 

encourage residents to implement advanced protection 

measures and ensure that structures and developments 

within the valley are sustainable.

The guidelines the NPS will follow to meet these objectives are 

described in Chapter 5.

This Land Protection Plan further defines specific land protection strategies that are to be employed relative to private property 

within the Stehekin Valley. It also provides a tract by tract listing of all private properties in the Stehekin Valley and the NPS 

relative priority identified for in those parcels, if approached by 

a property owner who wished to sell or exchange their property. 

While this listing is required to encompass all the privately owned 

lands in a national park unit, it does not convey NPS intent to 

purchase these lands. It is not the goal of the NPS to acquire all 

of the private land within Lake Chelan NRA.
Chapter2

Purpose of the Recreation Area and 

Resources to be Protected
6 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Chapter 2. Purpose of the Recreation Area and Resources to be Protected

2.1 Purpose and Significance

(Note: See the Draft or Final Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement or the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for a complete discussion of the purpose 

and significance and affected environment of LACH.)

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area was established by Public 

Law 90-544 on October 2, 1968, “to provide for the public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of portions of the Stehekin 

River and Lake Chelan, together with the surrounding lands, and 

for the conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic and other 

values contributing to the public enjoyment of such lands and 

waters.” 

According to Senate Report (S.R.) 700 (October 31, 1967), the 

Stehekin Valley, in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, is 

“one of the finest examples of glacier carved canyons in the Cascades.” This area and additional land surrounding Lake Chelan 

was originally proposed for national park status in 1906. S.R. 700, 

however, recommended that the Stehekin Valley and surrounding 

land be designated as a national recreation area rather than included in the national park. This recommendation was primarily 

due to private ownership and development in the Stehekin Valley 

and traditional use of the surrounding land. S.R. 700 specifically 

states:

Designate the lower Stehekin River Valley and upper Lake 

Chelan areas the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area instead of a part of the national park: Many of the year long 

residents of the Stehekin Valley are descendants of the original homesteaders. Some 1,700 acres, mostly on the valley 

floor, are in private ownership, and in the past several decades a number of summer homes have been built. The only 

access to the community is by foot, horseback, boat, or plane, 

even though there is in existence a road of some 25 miles extending from the village up the valley. The lake, likened by 

most to the spectacular fjords of Norway, will serve as the 

primary access for park and recreation area visitors approaching from the southeast. The village and lower valley, 

therefore, will have considerable use, and development to 

accommodate these visitors will be necessary. The Stehekin 

Valley, the Rainbow Creek Valley, and Rainbow Ridge traditionally have been used by high country big game hunters.

The major feature in Lake Chelan NRA is the Stehekin River, 

a glacier-fed stream that begins at the crest of Cascade Pass (in 

North Cascades National Park) and ends at the mouth of the 

Stehekin River where the river flows into Lake Chelan. Lake 

Chelan is 55 miles long, 1,450 feet deep, and was raised 21 feet by 

a hydroelectric power and flood-control dam. Approximately the 

upper five miles of Lake Chelan and the lower nine miles of the 

Stehekin Valley are included in Lake Chelan NRA. 

As part of an earlier overall park planning process that created 

the Foundation Statement for the North Cascades National Park 

Service Complex (NPS 2011), the following “significance” statements apply specifically to Lake Chelan NRA:

•	 “Set in a glacier-carved trough nestled between steep valley 

walls, Lake Chelan is the nation’s third deepest lake. Fed 

by glacial melt and the Stehekin River, it is known for its 

exceptionally cold and clear water.”

•	 “Lake Chelan NRA provides a spectrum of recreational 

opportunities that transition from highly mechanized to 

primitive as one moves from the lake, up the Stehekin Valley, 

and into the wilderness.”

•	 “Within Lake Chelan NRA, Stehekin is a private community 

that provides visitors with an opportunity to see and 

Photo on Chapter Cover: McGregor Mountain.
Chapter 2: Purpose of the Recreation Area and Resources to be Protected | 7

experience life in a remote setting that is not accessible by 

roads and is surrounded by wilderness.”

2.2 History, Development, and Use

The Stehekin Valley shows clear evidence of use by Native 

American populations for at least 9,600 years, a longer time span 

than has been documented for any other Cascade Range watershed. The chronology of pre-contact indigenous use is based 

on twenty-four radiocarbon dates from excavations conducted 

throughout the watershed by NPS archeologists. Coinciding with 

the establishment of the first post-glacial forests, ca. 11,000 years 

ago, founding populations used the valley to procure stone for 

tools and as a trans-Cascade travel route connecting eastern and 

western Washington.

For most of this long time span, the Stehekin watershed served 

as a resource gathering area for bands that resided in settlements 

located along the lower end of Lake Chelan. Currently, 49 (37 

pre-contact period; 12 historic period) archeological sites are 

documented from the head of Lake Chelan to the headwaters on 

the Cascade Range crest. There is no evidence for permanent 

occupation of the valley; rather, the evidence suggests intensive 

foraging for local subsistence resources, including ungulates, 

plants, and tool stone. Documented archeological resource types 

include short-term travel camps, stone quarries, hunting blinds, 

storage and cooking features, and rock art. For diverse bands 

settled in lowlands on both sides of the range, the valley offered 

one of the most popular travel routes connecting the northern 

Puget Lowlands with the upper Columbia River. Usage of the valley increased through time until indigenous populations crashed, 

an event triggered by Old World diseases introduced in the early 

contact-period by migrating Old World populations. At historic 

contact, ca. A.D. 1814, the Stehekin Valley was the traditional territory of Salish-speaking Chelan Indian bands, and today, some 

members of the Colville Confederated Tribes trace ancestry to 

these bands.

Despite the formidable mountains, settlers moved into the area 

not long after the earliest explorers and miners. The first settlers, 

View from Coon Lake Overlook. Photo courtesy of Slotznick.
8 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

usually prospectors or people supplying the miners, moved into 

the Stehekin Valley in the late 1880s. A number of structures were 

built in the valley, the most substantial being the Fields Hotel. 

Originally constructed in 1900, the hotel was enlarged in 1910 

and eventually could accommodate 100 guests. The hotel was 

torn down in the late 1920s when a dam across the outlet of Lake 

Chelan raised the lake level and flooded the site.

Soon after the arrival of the first settlers, enough children were 

living in Stehekin to hold school. For many years the community 

had no school house and lessons were taught in various homes 

and cabins. In 1921, citizens of the valley and the US Forest 

Service combined efforts to construct a school building near 

Rainbow Falls. This school was listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places in 1974. Due to a growing population of school 

age children in the valley, the NPS provided 3.2 acres of public 

land 1⁄4 mile downvalley of the historic school to the Stehekin 

School District in 1987, and a new school was constructed on this 

property and opened for use in 1988.

One of the more significant homesteads in the valley is the Buckner farm established in 1899. The original cabin, built in 1910, 

is now designated as a locally significant historic structure on 

the National Register of Historic Places. Further up valley, the 

Courtney cabin, possibly built in the late 1800s, is also listed on 

the National Register for its local significance.

Most of the land comprising Lake Chelan NRA has been in the 

public domain since 1846 when the United States established 

title to the Oregon Territory. In 1897 the northern portion of the 

Cascade Mountains was designated as the Washington Forest 

Reserve, which eventually led to the establishment of the national 

forests. On October 2, 1968, PL 90-544 was signed, creating Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area, North Cascades National Park, 

and Ross Lake National Recreation Area. This legislation also 

transferred jurisdiction of the areas from the US Forest Service 

to the National Park Service. The 1964 Wilderness Act and the 

Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 created a mostly contiguous area of designated wilderness surrounding Stehekin.

Table 1 shows residency and tract information since establishment of the NRA in 1968. According to the US Census Bureau’s 

2010 decennial census, 104 people reside in Stehekin year-round. 

Table 1: Stehekin population and tract information

Year Number 

(acreage) 

of private 

parcels

Number of 

structures

Year-round 

residents

1968 174 (1,620) 125 49-50

2010 168 (417) 330 104

There are approximately 417 acres in 168 tracts of private land 

in Lake Chelan NRA. Most private land acreage is uplake/upvalley of the Stehekin Landing (155 tracts incorporating 334 acres), 

while 13 tracts incorporating 83 acres are either at the Landing or 

downlake along the north shore of Lake Chelan. In addition to 

the 417 acres of land in private ownership, there are 2,196 acres 

of land in State and local government ownership. This includes 

the Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) #1 (199 acres), 

the Stehekin School District (3 acres), and the State of Washington (1,994 acres). The land owned by the PUD is principally 

located in the lakebed in or near the drawdown zone or along the 

lakeshore below the Stehekin Landing; the State of Washington 

land is the lake bottom of Lake Chelan within the NRA boundary; and the Stehekin School District land is the site of the current 

Stehekin school that provides classes for K-8th grade.

Although the search for mineral resources was a key factor in the 

early exploration and development of the North Cascades, today 

there is no exploration or mining activity in Lake Chelan NRA. 

The 1995 Land Protection Plan was used to exchange a parcel in 

the Stehekin Valley for the 20 acre Black Warrior Mine tract in the 

south unit of North Cascades National Park in 1998.

Chelan County PUD #1 constructed a hydroelectric plant on 

Company Creek in 1963 to supply electric power throughout the 

valley. The plant was upgraded in 1968. This hydroelectric system 

is supplemented by diesel generators during the winter when 

there is minimal flow in Company Creek.
Chapter 2: Purpose of the Recreation Area and Resources to be Protected | 9

NPS employee housing is located at various sites from the Stehekin Landing to the Company Creek Road. The location and type 

of new replacement housing was considered in the 1995 General 

Management Plan and is discussed further in the SRCIP. NPS 

housing in sensitive areas, i.e., along the lakeshore or in the channel migration zone, is proposed for removal or relocation.

Historically, development consisted of isolated home sites along 

the lower Stehekin River. Today, clusters of houses are primarily located in the vicinity of the head of the lake/bakery/Keller 

Park, along the Company Creek and Stehekin Valley roads, and at 

McGregor Meadows.

The community is characterized by low density development, but 

with clusters of development in a variety of settings. Several development clusters are located on higher ground, protected from 

most floods. However, the changing flood regime of the past 15 

years has now placed some clusters of development in locations, 

such as McGregor Meadows, that are at a higher risk of flooding and/or bank erosion. Development along the Stehekin Valley 

Road, the major visitor route, generally extends back from the 

road, away from areas seen by most visitors. Since the mid-1990s, 

however, there has been a general trend toward private development that is more visible along the Stehekin Valley Road. Development on the Company Creek Road, a route not usually traveled 

by visitors, is generally more oriented to the road, reflecting its 

primarily residential character. 

Visitor accommodations and services are provided by Stehekin 

residents in various locations in the valley. Accommodations are 

generally in more private areas, while some visitor services, such 

as the Stehekin Pastry Company, are on the Stehekin Valley Road.

Old Stehekin School House. Photo courtesy of Michael Silverman.
10 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Buildings are mostly modest structures of natural materials such 

as wood and stone. They have generally been sited to be unobtrusive to others and are often very private. Some have been sited to 

take advantage of beautiful views or are located along the river. 

Some development has not been sensitive to the character of the 

valley; however, there has been a recent trend toward stone-faced 

or log construction, which is consistent with more established 

building patterns. One-story buildings predominate, although 

more recent construction also includes two-story structures. 

The appearance of most of the valley is generally rustic and 

uncrowded. Clearing has occurred at several sites for agricultural uses and pasture, including major openings at the Stehekin 

Valley Ranch, the Lower Field, lower Company Creek Road, and 

Buckner Orchard and by the Stehekin Pastry Company (between 

the pastry company and an NPS housing unit, the Castle). Some 

recent residential development has included clearings, such as 

in the vicinity of the Stehekin Pastry Company and along the 

Stehekin Valley Road.

The Stehekin Community continues to rely on an economy that 

focuses on providing services to visitors. The historical background of the area and rural development pattern provides the 

setting for that focus.

2.3 Laws, Regulations, and Policies

With reference to land acquisition, Public Law 90-544, title III, 

sec. 301, states: 

Within the boundaries of . . . the recreation areas the Secretary of the Interior . . . may acquire lands, waters, and interests therein by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, except that he may not acquire 

any such interests within the recreation areas without the 

consent of the owner, so long as the lands are devoted to uses 

compatible with the purposes of this Act. Lands owned by the 

State of Washington or any political subdivision thereof may 

be acquired only by donation.

Federal regulations that are applicable to land use and development in Lake Chelan NRA include, but are not limited to, the 

following: Minerals Management (36 CFR 9), Rights-of-Way (36 

CFR 14), and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Federal activities must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 as amended.

Jurisdiction over the recreation area (proprietary) is shared 

between the United States, the State of Washington, and county 

governments. The State and Chelan County retain their general 

police power over the NRA. In addition, the state and the county 

sheriff departments are responsible for enforcement of their 

criminal laws throughout the recreation area. The United States 

through the Secretary of the Interior regulates the use of federal 

land and other activities on or connected with such lands and 

waters. The Secretary of the Interior, however, does not regulate 

the use of private lands within the area. State and local laws that 

apply to private property in the recreation area include, but are 

not limited to, the following: Washington State Hydraulic Code, 

Forest Practices Act, Shoreline Management Act, State Environmental Policy Act, and the Growth Management Act.

Under the Chelan County zoning regulations, most private land 

within the Stehekin Valley falls within a mix of “rural residential” 

zones ranging from one dwelling per 2.5 acres (RR2.5) up to one 

dwelling per 20 acres (RR20). In general, rural residential development within the Stehekin Valley exceeds the stated dwellings/acre definitions, largely due to that development pre-dating 

current zoning regulations. A property owner can also petition 

the county for a conditional use permit or variance for uses other 

than residential purposes. Such petitions are considered on a 

case-by-case basis. Consideration would involve public hearings 

before the Chelan County Hearing Examiner.
Chapter3 Nonfederal Ownership and Uses
12 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Chapter 3. Nonfederal Ownership and Uses

3.1 History and Current Status of Land 

Protection Actions

During Senate congressional hearings in 1967 to consider the creation of North Cascades National Park and Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area the NPS Director listed “high density subdivisions....[and] logging” as two primary concerns related to existing conditions and potential future development threats within 

the Stehekin Valley (US Senate hearings on S.1321, May 1967). A 

third concern, the potential for development of an outside road 

that would lead from the “North Cross State Highway” (State 

Route 20) into the Stehekin Valley, was noted in Senate Report 

700 (Senate Report 700, 1967). These concerns were identified 

prior to final establishment of the NRA because they were seen as 

the three greatest threats to the character of the Stehekin Valley. 

The 1968 legislation that established Lake Chelan NRA included 

a specific provision prohibiting the construction of a road between SR20 and Stehekin, which, along with the Wilderness Act 

of 1988 and the creation of the Stephen Mather Wilderness, 

effectively eliminated the threat of a connecting road into the valley (Sec. 402(e) of PL 90-544). Threat from commercial logging 

within the valley was largely eliminated when lands were transferred from the US Forest Service to the National Park Service. 

The NPS further addressed this threat by working with willing 

landowners to purchase several large forested tracts, including 

roughly 280 acres owned by the Chelan Box Company, within the 

valley in the first 20 years of Lake Chelan NRA’s existence. 

Unlike the potential road and logging threats which were eliminated early on in the existence of the Lake Chelan NRA, the third 

and final threat, the potential for negative impacts from large scale 

subdivision development, has been reduced over the last forty 

years through the purchase, from willing sellers, of relatively large 

tracts of private land in Stehekin.

Since 1988, when the first Land Protection Plan (LPP) was 

developed for Lake Chelan NRA, all NPS land exchanges and 

acquisitions have occurred under the guidance of an LPP. The 

initial 1988 LPP identified 437, of the then 502, acres of private 

land for protection through either fee simple acquisition or easements, with no interest identified for the remaining 65 acres of 

private land. This plan also identified approximately 93 acres of 

NPS land, which had been previously purchased from private 

landowners, for possible exchange. In the 1988 plan, the primary 

considerations for land protection included the protection of 

visual and environmental qualities, provision of visitor and administrative facilities (e.g., employee housing), visitor access, and 

the protection of wetland habitat areas. As a result, the NPS gave 

a higher priority to the possibility of securing interest, ownership 

or easements for properties on the shore of Lake Chelan, along 

the Stehekin Valley Road, and along the Stehekin River.

In 1989, the NPS was sued over the management of the Stehekin 

Valley, primarily due to concerns that the cumulative effects of 

major planning efforts and other activities (such as the management of firewood and the use of sand, rock, and gravel in the 

valley) had not been adequately analyzed and disclosed to the 

public as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. It 

had been the intent of the NPS to revise and update the 1988 

LPP in 1991, but resolution of the lawsuit led to the signing of a 

Consent Decree in 1991 that required the development of a new 

Land Protection Plan and several other implementation plans, 

as well as the Lake Chelan NRA General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. These new planning efforts led 

to the completion of the 1995 Land Protection Plan.

The 1995 LPP identified a set of resource-based criteria (wetlands, high flood influence, riparian, and high visual sensitivity 

areas), coupled with various potential land protection techniques, 

which established a tract by tract listing of the priority interest 

and proposed minimum protection technique for each tract in 

Photo on Chapter Cover: Buckner Orchard. Photo courtesy of Michael Silverman.
Chapter 3: Nonfederal Ownership and Uses | 13

the Stehekin Valley. The 1995 plan proposed a high priority interest in 372 acres of the approximately 459 remaining acres in the 

valley, a moderate priority interest in 21 acres, and a low priority 

interest in 42 acres. One tract, approximately 23 acres in size, was 

expected to be shortly removed from the NRA legislated boundaries and thus was given no priority. 

Under the guidance of its enabling legislation and the two subsequent Land Protection Plans, along with ongoing appropriations 

from Congress for the exchange and acquisition of land within 

the Stehekin Valley, the NPS has acquired approximately 1,202 

acres in fee since the establishment of the Lake Chelan NRA for 

the purposes of resource protection. Designated by Congress in 

1968, Lake Chelan NRA spanned an initial 58,133.9 acres that 

had previously been managed by the United States Forest Service 

(USFS). Within the first five years of its creation (1968-1973), 57 

unique private landowners sold just over 980 acres in 79 tracts to 

the NPS. Since that time, the NPS has completed an additional 20 

Buckner Orchard Harvest Fest, 2009. Photo courtesy of Herb Sargo.
14 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

fee simple land acquisitions, four scenic easement acquisitions, 

and three land exchanges with private landowners in the Stehekin 

Valley. In 1998, a 20-acre tract (Black Warrior Mine) within the 

south unit of North Cascades National Park was exchanged for 

a 5.60-acre tract adjacent to the Stehekin Valley Ranch. In 2004 

the NPS exchanged a 7.15-acre tract across from the Stehekin 

Pastry Company and out of the CMZ for a 5.00-acre tract within 

the floodplain near the river mouth. Most recently, in 2007, the 

NPS exchanged a tract in Olympic National Park for a 0.66 acre 

tract in Lake Chelan NRA. In addition to these exchanges and 

acquisitions, the NPS disposed of a 3.20 acre tract to the Stehekin 

School District in 1987 while maintaining scenic easements on 

the property.

Of these lands activities, all four easement acquisitions, all three 

land exchanges, and five of the fee simple acquisitions have occurred since the 1995 LPP was adopted. 

This pattern of land acquisition in Lake Chelan NRA follows the 

same general pattern observed at many other NPS units with private in-holdings. In the first few years after a unit is established, 

Congress provides funds to consolidate lands and to address 

primary issues. Within a few decades, land acquisitions decrease 

rapidly as issues or threats are resolved. This is particularly true 

in Lake Chelan NRA and is evident in Figures 1 and 2. As a result 

of past land acquisition, significant portions of the Stehekin 

Valley, particularly access along the Stehekin River, are now 

protected and accessible to the public as NPS lands. In addition, 

the rural, more natural, character of the Stehekin Valley has been 

preserved. It is not a goal of the NPS to acquire all of the private 

land within Lake Chelan NRA. The NPS anticipates that private 

property will continue to be held in the NRA in the future.

3.2 Characteristics of Non-federal 

Landowners

Currently there are 173 tracts of land, totaling 2,613 acres, in Lake 

Chelan NRA that are owned by non-federal entities (Table 2); of 

these, 168 tracts, totaling 416.80 acres, are privately owned.

Table 2: Current Non-federal Ownership in Lake Chelan NRA 

Ownership Tracts Acres

Private 168 416.80

Public Utility District 4 198.94

Stehekin School 1 3.2

State of Washington N/A 1,994.43

Total 173 2,613.37

As of 2009, these private tracts are owned by approximately 131 

individual private landowners, each holding, on average, 3.18 

acres of land and 1.28 tracts. Given there are more tracts than 

there are private landowners, approximately 26 landowners own 

more than one tract, with one landowner owning five tracts alone. 

Most landowners own only one tract of land. The largest acreage owned by any one landowner is 30.7 acres, and the smallest 

number of acres owned is 0.1 acres (Table 3). 

Table 3: Distribution of Total Private Acreage in Stehekin 

(2011)

Number of 

Acres Owned 

by Individual 

Landowner

Number of 

Landowners

Percentage of 

Acreage (%)

30+ Acres 1 7.4

20-39.99 Acres 4 24.8

10-19.99 Acres 5 16.0

5-9.99 Acres 10 17.2

1-4.99 Acres 41 26.1

< 1 Acre 70 8.5

TOTAL 131 100

According to Chelan County tax records, approximately 80 

percent of Stehekin landowners are seasonal, not year-round, 

residents of the valley. (These land owners use a non-Stehekin address for property tax purposes. Based on this criteria and available information from the County, the NPS could not determine 

the primary addresses of eight landowners in Stehekin.) These 
Chapter 3: Nonfederal Ownership and Uses | 15

Figure 1: Private Land in Lake Chelan NRA, by acreage (1969-2011)

0

5

10

15

20

25

196919711973197519791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005200720092011

Number of Tracts

Year

Scenic Easement Acquisition

Exchange

Fee Simple Acquisition

Figure 2: NPS Land Acquisitions in Lake Chelan NRA (1969-2011)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

Acres
16 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

123 landowners own about 73 percent of the privately owned 

acres in Stehekin (Figure 3). 

See the 1995 General Management Plan, pp. 243-257, and the 

Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement, Chapter III, section 14, for a discussion of the 

socioeconomic profile of the area.

3.3 Compatible and Incompatible Uses

In Public Law 90-544, which established Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area, title IV, sec. 402(a) states:

The Secretary shall administer the recreation areas in a 

manner which in his judgment will best provide for (1) public 

outdoor recreation benefits; (2) conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to public enjoyment; and (3) such management, utilization, and disposal of 

renewable natural resources and the continuation of such 

existing uses and developments as will promote or are compatible with, or do not significantly impair, public recreation 

and conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic, or other 

values contributing to public enjoyment.

Public Law 90-544 provided that the Secretary of the Interior may 

“acquire lands, waters and interests therein by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, except 

that he may not acquire any such interests within the recreation 

areas without the consent of the owner, so long as the lands are 

devoted to uses compatible with the purposes of this act.” Determining “uses compatible with the purposes of this act” has been a 

point of contention since the creation of the NRA. 

Through the 1995 General Management Plan and Land Protection Plan, the NPS adopted a revised approach (from the compatibility standards promulgated in 1988 and updated in 1992) to 

determine compatibility of proposed use and development for 

private and nonfederal lands within Lake Chelan NRA to ensure 

that uses of these lands would be compatible with the purposes 

for which the National Recreation Area was established. This 

was done to give certainty to private property owners that if they 

worked within these standards their use would be “compatible” 

with the values and resources of the NRA. Where proposed private or nonfederal uses are not adequately addressed by County 

and State land use authorities, the application of compatibility 

criteria is the basis for a case-specific compatibility analysis by the 

NPS. These compatibility criteria from the 1995 GMP and LPP 

are adopted in this plan with only minor changes. These minor 

changes are related to the use of the Stehekin River channel 

migration zone (instead of only the floodplain) and to updated 

County and State permitting processes. 

In accordance with the applicable provisions of PL 90-544, the 

compatibility criteria establish the basis for identifying which land 

uses within the Stehekin Valley are consistent with the protection 

of natural, recreational, scenic, scientific, and historic values of 

Lake Chelan NRA. They also identify land uses that are incompatible with recreation area purposes. This could result in NPS 

attempts to preclude the use through easements or acquisition, or, 

as a last resort, through eminent domain proceedings. 

The compatibility criteria are not intended to duplicate Chelan 

County zoning standards or other applicable land use practices 

that are the proper jurisdiction of local government. Instead, 

these NPS criteria are intended to guide both NPS management 

and Stehekin Valley residents in distinguishing which land uses 

and practices are in harmony with the purposes of Lake Chelan 

NRA, and which create conditions inconsistent with the NRA 

purposes. The criteria are resource-based and have been developed to ensure the long-term protection of the natural, recreational, scenic, scientific, and historic values of the area.

Compatibility criteria are developed to provide detailed guidance 

in how they are applied by the NPS:

•	 To identify uses that would harm, degrade, or adversely affect 

resources of Lake Chelan NRA.

•	 To identify proposed types and levels of land uses that would 

harm resources when cumulative effects are considered in the 

context of previously established uses.

•	 To encourage uses that would enhance resource values and 

the general rural character of the valley.
Chapter 3: Nonfederal Ownership and Uses | 17

Figure 3. Private Land Ownership in the Lower Stehekin Valley 
18 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

•	 To encourage conversion from a higher impact land use to a 

lower impact land use.

•	 To provide certainty to property owners about what is 

compatible and what is not compatible use.

3.4 Compatibility Criteria

3.4.1 General Criteria

The alteration, development, and use of all public and private 

properties within Lake Chelan NRA must comply with applicable 

federal laws, rules, and regulations, and must be compatible with 

the congressionally designated purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. 

The purpose of these criteria is to protect adjacent public land 

and the natural, cultural, and scenic resources of Lake Chelan 

NRA and to advise property owners and other interested parties 

as to the issues/areas of interest that the National Park Service will 

evaluate when asked to make a determination of compatibility.

3.4.2 Request for Determination of Compatibility

The legislation for Lake Chelan NRA does not grant the Secretary 

of the Interior zoning authority. It does, however, impose responsibility on the NPS to ensure that existing and proposed uses are 

compatible with the purposes for which the National Recreation 

Area was created. The current zoning ordinances of Chelan 

County substantially satisfy this intent of the Lake Chelan NRA 

legislation and therefore constitute the primary basis for implementing these compatibility criteria.

Landowners or other interested or affected parties can make a 

written request to the superintendent for a determination as to 

whether an existing or proposed use is in compliance with the 

compatibility criteria. Generally, the superintendent will find that 

existing and proposed land uses are compatible if such uses conform to applicable local, state, and federal laws and if they are not 

located within incompatible use areas, i.e., the CMZ, wetlands, 

and geological hazard zones.

Requests for a determination of compatibility must be made in 

writing to the superintendent and include the following information:

1. Description/location of the property and the applicable 

county or local zoning classification, e.g., rural residential or 

rural waterfront.

2. Existing use and/or development being proposed on the 

property.

3. Statement as to whether the county or local zoning for the 

property will allow for the proposed use or development 

without the need for a variance.

4. Statement as to how the use or proposed development will 

comply with the compatibility criteria, including all applicable 

federal, state, and local laws.

The superintendent will review the request and notify in writing, the landowner, authorized representative, or other affected 

party making a request within 45 days after receiving a request 

for determination whether the existing use or proposed development and use is in compliance with the compatibility criteria. The 

superintendent may need to extend the schedule for making a 

determination of compatibility by 30 days if additional information is needed.

The initial evaluation of proposed use and development of 

private property will include, but is not limited to, the following 

considerations:

•	 Proposed use – Is the proposed use or development 

for residential, industrial, or commercial purposes? If 

commercial, will the proposal contribute to visitor use and 

enjoyment of the area? Is the proposal for new construction 

or is it an addition to or change in use of an existing 

development? Is the proposal consistent with the General 

Management Plan, existing legislation, and other planning 

documents in effect for Lake Chelan National Recreation 

Area?
Chapter 3: Nonfederal Ownership and Uses | 19

•	 Location – Is the proposed activity or development adjacent 

to public land, the Stehekin River, the Stehekin Valley Road, 

historic structures or districts? Is it within the floodplain and/

or CMZ?

•	 Ground disturbance – Will excavation or fill be required? 

What is the source of fill material? Where will excavated 

material be deposited? Could the proposal contribute to 

erosion and/or siltation that would adversely impact adjacent 

public land, resources, or facilities, e.g., the Stehekin Valley 

Road, Stehekin River, Lake Chelan, etc.?

•	 Vegetation – Would the proposal involve removal of more 

than 75 percent of the vegetation from the tract resulting in 

adverse impact on aesthetics and adjacent resources?

•	 Access – Would access across public land be required? Can 

the existing transportation infrastructure safely accommodate 

the additional load?

•	 Power – Would the proposal require extension of electric 

transmissions lines across public land? Does the PUD have 

the capacity to accommodate the additional demand?

•	 Water – Is potable water currently available or is there 

sufficient room to develop a well on the private land?

•	 Waste – Is disposal of human waste practicable on the 

property with adequate separation and setbacks from wells, 

springs, surface water courses, and property lines? Is there 

likelihood of pollution of adjacent water courses or public 

land?

•	 Cultural resources – Will the proposal impact the historic 

scene or other cultural resources?

•	 Exotic species – Would the development introduce exotic 

species (plant or animal), disease, or pathogens into the 

area? Is the introduced species the host for disease of 

pathogens that could adversely affect the surrounding natural 

environment? 

This evaluation, and any additional considerations, will form the 

basis for responding to property owners, Chelan County, and 

other agencies or interested parties regarding proposals.

Buckner Orchard Harvest Fest, 2009. Photo courtesy of Herb Sargo.
20 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

In the event the superintendent determines an existing or proposed use or development is not in compliance or not compatible 

based on the supplied information and a field check by NPS staff, 

the superintendent will give the landowner written notice of the 

manner and nature of the incompatibility. To the extent practicable, the notice will include suggestions or alternatives for working 

with landowners to achieve compatibility.

3.4.3 Incompatible Uses of All Property within Lake 

Chelan NRA

The following uses of all public and private property within 

the Stehekin Valley are incompatible with the purposes of Lake 

Chelan NRA:

1. Any subdivision of land except as permitted through the 

Chelan County Subdivision Regulations and as consistent 

with Chelan County health standards and Washington 

Growth Management Act.

2. The siting or construction of any new building, including 

but not limited to, residential, commercial, and industrial 

buildings, in an identified:

•	 Area with rapidly eroding bank along the river (i.e., 

cutbanks on outside of bends on main channel and large 

side channels; 

•	 Wetland;

•	 Area that is in violation of the Shoreline Management Act;

•	 Highly unstable areas, e.g., active parts of debris cones, or 

slopes greater than 20 percent, where potential impacts 

cannot be confined to the affected private land parcel; and 

•	 Floodplain/CMZ if the building or septic system is not 

elevated or otherwise flood-protected (see Advanced 

Protection Measures for Stehekin, provided by the US 

Army Corps of Engineers, in Appendix 7 of the Stehekin 

River Corridor Implementation Plan). 

3. Any dredging, filling, or armoring of shoreline of Lake Chelan 

or the Stehekin River that is not in full compliance with the 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Hydraulic Code, 

and Shoreline Management Act permitting process and/or 

appropriate authorization from the State of Washington.

4. The cutting of timber for sale and transport outside the 

Stehekin Valley.

5. The cutting of timber in violation of Washington State 

Department of Natural Resource regulations.

6. The mining of sand, rock, or gravel for sale or transport 

outside the Stehekin Valley.

3.4.4 Incompatible Uses of Public Property Within Lake 

Chelan NRA

In addition to those uses of public and private property listed 

above, the following uses of all public property within the Lake 

Chelan NRA are incompatible with the purposes of the NRA. 

While these standards have not been applied to private lands 

within the Stehekin Valley, it is highly recommended they be 

adopted by Chelan County within the County zoning ordinances 

and the proposed Stehekin Valley Overlay Zone.

The NPS will not locate a major new building, without mitigation, 

in an indentified:

•	 River or major tributary Channel Migration Zone;

•	 Wetland, including soils not conducive to building 

foundations, leachfield percolation, or site drainage;

•	 Geological hazard area, such as a rockfall zone or a debris 

flow zone; 

•	 Area with an unstable slope (>20 percent gradient); and

•	 Area of high visual sensitivity, except where screening and 

landscaping can successfully mitigate.
Chapter4

Techniques for Protecting Resource Values 

on At Risk Land
22 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Chapter 4. Techniques for Protecting Resource Values on At Risk Land

The land protection methods discussed in this section have been 

considered for their applicability in protecting resource values on 

nonfederal land in Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

4.1 Agreements

Agreements are written descriptions of how two or more parties 

will take certain actions. For example, in 1998-99 the NPS and 

several landowners in the McGregor Meadows area completed 

a signed agreement that led to a cooperative effort to identify 

methods to reduce or minimize the effects of periodic flooding 

in McGregor Meadows. Follow-up actions eventually included 

the installation of grade control structures to prevent side channel 

formation within McGregor Meadows. In response to the 2006 

flood, the NPS and private landowners agreed to work together 

to build grade control structures on upper Company Creek road.

4.1.1 Application

Agreements can provide for access and exchange or transfer of 

services, funds, or benefits. The advantages of agreements include 

their flexibility, relatively low cost, and ability to establish cooperative management arrangements. Disadvantages of this tool 

include the ability of one party to terminate the agreement on 

short notice and the lack of permanent protection.

4.1.2 Effectiveness

Agreements are likely to be most effective for land owned by entities other than individuals. These include state or local governments, private nonprofit organizations, federal agencies, and 

corporations. Agreements are more likely to be workable with 

these groups than with individuals because organizations often 

have the necessary resources (staff, equipment, money) to make 

an agreement worth considering in the first place and to carry out 

the terms of the agreement over a long period of time. Under the 

Consolidated Natural Resource Act of 2008 (PL 110-229, Title 

III, Section 301), the NPS may enter into cooperative agreements 

with participating private landowners for the purpose of protecting natural resources through collaborative efforts. In recent 

years, the use of a similar authority that predated this Act (Wyden 

Amendment) allowed the NPS to expend resource protection 

funds to work on private land when both the private landowner 

and the NPS consented to the work. For example, these authorities are used for hazard fuel reduction around private property 

in Stehekin and non-native plant removal projects following the 

2006 Flick Creek fire.

Cooperative agreements are appropriate when both parties have 

similar or compatible management objectives. They can be used 

as interim protective measures when long-term goals cannot be 

immediately achieved. The expenditure of federal funds to provide permanent facilities is generally prohibited under short-term 

cooperative agreements.

4.2 Zoning and Public Review

Zoning is based on the power of state and local governments to 

protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating land use. 

Zoning can be used to accomplish a variety of land management 

goals — e.g., specify and locate minimum lot size, maintain ratio 

of housing units to acreage, and ensure consistency with the area 

carrying capacity related to the existing infrastructure.

4.2.1 Application

Within units of the national park system, local zoning regulations 

can be used to limit the density, type, location, and character of 

private development. Zoning should be considered as an appropriate protection method when:

Photo on Chapter Cover: Flooding at Mouth of Stehekin River.
Chapter 4: Techniques for Protecting Resource Values on At Risk Land | 23

•	 Local government has a zoning ordinance in place or 

appears to be willing to adopt one that is supportive of NPS 

objectives;

•	 There is evidence of state and local support for protection of 

area objectives;

•	 Some reasonable private use of land is consistent with 

purposes of the area; and

•	 Private land use should be controlled and managed rather 

than prohibited to meet area objectives.

4.2.2 Effectiveness

Local zoning can be highly effective as a long-term protection 

tool provided that the local governing body, in this case, Chelan 

County, appropriately and consistently enforces zoning regulations.

 Zoning is limited when local governing bodies routinely grant 

variances, fail to enforce regulations, and/or refer to the zoning 

ordinance as merely a guideline.

4.2.3 Overlay District

The 1995 Land Protection Plan proposed the establishment of a 

“Stehekin Overlay District” ordinance for consideration by Chelan County to adopt as part of their review of land use actions on 

private land within the Stehekin Valley. This proposal is similar in 

concept to county regulations governing land use in the Icicle Valley Overlay District area of Chelan County. The proposed overlay 

district would create a review board comprised of Stehekin 

private landowners and designated resource specialists to review 

all land use and development proposals within the district and to 

make recommendations to Chelan County regarding the appropriateness of each land use proposal. This district is proposed 

as a means of encouraging uses on public and private lands that 

could be developed and used compatibly with the purposes of the 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. The proposal that follows 

has not been adopted by Chelan County to date.

The State of Washington has a sophisticated framework of land 

use controls and planning, and the NPS, acting through the 

superintendent, strongly encourages use of local authorities and 

existing land controls for regulation of private land within Lake 

Chelan NRA. Therefore, the NPS has proposed that the county 

discuss, refine, and adopt a new zoning code chapter establishing 

an overlay district for review of proposed uses and developments 

on private lands within the Stehekin Valley. This would be in addition to enforcement of applicable State laws and local controls, 

including the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chelan 

County zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and shoreline 

management master program.

To be consistent with PL 90-544 and the purposes for which Lake 

Chelan NRA was established, the NPS proposes that the overlay 

district, modeled after the Icicle Valley Overlay District in Chelan 

County Zoning Code (Chelan County Code, chapter 11.39B), 

meets the following standards:

•	 Be applicable to all properties in Stehekin that are subject to 

county jurisdiction;

•	 Preserve the recreational, scenic, and historic values and rural 

character of the valley setting through review standards for 

frontage, setback, density, height, sustainable design, size, 

materials, nonconforming uses, and new subdivisions;

•	 Discourage variances or exceptions for any new use or 

additional development that does not meet established 

controls or overlay review standards or NPS compatibility 

criteria;

•	 Recognize formally the role of the superintendent of the 

North Cascades NPS Complex, or his/her designees, in 

participating in all proceedings before the county concerning 

land use or developments that may have an effect on NPS 

lands and resource values and/or the visitor experience 

within Lake Chelan NRA;

•	 Provide that the superintendent be given timely prior written 

notice of all proposed changes to any Chelan County plans, 

ordinances, or regulations affecting the Stehekin Valley, 

and of all applications for permits or approvals within the 

National Recreation Area or related areas of concern; and
24 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

•	 Demonstrate a clear and consistent commitment to sound 

land use principles and a method of enforcement by local 

authorities and, where applicable, the NPS.

The detailed proposal for the Stehekin Valley Overlay District is 

included as Appendix C.

4.3 Regulations

Regulatory controls stem from authority vested in federal, state, 

and local governments that may be available to help protect park 

resources.

4.3.1 Application

Regulations cannot usually provide for public use, but they can 

prevent harm to natural or cultural resources. For example, 

federal, state, and local regulations often impose strict limits on 

dredging or filling of wetlands that would destroy wildlife habitat 

or degrade water quality. Local subdivision and environmental 

regulations may restrict residential development that is not adequately served by roads, water, and sewage treatment facilities. 

It is much more difficult for regulations to absolutely prohibit an 

activity than to simply limit the type, amount, or intensity of the 

activity.

4.3.2 Effectiveness

In areas where the impact of development is already evident, 

regulations are more likely to be effective in reducing adverse 

effects of major projects. In relatively pristine areas, regulations 

may be of little use in efforts to preserve natural systems from 

any intrusions of development. Regulations are more likely to 

be effective where there is a good base of information about the 

impacts of certain activities on resources. County Health Department regulations control such activities as the location of septic 

systems. Variances to the regulations, however, are possible based 

on the use of new technologies.

Rainbow Falls. Photo courtesy of Michael Liang.
Chapter 4: Techniques for Protecting Resource Values on At Risk Land | 25

4.4 Acquisition

Acquisitions involve the transfer of one or more property rights 

from one landowner to another through the donation, sale and 

purchase, or exchange of property. 

4.4.1 Fee

When all of the interests in a property are acquired, it is owned in 

fee simple.

Since the establishment of the Lake Chelan NRA in 1968, the 

NPS has acquired (through fee simple acquisition) 1,202 acres of 

land in the Stehekin Valley at a cost of $5,381,056.40 (dollars not 

adjusted for inflation). Most (82%) of these acres were acquired 

between 1968 and 1973. The NPS has participated in three fee 

simple acquisitions (from two individual landowners), totaling 

2.64 acres, in the last ten years. 

4.4.1.1 Application

Fee acquisition may be recommended when other methods of 

protection have been found to be inadequate, inefficient, or ineffective to meet management needs. Fee acquisition is most often 

appropriate where the land:

•	 Is needed for development of NPS facilities or significant 

public use; 

•	 Must be maintained in a pristine natural condition that 

precludes reasonable private use (e.g., floodplain);

•	 Is owned by individuals (willing property owner) who do not 

wish to sell less-than-fee interests; or

•	 Cannot be protected in accord with National Recreation Area 

purposes by other methods, or other alternatives would not 

be cost-effective (e.g. imminent erosion of cabin and septic 

system).

4.4.1.2 Effectiveness

Fee-simple acquisition is an effective and secure land protection 

alternative. Generally, it is also the most expensive form of land 

protection.

Advantages of fee acquisition include the following:

•	 Permanent assurance of complete NPS control over use of 

the land; 

•	 Provision of public access and access for management for 

public benefit;

•	 Ability to develop necessary facilities;

•	 Familiarity to landowners; and

•	 Opportunity for continued private use under reservation of 

use and occupancy.

Disadvantages of fee acquisition include the following:

•	 Initial acquisition costs;

•	 Maintenance and management requirements, especially for 

developed properties; and

•	 Impact on local community from relocation of previous 

owner, or removal of housing from local market, or 

termination of seasonal use.

4.4.2 Easements

Land ownership may be envisioned as a package of rights. 

Easements convey only some of those rights from one owner to 

another, while all other rights of ownership remain unchanged. 

Easements can be positive (conveying a right of access) or negative (limiting specific uses of the land).

The NPS has purchased easements on four tracts of land since 

the establishment of the Lake Chelan NRA. These easements, all 

of which occurred since 1995, are on 8.63 acres of land and have 

cost the NPS $167,550.00 (dollars not adjusted for inflation). 

4.4.2.1 Application

Easements are most likely to be useful where:

•	 Some, but not all, existing or potential private uses are 

compatible with NPS purposes;

•	 Current owners desire to continue current types of use and 

occupancy of the land under conditions conveyed to the 

NPS; and
26 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

•	 Scenic values and protection or access by the public or the 

NPS is needed only over a portion of the land. Easements 

should be acquired in various areas to ensure preservation of 

scenic values and maintenance of existing land uses.

Specific easement terms can be developed to fit the topography, vegetation, visibility, and character of existing or potential 

developments on each tract. Easement provisions to protect area 

resources could address the following points:

•	 Clearing of vegetation;

•	 Location and design of new access roads and utilities;

•	 Density, height, design, and color of development visible to 

the public; and

•	 Access for management of natural and cultural resources.

4.4.2.2 Effectiveness

Because easements are enforceable interests in property, they 

provide greater assurance of permanent protection than do 

agreements or zoning ordinances. Easements are binding on 

future land owners.

Advantages of easements include the following:

•	 Continuation of private ownership and use subject to the 

terms of the easement; 

•	 Lower initial acquisition costs than fee simple acquisition, 

and potential to protect more land; and

•	 Reduced impact on local property taxes. 

Disadvantages of easements (as compared to fee) include the following:

•	 Potential difficulty in enforcement of easement terms; 

•	 Potential need for additional personnel;

•	 Unfamiliarity of landowners with less than fee ownership;

•	 Relatively high cost of acquisition on undeveloped properties 

where no further development is compatible; and

•	 Increased costs in monitoring terms and conditions of 

easement provisions.

4.5 How NPS Can Secure Interest in a 

Property 

There are several ways willing owners can make their property 

available to NPS. The primary methods are defined below. 

4.5.1 Donation

Landowners may be motivated to donate property or interests in 

the land to achieve conservation objectives. Tax benefits of donation also may be an important incentive. 

Landowners are encouraged to consult with a qualified tax 

advisor to discuss the detailed advantages of donations. NPS 

representatives may be able to provide some general examples of 

tax advantages, but cannot provide tax advice or commitments 

regarding what deductions will be allowed by the Internal Revenue Service. 

4.5.2 Exchange

Land or resource protection may be achieved by exchanging land 

or interest in land. The lands to be exchanged must be of approximately equal value, based on the value of the federal land. Differences in value may usually be resolved by either party making 

cash equalization payments. If equalization is owed by the NPS, 

an appropriation of funds for Lake Chelan NRA would be necessary before the exchange could proceed.

The NPS considers some federal lands within the authorized 

boundary that were previously in private ownership as potential 

exchange lands to strengthen development patterns, consolidate 

new development into the most suitable areas, and protect other 

significant areas. This authority to exchange formerly private 

lands is different than for the US Forest Service and other federal 

agencies, who can also exchange lands that have always been in 

the public domain. Other federal lands, outside Lake Chelan 

NRA, that become surplus to agency needs would go through 

other disposition procedures, including public sale. Lands within 

the Lake Chelan NRA proposed for exchange in this Land Protection Plan are shown in Chapter 5: Recommendations. 
Chapter 4: Techniques for Protecting Resource Values on At Risk Land | 27

Since 1995, the NPS has completed three land exchanges with 

private landowners in Lake Chelan NRA (one of these exchanges 

resulted in the disposition of land in Olympic National Park). 

These exchanges have resulted in a net increase of approximately 

seven acres of private property within Lake Chelan NRA. The 

NPS also disposed of a 3.2 acre parcel, with reserved easements, 

to the Stehekin School District in 1987. 

4.5.3 Purchase

Acquisition by purchase requires funds to be appropriated by 

Congress or donated from private sources. Further funding for 

purchases depends primarily on future appropriations. Potential 

donation of funds or purchases by individuals or organizations 

interested in holding land for conservation purposes is encouraged. 

Figure 4 on page 28 describes the general approach that the 

NPS will take in the event a landowner approaches the NPS with 

an interest in selling or exchanging their property.

4.5.4 Purchase and Sellback

In this scenario, land would be purchased in fee, appropriate 

restrictions would be attached to the deed, and the restricted 

land would then be sold or leased to another owner. This method 

ensures that the property owner has only those rights specified 

in the deed. When disputes arise, this option may provide greater 

protection of resource values than easements. 

4.5.5 Reservation of Life or Term Estates

The enabling legislation, PL 90-544, Sec. 303, states:

Any owner of property acquired by the Secretary which on 

the date of acquisition is used for agricultural or single-family residential purposes, or for commercial purposes which 

he finds are compatible with the use and development of the 

. . . recreation areas, may, as a condition of such acquisition, retain the right of use and occupancy of the property 

for the same purposes for which it was used on such date, 

for a period ending at the death of the owner or the death 

of his spouse, whichever occurs later, or for a fixed term of 

not to exceed twenty-five years, whichever the owner may 

elect. Any right so retained may during its existence be transferred or assigned. Any right so retained may be terminated 

by the Secretary at any time after the date upon which any 

use of the property occurs which he finds is a use other than 

one which existed on the date of acquisition. In the event the 

Secretary terminates a right of use and occupancy under this 

section, he shall pay to the owner of the right the fair market 

value of the portion of said right which remains unexpired 

on the date of termination.

This method is subject to approval by the NPS Regional Director.

The NPS has rarely used this method to secure interest in properties within the Lake Chelan NRA.

4.5.6 Condemnation

The NPS has never exercised its authority, nor sought the necessity, to condemn private property in Lake Chelan NRA. 

PL 90-544 states that the Secretary “may not acquire any such 

interests within the recreation areas without the consent of the 

owner, so long as the lands are devoted to uses compatible with 

the purposes of this Act.” Condemnation may not be used to simply acquire land. Congress directed that condemnation could be 

used to prevent or remove incompatible uses if other methods are 

inadequate to prevent the incompatible use. Condemnation could 

be used with the owner’s consent to clear title or to establish just 

compensation. 

The NPS does not expect to have the need to or interest in condemning private property in Lake Chelan NRA in the future.
28 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

EXCHANGE

Is suitable NPS LAND 

AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGE?

SELL (fee or easement)

NO

NPS conducts appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL 

analysis under NEPA, which includes an identification of Environmental Impacts and 

PUBLIC REVIEW.

YES

NPS considers each exchange/

acquisition on a “FIRST COME, 

FIRST SERVE” basis.

Does NPS have 

access to sufficient 

FUNDS**?

Figure 4: General NPS Approach to Responding to Requests from Property Owners Interested in Selling or Exchanging Land*

* Note: This diagram is a simplified portrayal of how the NPS responds to sale or exchange requests from property owners. There are additional details and sub-steps 

involved in the process that are not represented above. There may also be exceptions (e.g. situations of hardship) that would follow a slightly different process.

** Note: Funds are necessary to conduct ‘due diligence’ for exchanges and purchases, such as checking that the title is clear, conducting an appraisal, completing 

surveys, etc. on the property.

Property owner interested in SELLING or EXCHANGING land approaches NPS.

Does property owner wish to SELL land to NPS or EXCHANGE

their land for NPS tract?

NPS consults LAND 

PROTECTION PLAN

and other guidance.

Does land have CHARACTERISTICS

that make it suitable for inclusion in Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area?

Can property owner 

and NPS reach an 

AGREEMENT?

No Transaction

COMPLETE 

Transaction

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES
Chapter5

Recommendations
30 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Chapter 5. Recommendations

In May 1982, the Department of the Interior issued a policy statement for use of the federal portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund requiring that, in carrying out its responsibility for 

land protection in federally administered areas, each agency using 

the fund will:

1. Identify what land or interests in land need to be in federal 

ownership to achieve management purposes consistent with 

public objectives in the unit;

2. Use to the maximum extent practicable, cost-effective 

alternatives to direct federal purchase of private lands and, 

when acquisition is necessary, acquire or retain only the 

minimum interests necessary to meet management objectives;

3. Cooperate with landowners, other federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and the private sector to manage land for 

public use or protect it for resource conservation;

4. Formulate, or revise as necessary, plans for land acquisition 

and resource use or protection to ensure that sociocultural 

impacts are considered and that the most outstanding areas 

are adequately managed.

In response to this policy, the NPS requires that a Land Protection Plan be prepared for each unit in the national park system 

that contains private or other nonfederal land or interest in land 

within its authorized boundary (NPS Management Policies, 

2006). 

5.1 Guidelines

The following guidelines are used throughout this Land Protection Plan to meet the goals and objectives discussed in Chapter 1: 

1. Use local zoning and county and state government land use 

authorities to regulate private land uses within the Stehekin 

Valley.

2. Encourage Chelan County to provide opportunities for local 

review of Stehekin Valley land use proposals and to provide 

an appropriate forum to accept this input.

3. Use land protection strategies such as exchange, easement, or 

acquisition to provide willing seller opportunities to relocate 

or remove development that is threatened by flooding and/or 

threatens to negatively impact resources within the Stehekin 

River channel migration zone.

a) Land exchanges may be used to protect natural, cultural, 

recreational and scenic resources. To be a viable option, 

the private lands must offer important resources and 

potential exchange lands must have resources with low 

priority for protection.

b) Where appropriate, and in cooperation with private 

landowners, easements or other less than fee interests 

may meet land management goals. Easements can be 

used to provide greater flexibility to protect sensitive 

resources and/or an opportunity to provide for 

recreational access to sites within Lake Chelan NRA.

c) Continue to seek willing seller/willing buyer land 

acquisition opportunities when public and private 

needs have been identified and appropriated funds are 

available. 

d) Use eminent domain only in circumstances that would 

prevent imminent degradation or loss of recreation area 

values and only when there are incompatible uses on 

private lands, threats to public safety, and/or, as a last 

resort, when other prudent and reasonable measures 

to protect National Recreation Area resources and 

public safety by eliminating or mitigating the resource 

degradation or safety threats have been exhausted.

Photo on Chapter Cover: Private residence falling into Stehekin River.
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 31

4. Encourage Stehekin residents to implement advanced 

protection measures where development is located in the 

floodplain/CMZ.

5. Accept new residential and other private land uses that are 

compatible with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA.

6. Accept new commercial uses on private lands that provide 

visitor and resident services and that are compatible with the 

purposes of Lake Chelan NRA.

7. Accept new industrial uses on private lands that are typical of 

and compatible with historical and industrial uses within the 

Stehekin Valley and that are compatible with the purposes of 

Lake Chelan NRA.

8. Encourage land uses that consume a low level of resources to 

conserve both renewable and nonrenewable resources (such 

as sand, rock, and gravel).

9. Encourage new construction and conversion of existing 

facilities that adhere to sustainable design principles.

10. Use a simple, transparent process to identify properties that 

have high resource sensitivity and/or values; and/or that 

provide for compatible visitor use and public community 

needs consistent with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. 

Criteria established to help the NPS determine an interest 

in an individual private parcel include the channel migration 

zone of the Stehekin River or its tributaries, wetlands, large 

unbroken or contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat, rare species 

habitats, visually sensitive areas along Lake Chelan, and areas 

with cultural resources. 

5.2 Process For Establishing Priority Interests 

in Parcels

The 1995 Land Protection Plan established priorities for recommending the minimum NPS interest in each parcel based on the 

size of the tract and the presence of wetlands, high flood influence areas, riparian communities, and high visual sensitivity areas 

related to each tract. Because of the increase in Stehekin River 

flood magnitude and frequency since 1995 and availability of adThe Stehekin River Delta.
32 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 5: Channel Migration Zone vs. Floodplain in the Lower Stehekin Valley
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 33

ditional natural and cultural resource information, a revised and 

expanded set of eight criteria were developed to establish NPS 

interests. These criteria have been applied to each private land 

parcel.

This Land Protection Plan is being revised as part of the development of the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (SRCIP/FEIS). This version has 

been modified based on public comments. The Preferred Alternative (now Alternative 5) focuses on allowing the Stehekin River, 

to the degree possible given the current land use patterns, to flood 

and store sand and gravel within its natural Channel Migration 

Zone (CMZ). The CMZ is an accepted concept for land use planning along active mountain rivers and is defined as the area within 

which the Stehekin River has historically migrated during the 

last 1,000 years. Use of the CMZ maps as a planning tool offers 

several advantages over floodplain mapping based on hydraulic 

models. FEMA maps require expensive aerial or on-the-ground 

topographic surveys and computer time and are often rendered 

inaccurate after big floods. Further, the CMZ of the Stehekin 

River is not substantially different from the 1992 NPS and FEMA 

100 year floodplain map (Figure 5). 

An objective resource analysis, based on eight criteria, was applied to all private land parcels in Stehekin in order to establish 

priority interests in parcels. This analysis, along with its established criteria and associated points, reflects the broad conceptual direction of Alternative 5 in the SRCIP/FEIS and is structured to give the most weight (points) to parcels that are most 

threatened by flooding and/or erosion and to those parcels with 

the greatest identified resource values (criteria). For reference, 

the analyses for the SRCIP/DEIS preferred alternative (Alternative 2) and Alternatives 3 and 4 of the SRCIP/DEIS are the same 

as presented in the draft LPP (2010). This resource analysis used 

for this Land Protection Plan is described below. 

Because the primary driving factors for this resource analysis include flooding and streambank erosion impacts on development, 

the first criterion used to prioritize non-federally owned lands is 

location with respect to the CMZ and deposition zones. Flooding and erosion are most pronounced in areas where the river 

deposits gravel and large wood (deposition zones). These areas 

are located at distinct points where the valley widens (McGregor 

Meadows); between large tributary alluvial fans of Company, 

Boulder, and Rainbow Creeks; and at the Stehekin River mouth 

(Figure 6). Similar hazard concerns exist for alluvial fans and debris cones within Lake Chelan NRA, but that threat is considered 

less severe and therefore less weight (fewer points in the resource 

analysis) is associated with these concerns. Other criteria include the presence of wetlands, rare species habitat, and cultural 

resources, as well as a criterion that emphasizes larger, mostly 

undeveloped blocks of land within the valley. 

More specifically, these eight criteria include (the application of 

criteria and associated point schemes are provided in Table 4):

1. Location of an overnight dwelling (or potential for 

development) within an active channel migration zone on the 

floodplain (CMZ) (Figures 7-13) and/or deposition zone of 

the Stehekin River (Figures 14-17). 

The presence of an overnight structure is important to 

consider because the incorporation of cabins, drain-fields, 

and septic tanks into the river during a flood is a major threat 

to the community, water quality, and scenic resources. This 

characteristic also applies to criteria 2 and 3 below.

For those properties in deposition zones, the greatest 

weight (most number of points) was given to the McGregor 

Meadows area because of rapid gravel accumulation, bank 

erosion, flooding, channel changes, and high potential for 

additional rapid change during large floods. This area was 

further analyzed by recognizing four priority zones (“Urgent 

Zones 1-4”), which relate to the urgency of the threat (Figure 

18), with Urgent Zone 1 representing the area most at risk 

and Urgent Zone 4 representing the area least at risk within 

the broader McGregor Meadows area. The second greatest 

weight was given to the river mouth deposition zone, and the 

least weight was given to other lower valley deposition zones 

where the river has more room to flood and migrate than at 

the river mouth or McGregor Meadows.
34 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

2. Location of an overnight dwelling or potential for 

development within an active tributary alluvial fan channel 

migration zone (AFMZ) (Figures 9-13). 

3. Location of an overnight dwelling or potential for 

development within a debris cone hazard zone (DCHZ) 

(Figures 19-22). 

4. Large undeveloped parcels. Larger parcels without 

current development represent the greatest risk of habitat 

fragmentation within the valley. 

5. Presence of wetlands and/or riparian habitat, based on 

mapping completed in 1986. These habitats are defined 

by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as “lands transitional 

between terrestrial and aquatic systems where water is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow 

water.” A site is a wetland if it contains one or more of three 

diagnostic characteristics: vegetation, soil characteristics 

of wet areas, and at least the seasonal presence of water. 

Riparian zones represent a type of wetland that includes the 

diverse vegetation along the active river channel, tributaries, 

and side channels.

6. Presence of protected plant and animal species habitat, 

including federal and state threatened, endangered, rare, or 

candidate species; species of special interest, including locally 

sensitive species; and unique, rare, or high diversity habitat. 

7. Presence of a cultural resource or related concern.

8. Location along the shore of Lake Chelan. This area has 

the highest visual sensitivity in the Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area. This criterion is not used in the overall 

resource analyses to establish High-Medium-Low priorities 

for each tract, but rather is used to establish scenic easement 

priorities for tracts visible along the lakeshore. The points 

associated with this criterion are included in Appendix D.

The complete results from the resource analysis, along with point 

determinations for all criteria for each parcel, are found in Appendix D. Please note that more detailed field inspections of land 

in private ownership may reveal additional information that could 

support a modification of priorities or recommendations for 

specific individual tracts. Individual property owners may request 

NPS verification of resource values and appropriate adjustment 

of priorities during the next plan update.

Alluvial Fan Migration Zone – Alluvial fans are deposits of sand and gravel deposited by larger tributary streams when they 

reach the larger Stehekin River. They are distinguished from debris cones deposited by smaller streams because they have 

surface slopes of less than five degrees. There are three alluvial fans in Lake Chelan NRA, including Company Creek, Rainbow 

Creek, and Boulder Creek. Some parts of these fans were deposited at the end of the last ice age and are now perched above the 

actively forming part of the fan and are known as fan terraces. The active part of the fan is where the stream is currently active 

or has the potential to become active following a shift in channel position on the fan and is known as the alluvial fan migration 

zone.

Debris Cone Hazard Zone – Debris cones are deposited by small, steep tributaries to the Stehekin River when they reach the 

floor of the valley. They are distinguished from alluvial fans because they have surface slopes greater than ten degrees and have 

levees and debris flow deposits on their surfaces. Like alluvial fans, some debris cones have relict surfaces that are unlikely to 

be affected by future debris flows – particularly those along Lake Chelan. The lowest parts of these cones that contain the active 

stream channel are prone to inundation during debris flows, which can occur at virtually any time of year. In recognition of the 

threat debris flows pose to public health and safety, the lowest, active parts are mapped as debris cone hazard zones.
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 35

Table 4: Parcel Evaluation Criteria

Application of Criteria Point Scheme

CMZ Deposition Zone: Presence of 

overnight dwelling within a CMZ

(Based on criterion 1)

10 points = overnight dwelling in McGregor Meadows CMZ in deposition zone, Urgent Zone 1

8 points = overnight dwelling in McGregor Meadows CMZ in deposition zone, Urgent Zone 2

6 points = overnight dwelling in McGregor Meadows CMZ in deposition zone, Urgent Zone 3

5 points = overnight dwelling in Stehekin River mouth CMZ deposition zone, or McGregor Meadows Urgent Zone 4

4 points = overnight dwelling in other CMZ deposition zone

3 points = overnight dwelling in CMZ but not deposition zone

2 points = No overnight dwelling in CMZ deposition zone on > 2.5 acres

1 point = No overnight dwelling in the CMZ on > 2.5 acres

0 points = No overnight dwelling, out of CMZ or in CMZ on < 2.5 acres

AFMZ: Presence of overnight dwelling in an alluvial fan migration zone

(Based on criterion 2) 

2 points = overnight dwelling in AFMZ

1 point = No overnight dwelling in AFMZ on > 2.5 acres

0 points = No overnight dwelling in AFMZ on < 2.5 acres 

DCHZ: Presence of overnight dwelling in a debris cone hazard zone 

(Based on criterion 3)

10 points = overnight dwelling in defined DCHZ

6 points = No overnight dwelling in DCHZ but property has hazard zone on it and > 2.5 acres

0 points = No overnight dwelling in DCHZ and property has < 2.5 acres undeveloped

Undeveloped Parcels: Larger parcels that are undeveloped (removing 

2.5 acres for allowable development 

per county code)

(Based on criterion 4)

6 points = Undeveloped block > 20 acres

4 points = Undeveloped block of 10-20 acres

2 points = Undeveloped block of 5-10 acres

0 points = Undeveloped block < 5 acres

Wetlands

(Based on criterion 5)

1 point = Parcel includes wetland

0 points = No wetland on parcel

Rare Habitat: Parcel with rare species/suitable habitat for those species

(Based on criterion 6)

1 point = Parcel includes rare species or habitat

0 points = Parcel does not include rare species or habitat

Cultural Resources

(Based on criterion 7)

1 point = Presence of cultural resources on parcel

0 points = No cultural resources on parcel

Scenic Viewpoint: Visual Sensitivity 

(relevant for considering which lakeshore parcels would be priority for 

scenic easements – see Appendix D)

(Based on criterion 8)

4 points = Parcel visible from all three key viewpoints (landing, first mile Stehekin Valley road, or 

Lake Chelan)

2 points = Parcel visible from two viewpoints

1 point = Parcel visible from one viewpoint

0 points = Parcel not visible from any of three key viewpoints
36 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 6: Net Gravel Deposition and Transport Zones
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 37

Figure 7: Channel Migration Zone - River Miles 8-9
38 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 8: Channel Migration Zone - River Mile 6
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 39

Figure 10: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mile 4

Figure 9: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mile 5
40 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 12: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Mile 2

Figure 11: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - 

River Miles 2-3
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 41

Figure 13: Channel Migration and Alluvial Fan Migration Zones - River Mouth
42 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 14: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Miles 8-9
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 43

Figure 15: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Mile 5 Figure 16: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Miles 2-3
44 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 17: Stehekin River Deposition Zones - River Mouth
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 45

Figure 18: McGregor Meadows Urgency Zones
46 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 19: Debris Cone Hazards - Purple and Imus Creeks Figure 20: Debris Cone Hazards - Hazard Creek
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 47

Figure 21: Debris Cone Hazards - Fourmile Creek Figure 22: Debris Cone Hazards - Flick Creek
48 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

5.3 Land Protection Priorities

Individual tracts were assigned an interest priority based on the 

total number of points assigned to the tract from the resourcebased analysis described in section 5.2 above excluding points 

associated with the scenic viewpoint criteria. The NPS requires 

such an identification of priorities to enable analysis of land protection funding needs across the entire National Park Service. 

For this final LPP, those tracts with 7-15 points were considered 

a “High” priority; tracts with 3-6 total points were given a “Medium” priority; and tracts with 0-2 total points given a “Low” priority (Figure 23). This new process results in placing those parcels 

most at risk within the Stehekin River CMZ into the High category, along with a few other parcels that are a high priority because 

of their large acreage and/or other multiple resource values. Generally those parcels that lie within the CMZ but appear to have a 

less immediate threat from flooding and erosion are considered 

Medium priority parcels, and those tracts either outside the CMZ 

or at current minimum risk within the CMZ are considered Low 

priority parcels. Table 5 shows a summary of priorities from the 

1995 LPP, the 2010 draft LPP, and this final LPP.

Table 5: Overall Tract Priority

Priority Tracts 

(acres) – 

1995 LPP

Tracts 

(acres) - 

2010 draft 

LPP 

Tracts 

(acres) – 

2012 final 

LPP

High 62 (372.26) 66 (271.50) 31 (189.62)

Medium 18 (21.29) 98 ( 141.22) 72 (148.84)

Low 86 (42.43) 4 (4.75) 65 (78.34)

Total 166 (435.97*) 168 (417.47)** 168 (416.80)**

* Does not include acreage that was intended for removal from NRA boundaries.

** Figure reduced from 2010 revised LPP due to correction in mapping for one 

parcel.

Due to unique individual tract characteristics, exceptions to the 

general priorities may become necessary. Exceptions, resulting 

in raising or lowering the listed priority of a specific tract, can be 

anticipated as more detailed, site-specific information becomes 

available. These new conditions will be described in subsequent 

updates of this plan.

A summary of the “visual sensitivity” criterion is shown in Table 

6. This criterion focuses on lakeshore parcels and their visibility from various viewpoints within the valley. Parcels with 

four points are considered a High priority for scenic easements; 

parcels with 1-3 points are Medium, and parcels with 0 points are 

Low priority.

Table 6: Scenic easement interest priority based solely on 

visual sensitivity

Priority Number of tracts

High 18

Medium 28

Low 122

Total 168

Table 7, beginning on page 50, summarizes the total points 

and provides interest priority for each parcel within Lake Chelan 

NRA based on the first seven criteria. The complete results from 

the resource analysis are found in Appendix D.

Chapter 4, Techniques for Protecting Resource Values on At-risk 

Land, describes how the NPS can acquire an interest in a property. Other methods, in addition to purchase or exchange, e.g., 

easements, purchase and sellback, or reservation of life or term 

estate, may be considered on an individual basis. Hardship and 

emergency cases will be considered as they arise, regardless of 

priority. Where fee interest is acquired in developed residential 

properties, the NPS acknowledges the seller’s possible retention 

of use and occupancy or life estate.

Before NPS buys a property or an easement, or seeks to secure 

any form of interest in land covered by this plan, the specific tract 

will be surveyed for the presence of hazardous or contaminated 

materials. Negotiations between the NPS and the owner for the 

proper disposal of any such waste would be completed prior to 

finalization of the terms of an agreement.
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 49

Figure 23: Number of Parcels by Priority

3

34

28

7

5

17

43

8

4

7

6

1

4

0 0

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of Tracts

Total Points based on Seven Resource-Based Criteria (not including "scenic criteria")

Low Priority

Medium Priority

High Priority
50 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Table 7: Priorities for Land Protection Interests for Each Tract

NPS Tract 

Number

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number

Name (as of 2011) Acres Total Points Priority

1101 321817120050 Barnhart, Michael J. et ux 8.38 4 Medium

1102 321817130100 McKellar, Richard V., et al 6.39 2 Low

1103 321817130050 Lewman, Darrel, et al 30.7 8 High

2102 321808340050 C& M I, LLC 0.7 2 Low

2104 321806420050 Kaminski, Perry 6.65 10 High

2105 321808340100 Pinnow, Edward M., et al 17.9 12 High

2106 321808330050 Kinman, Marilyn M. 0.3 2 Low

2107 321806420020 Kaminski, Perry 2.49 2 Low

2108 321806420030 Britt, James M., et us 2.35 2 Low

2109 321806420040 McMurry, John, et ux 6.28 2 Low

3100 331831230080, 

331831230060

Stifter, Patricia 13 5 Medium

3108 331831340150 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.11 10 High

3125 331831340050 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 1 1 Low

3131 331831340110 Purple Creek Corp. 0.16 11 High

4100 331736220900 Hegge, Gary L., et ux 1.73 1 Low

4101 331736220850 Hegge, Gary L., Trustee 1.73 6 Medium

4102 331736220950 Bouslaugh, Tom A., et ux 1.74 1 Low

4104 331736220750 Darvill, Virginia T., et al. 4.31 7 High

4105 331736220500 Ellis, James L., et ux 0.37 5 Medium

4106 331736220550 Bell, Lloyd 3.65 7 High

4108 331736220100 Bishop, James L., et ux 0.59 6 Medium

4110 331736220400 Petersen, Gregory H., et al 0.5 6 Medium

4112 331736220350 McGinness, Collin 4.09 7 High

4114 331736220055 Clark, James D. 1.69 6 Medium

4115 331736220060 Weavtel LLC 1.69 1 Low

4116 331736210100 Morse Resort Inc. 11.7 9 High

4117 331736645020 Heimbigner, Christine 0.14 1 Low

4120 331736645030 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.69 7 High

4121 331736220050 Clark, Judith 6.62 7 High
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 51

NPS Tract 

Number

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number

Name (as of 2011) Acres Total Points Priority

4124 331736420050 McLean, Mark A 0.58 4 Medium

4127 331736121550 Griffiths, William S., et al 0.2 6 Medium

4128 331736121700 Bridges, Jon 0.16 6 Medium

4130 331736121200 Pearl, Warren L. 0.36 1 Low

4131 331736121050 Parks, Terry V. 0.21 1 Low

4136 331736120750 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.2 5 Medium

4137 331736120700 StewFam LLC 0.18 6 Medium

4139 331736140150 Glenn, Nicholas A. 0.91 1 Low

4143 331736121000, 

331736120950

Sherman, Angela C. 0.33 6 Medium

4144 331736121250 Breeze, William E. 0.28 6 Medium

4145 331736121500 Freeman, Lillian A., et al 0.22 6 Medium

4147 331736121600 Hubbard, Duane L., et ux 0.2 6 Medium

4148 331736121350, 

331736121300, 

331736121400

Dinwiddie, Randall R. 0.7 6 Medium

4149 331736120350 Stehekin Joint Venture LLC 0.24 6 Medium

4150 331736121450 Dinwiddie, Randall R., et ux 0.24 6 Medium

4153 331736220600 Libbey, Caroline L. 0.2 1 Low

4154 331736120200 Buehler, Walter E., et al, Trustees 0.53 6 Medium

4155 331736120150 Bohn, Willis C., et al, Trustees 0.32 6 Medium

4156 331736120100 Liberty, Janet L., et al 0.64 6 Medium

4157 331736120050 First United Methodist Church 0.55 1 Low

4158 331736110150 Higgins, Ben C., et al 0.48 6 Medium

4162 331736140050 Morehead, Harriet O., Trustee 0.55 1 Low

4163 331736140100 Hazell, Marjorie J. 0.71 1 Low

4165 331736120900, 

331736120850, 

331736120800

Menefee, Jill D., et al 0.56 6 Medium

4166 331736121100 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.66 1 Low

4169 NO DATA Parks, Terry 0.42 1 Low

4172 NO DATA Parks, Terry 0.72 1 Low
52 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

NPS Tract 

Number

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number

Name (as of 2011) Acres Total Points Priority

4173 NO DATA Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.75 1 Low

4177 331736220300 Kelly, Patrick J., et al 0.48 6 Medium

4178 33173622050 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 0.48 1 Low

4179 331736110100 Gaukroger, James G. 0.55 1 Low

4180 331736110050 Gaukroger, Robin R. 0.55 1 Low

4181 331736645016 Parks, Terry 0.03 1 Low

4183 331736121650 Griffith, Jimmy E., et al 0.18 6 Medium

4184 331736121850, 

331736645005

Gordon, Carole B., Custodian 0.48 6 Medium

4186 331736121750 Skidz LLC 0.21 1 Low

4187 331736120300 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.35 6 Medium

4188 331736121150 Parks, Terry 2.98 6 Medium

4189 331736121255 Noble, Daniel, et ux 0.22 6 Medium

4190 331736220650 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 0.18 6 Medium

4191 331736220700 Libbey, Caroline 0.38 6 Medium

4192 331736220551 Karapostoles, Caitlin, et al 1 5 Medium

4193 331736221010, 

331736220150

Parsons, Jeffrey L., et ux 1.18 6 Medium

4194 331736220155 Courtney, Mistaya M. (CP) 0.48 1 Low

4195 331736221005 Theubet, James H., Trustee 0.48 6 Medium

4197 331736220200 Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 0.48 5 Medium

4198 331736221015 Seemiller, Joseph 0.48 1 Low

4199 331736221020 Griffith, Frederick L., et al 0.48 6 Medium

5102 331726240200, 

331726240250

Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 1.68 2 Low

5104 331726120050 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2 3 Medium

5107 331726110210 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 4.85 3 Medium

5109 331726140150 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 1.52 2 Low

5111 331726140250 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 0.76 2 Low

5112 331726140300 Jacobson, Neal, et ux 0.76 2 Low

5113 331726140350 Weagent, Rodney W., et al 0.76 2 Low

5119 331726410100 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.7 0 Low
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 53

NPS Tract 

Number

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number

Name (as of 2011) Acres Total Points Priority

5120 331726140400 Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 0.76 2 Low

5121 331725330100, 

331725330050

Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 6.76 6 Medium

5123 331726110210 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 22.2 5 Medium

5124 331725645040 Morehead, Dwight T., et ux 0.21 1 Low

5125 331725645048 Courtney, Reed 0.41 1 Low

5126 331725645055 Denning, Michael 0.85 1 Low

5127 331725645060 Hudak, Renee Y., et al 0.85 1 Low

5128 331725645005 Ward, Norma V. 0.85 3 Medium

5130 331725645010 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.43 2 Low

5132 331725330155 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 7.15 3 Medium

5133 331725430050 Staley, James E., et al 0.85 4 Medium

5135 331725430050 Buehler, Thomas M., et al 27.7 10 High

5136 331725430200 Nielsen, Robert C., et ux 0.34 5 Medium

5140 331726240150 Carpenter, Adrienne, et al 2.13 2 Low

5141 331726240100 Sargo, Herbert J., et al 2.17 6 Medium

5142 331726240050 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2.48 6 Medium

5144 331725645045 Morehead, Lawrence E., et ux 0.21 1 Low

5145 331726410050 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.65 2 Low

5147 331725645035 Morehead, Harriet O., Trustee 0.42 3 Medium

5150 331725645020, 

331725645025

Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.58 2 Low

5157 331726410250 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 2.99 2 Low

5158 331725430150 Gaskill, Karl B. 3.03 3 Medium

5159 331725430300 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.21 6 Medium

5160 331725430170 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.65 7 High

6102 331722120050 Fultz, Elizabeth R. 4.06 3 Medium

6106 331723330050 Ward, Vince, et ux 2.9 2 Low

6111 331722440100 Peterson, Gail 0.21 1 Low

6113 331722140050 Miles, Michael, R. 0.18 5 Medium

6114 331722140100 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.24 1 Low

6116 331722120100 Valenti, Ron, et ux 0.7 4 Medium
54 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

NPS Tract 

Number

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number

Name (as of 2011) Acres Total Points Priority

6119 331722130050 Peterson, B. Jean 6.7 6 Medium

6120 331722140150 Stevens, John C., et al 0.32 2 Low

7100 331717110050 McConnell, Carolyn A. 4.36 6 Medium

7105 331716220600 Blomberg, John 0.5 1 Low

7107 331716210600 Courtney, James O., Trustee 1.12 2 Low

7109 331716220200 Mundal, Anne S., et al 0.71 9 High

7110 331736220250 Walker, Allan E., III, et al, Trustees 0.68 9 High

7114 331716120075 Duke, Loretta 2.15 2 Low

7115 331716120050 Thompson, Laura J., et al 2.15 2 Low

7116 331716220150 Neuzil Living Trust 1.6 12 High

7121 331716440005 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 0.41 0 Low

7122 331716440050 Saulsbury, David, et ux 2.32 2 Low

7124 331716440200 Lavender, Teresa 1.18 5 Medium

7125 331716410450 Evans, Linda R., et al 2.48 6 Medium

7127 331716410550, 

331716410600, 

331716410650, 

331716410850

Winkel, Alvy, et ux 1.78 6 Medium

7130 331716410750 Burhen, William S., et ux 2 6 Medium

7131 331716410800 Bingham, John R., et ux 0.97 5 Medium

7133 331716410300, 

331716410250, 

331716410200

Winkel, Martin., et ux 6.19 5 Medium

7134 331716410400, 

331716410350

Winkel, Alvy H., et ux 0.7 5 Medium

7138 331716410150, 

331716410100

Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 2 6 Medium

7142 331716140050 Scherer, Jonathan, et ux 9.95 5 Medium

7145 331716410950 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.97 5 Medium

7147 331716410900 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.71 5 Medium

7149 331716220500 Barnhart, Michael J. 0.61 9 High

7150 331716220450 Barnhart, Michael J. 1.01 9 High

7153 331716220300 Schmid, Walter D. 0.9 9 High
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 55

NPS Tract 

Number

Assessor’s Parcel 

Number

Name (as of 2011) Acres Total Points Priority

7157 331709330050 Leader, Thomas W., et al 28.7 15 High

7166 331716410500 Pitts, Donald, et ux 0.32 2 Low

7168 331716411000 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.47 5 Medium

7176 331716210100 Leaf, Robert H., et al 2.48 12 High

7177 331716210250 Thompson Family Trust 0.64 8 High

7179 331716220350 Nawalinski, Thomas E., et ux 0.9 9 High

7184 331716210300 Woodward, Douglas L. 0.8 8 High

7185 331716210050 Lehman, Robert A., et ux, Trustees 0.97 8 High

7186 331716120100 Mitchell, Robert D., Jr., et al 3.53 4 Medium

7187 331716411050 Parlette, Linda O’Neal, et al 0.1 0 Low

7188 NO DATA Unknown (Company Creek Road) 0.61 1 Low

7189 331716440150 Kurth, David W., et ux 0.58 5 Medium

7190 331716440100 Morrison, Randy C. 0.53 6 Medium

7191 331716440260 Garfoot, Wendy 3 6 Medium

7192 331716440250 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 1.4 1 Low

7193 331716240050 Courtney, James O. 2.99 2 Low

7195 331716240100 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 3.02 2 Low

7196 331716240200 Courtney, Mark L. 2.01 2 Low

7197 331716240250 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 7 High

7198 331716240300 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 7 High

7199 331716120150 Danielson Stehekin Cabin Mgt, LLC 4.97 12 High

7200 331709340100 Bowles, Stephen B., et ux, Trustees 1.74 10 High

7201 331709340300 Ramos, Myra 3 10 High

7202 331716220900 Blomberg, John 0.09 2 Low

7204 331716410850 Robinson, Aaron D. 0.4 6 Medium

8101 331707000050 Ray and Esther Courtney Family, LLC, et al 20 10 High

8105 331707240055 Courtney, Clifford G. 5.6 1 Low
56 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

5.4 Land Available to Exchange

The exchange of select public lands in the valley for private lands 

is a viable method of resource protection. Private lands with high 

resource value may be exchanged for public lands with relatively 

low resource value.

The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to exchange federally owned property, or interests therein, which has been determined to be suitable for exchange, or other disposal, for nonfederal property within Lake Chelan NRA. Prior to the establishment 

of the Lake Chelan NRA, none of the public lands administered 

by the US Forest Service had been determined to be suitable or 

classified for exchange or other disposal. Neither has the 1995 

General Management Plan nor this Land Protection Plan identified any of the pre-NRA public lands to be suitable for disposal, 

including exchange. Therefore, exchange possibilities will be 

limited to certain selected federal lands that have been acquired 

since the establishment of the Lake Chelan NRA in 1968. Federal 

lands within the Lake Chelan NRA acquired in fee since 1968 

total approximately 1,202 acres. In addition to the proposed exchange possibilities described below, future acquired properties 

may be subsequently considered for disposal by exchange after 

two years from the date of acquisition in order to enhance historic or traditional development patterns, consolidate new forms 

of approved development proposals into the most suitable areas, 

or protect areas of higher resource values.

This discussion is limited to lands within Lake Chelan NRA. 

Although private lands in the valley could be exchanged for public 

lands outside the recreation area, this possibility is considered 

beyond the scope of this plan. If landowners show interest on a 

willing seller/willing buyer basis, the NPS would work with the 

Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies under 

the Federal Land Exchange Act of 1988, to determine if federal 

lands outside the recreation area would be available for exchange.

All potential exchanges will be based on near equal, value for 

value real estate appraisals (not acre for acre) and may be limited 

by the availability of appropriated funds if the nonfederal lands 

exceed the value of the federal lands to be exchanged.

Lands currently in federal ownership that may be suitable for 

potential exchange were examined for the same resource concerns (on the ground examination for wetlands, wildlife, rare 

plants, and other sensitive resources) as those applied to every 

private land parcel previously described in section 5.2. In sum, 

this revised Land Protection Plan identifies potential exchange 

lands that are out of the Stehekin River CMZ and that do not 

have other sensitive resource concerns. Some lands that had been 

identified as possible exchange lands in the 1995 LPP have been 

removed for exchange consideration due to resource concerns, 

such as the Lower Field area. Other lands previously not considered available as exchange lands now are available because they 

represent lands that appear best suited for development to minimize impacts to those resources described in the criteria outlined 

in section 5.2 of this chapter. The 1995 LPP identified 50 acres 

for exchange, and with 13 acres exchanged between 1995 and 

2007, 37 acres remain potentially available under the 1995 Land 

Protection Plan. By applying the criteria (discussed in Section 5.2 

of this chapter) to available public lands, 29.41 acres of federal 

land are considered suitable for exchange. This is less than the 

number of acres identified in the 1995 Land Protection Plan. The 

Private property damaged by flooding.
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 57

identified list of potential exchange lands includes lands that are 

not within the Stehekin River CMZ (except for the corral near the 

Stehekin Pastry Company, which could be exchanged provided it 

remains for agriculturally-related use only, and a small portion of 

the exchange tract above the Stehekin Valley Ranch and along the 

Stehekin Valley Road, upon which restrictions would be placed to 

prevent structure development within the CMZ). These proposed exchange lands also allow for some degree of clustered development. Clustering future development broadens the portfolio of potential exchange lands, limits habitat fragmentation, and 

allows for a more sustainable development out of the floodplain. 

Nothing in this plan, however, would preclude reexamining the 

exchange portfolio in future LPP revisions. In addition, potential 

future development of exchange lands must conform to Chelan 

County zoning and regulations. 

Table 8: NPS Lands Available for Exchange

Area Acres

Above Stehekin Valley Ranch (see note below)1 10.2

Near airstrip (former Peterson property) 2 *

West of Rainbow Falls (former Webb property) 1.33

Near Stehekin School (former Rice property) 1.68

Boulder Creek area (former Griffin/Getty property) 3.79

Boulder Creek area (former Brownfield property) 2.61

Keller’s Park 7.2

Corral area near Bakery (see note below)2 0.6

Total 29.41

* Up to 10 additional acres could be added to this site following completion of 

the development plan for the NPS maintenance and housing facility identified in 

the 1995 General Management Plan.

Notes: 1) The area above the Stehekin Valley Ranch contains acreage within the 

Stehekin River CMZ along the road. That acreage will have restrictions placed 

on it to prevent structure development within the CMZ. 2) The corral area near 

the Bakery lies within the CMZ, but will be made available for exchange for use 

only for agriculturally-related purposes (i.e., retained as a corral).

Figure 24 provides a broad overview of possible exchange lands 

within the lower Stehekin Valley. Figures 25-27 provide more 

detailed views of the possible exchange lands.

Lands would be exchanged on a case-by-case basis, based on 

appraised land values, not based on a one-to-one acre exchange 

ratio. Appropriate Conditions, Covenants, and Deed Restrictions 

(CCRs) would be included to ensure compatible use by the new 

owner subsequent to the exchange. 

5.4.1 Criteria for Decision-Making Between Multiple Interests in New Land Exchanges

It is a goal of the NPS that all land exchanges are reasonable, 

transparent, and fair. It is conceivable that, given the heightened 

concerns associated with the increasing flood magnitude and 

frequency of flooding on the Stehekin River, the NPS continued 

desire to pursue land exchanges as a means of land and resource 

protection, the limited availability of federal funding to complete 

land exchanges, and the limited availability of potential federal 

lands for exchange, there may be interest from multiple landowners in pursuing exchanges or multiple landowners interested in 

exchanging for the same federal parcel. The following criteria are 

those that the NPS would consider should competing interests 

for the same property arise:

Priority criteria:

•	 Landowner’s current parcel is a priority based on the 

resource analysis described above;

•	 Landowner is willing to consider other ways to equalize 

values (including paying for costs associated with structure 

removal on their current parcel) or an unequal trade;

•	 Landowner is willing to comply with codes, covenants, and 

restrictions to protect resources; and

•	 Landowner is willing to consider cluster development and 

shared utilities.

Secondary criteria:

•	 The timing of the request for exchange (request for a parcel 

made months before others may be considered first); and

•	 Landowner is willing to help defray due diligence costs, 

thereby reducing costs (i.e. site contamination surveys, 

real estate proposals, land surveys, etc.) to the federal 

government.
58 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 24: Exchange Land Availability
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 59

Figure 25: Possible Exchange Lands, Stehekin Valley Ranch and Airstrip Areas
60 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Figure 26: Possible Exchange Lands, Rainbow Falls and Stehekin School Areas
Chapter 5: Recommendations | 61

Figure 27: Possible Exchange Lands, Boulder Creek Area
View of Lake Chelan from Rainbow Loop Trail. Photo courtesy of Mendez.
Appendices and List of Preparers
64 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

Appendix A: Status of Land Protection Program

Nonfederal Land Purchased in fee: 99 tracts – 1202.45 acres

Interest Retained in Property:

Interest Retained: Original 

Number 

Retained

Number 

Remaining

Life Estate 7 3

Use and Occupancy, Term 8 0

Property Acquired by Complaint in Condemnation: None

Property Acquired by Declaration of Taking: None

Property in Condemnation: None

Statutory Acreage Ceiling: None Established

Funding Status:

Amount ($)*

Appropriated to date: $4,566,539

Obligated to date: $3,600,202

*These amounts are for the entire North Cascades NPS Complex since its 

creation in 1968: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, North Cascades 

National Park, and Ross Lake National Recreation Area. The appropriation and 

obligation figures are lower than those reported in the 1995 Land Protection 

Plan due to errors in the earlier figures. The figures above represent the correct 

amounts as of 2010.

Photo on Chapter Cover: Lake Chelan Reflections. Photo courtesy of John Chao.
Appendices and List of Preparers | 65

Appendix B: Nonfederal Land Acquired in Fee as of 2011 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

Table B-1: Nonfederal Land Acquired in Fee in Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (1968-2011)

Tract Acres Tract Acres Tract Acres Tract Acres Tract Acres

01-104 19.36 03-127 1.80 05-116 0.73 06-118 0.95 07-165 14.16

02-101 71.80 03-130 0.35 05-118 0.60 06-121 0.28 07-170 0.54

03-101 24.97 04-118 14.11 05-122 67.73 06-122 0.59 07-171 0.65

03-102 0.39 04-119 0.14 05-129 0.43 07-101 3.25 07-172 1.24

03-103 4.43 04-122 9.95 05-137 0.23 07-111 0.66 07-173 0.60

03-104 1.40 04-125 3.21 05-138 0.43 07-119 8.38 07-174 0.58

03-106 0.32 04-133 0.16 05-139 0.41 07-139 0.98 07-175 0.71

03-107 0.97 04-140 1.26 05-143 3.42 07-140 0.83 07-178 22.57

03-109 0.13 04-141 0.32 05-148 0.77 07-141 0.56 07-180 6.19

03-111 0.13 04-142 0.34 05-151 10.00 07-143 34.62 07-182 0.40

03-112 3.04 04-152 0.17 05-152 94.52 07-144 31.78 07-183 0.60

03-113 0.75 04-159 0.62 05-154 5.90 07-148 0.55 08-100 107.83

03-116 0.13 04-161 1.10 05-156 153.60 07-151 0.86 08-102 103.86

03-118 1.69 04-168 23.30 06-104 1.02 07-155 1.22 08-103 12.40

03-119 2.10 04-170 0.37 06-105 0.61 07-158 15.51 08-104 23.00

03-120 0.09 04-182 0.45 06-107 2.90 07-159 2.96

03-121 0.42 05-105 40.00 06-108 2.90 07-160 2.00

03-122 5.70 05-106 13.00 06-109 72.85 07-161 0.63

03-123 2.00 05-108 1.52 06-110 109.82 07-162 0.15

03-124 1.80 05-114 3.94 06-112 0.21 07-163 0.16

03-126 2.80 05-115 0.65 06-117 1.05 07-164 8.89
66 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

In the 1995 General Management Plan and Land Protection 

Plans, the NPS prepared a draft of a proposed overlay district 

ordinance for Lake Chelan NRA for consideration by Chelan 

County to adopt as part of their review of land use actions on 

private land within the Stehekin Valley. This ordinance is being 

carried forward from that 1995 process as part of the new Land 

Protection Plan.

The intent of the Stehekin Overlay District would be to provide 

residents with a framework to use when they consider new building design and permitted uses for their lands. The framework 

would provide assurance to landowners that the proposed developments would align with the compatibility standards required 

thru the NRA legislation if they follow the overlay district guidelines. Additional development of private lands will continue in 

the Stehekin Valley; implementation of this overlay district would 

ensure that this development meets the compatibility test listed in 

the enabling legislation. The proposed overlay district is patterned after a similar overlay district within Chelan County, the 

Icicle Creek Overlay District.

The proposed Stehekin Valley overlay district would have a 

review board made up of area residents and other interested parties with ex-officio (non-voting) participation by the NPS, which 

would review all land use development proposals for private 

lands within the area, and make recommendations to Chelan 

County regarding the appropriateness of each land use proposal.

1. Objectives. Design review for the Stehekin Valley is intended 

to accomplish the following objectives:

a) Encourage uses on public and private lands that can be 

developed and used compatibly with the purposes of 

the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, emphasizing 

those uses that protect area natural processes and 

resources and provide for safe visitor facilities and 

services.

b) Maintain the current level of services for visitors, 

allowing the private sector to augment services to meet 

additional demand, on lands determined suitable for such 

uses.

c) Maintain compliance with Chelan County and NPS 

objectives for the area as described in local and state 

controls and plans, including the Chelan County Zoning 

Code, Chelan County Shoreline Master Program, Chelan 

County Sensitive Areas Ordinances, NPS Architectural 

Character Guidelines and Management Objectives-Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area, NPS Compatibility 

Standards, Chelan-Douglas Health District Design 

Guidelines for Septic and Drainfield Systems, ChelanDouglas Health District On-site Sewage Disposal System 

Rules and Regulations, and other local, state, and federal 

laws and regulations.

d) Facilitate recreational opportunities while conserving the 

scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing 

to public enjoyment.

e) Promote the management, use, and disposal of renewable 

natural resources and development that are compatible 

with, or do not significantly impair public recreation and 

conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic, or other 

values contributing to public enjoyment and community 

vitality of the district.

2. Applicability

[The formal legal description of the subject area will be 

presented here.]

3. Design Review Committee

For the Stehekin Valley Design Review Overlay District, 

the Design Review Committee will consist of five voting 

Appendix C: Stehekin Overlay District
Appendices and List of Preparers | 67

members who will be registered voters and/or property 

owners within the planning area. The five voting members 

will be appointed as follows: three members appointed by the 

Chelan County Commissioners, one appointed by the Chelan 

County PUD, and one appointed by the Commissioner of 

Public Lands. They will be assisted by expert, ex-officio (nonvoting) members, including a professional hydrologist and a 

public health sanitarian (both designated by Chelan County), 

a planner employed by Chelan County, an NPS resource 

specialist, a planner or landscape architect affiliated with or 

designated by the NPS, and a wildlife biologist designated 

by the NPS. All members will be appointed and will serve 

in accordance with this ordinance, except that ex-officio 

members affiliated with the NPS will be appointed by the 

park superintendent.

4. Review Responsibilities

The Stehekin Valley Design Review Committee will review 

and make recommendations on all land use and development 

matters within the district subject to Chelan County 

jurisdiction, including but not limited to:

•	 Grading, building, and other related permits and 

approvals;

•	 Conditional use permits;

•	 Variances;

•	 Zone changes;

•	 Planned unit developments;

•	 Shoreline substantial development permits;

•	 Comprehensive plan modifications;

•	 Short and long subdivisions; and

•	 Minimum lot sizes and densities.

5. All Uses Conditional

In the Stehekin Valley Design Review Overlay District, all 

otherwise permitted uses will be deemed conditional uses. 

The recommendation of the Design Review Committee 

on such uses will be given substantial weight by the zoning 

adjustor, Chelan County Hearing Examiner, Board of County 

Commissioners, and other bodies in deciding applications 

within the district. Uses appropriate in one area of the district 

may be subject to conditioning or denial in another (e.g., 

siting of commercial facility in inappropriate scenic area).

All applications will be reviewed on the following criteria:

a) Consistency with the objectives for the district will be 

sought.

b) Early termination of uses inconsistent with the objectives 

of the district will be encouraged.

c) Otherwise permitted development will not be approved 

if clearly inconsistent with adopted NPS compatibility 

standards (e.g., development in areas designated as 

having resources with high priority for protection).

d) Degradation of critical/sensitive natural resources will 

not be permitted.

e) Suitability of location in light of objectives for the district 

will be encouraged.

f) Arrangements for use by general public consistent with 

objectives of the district will be encouraged.

g) Uses that result in less consumption of resources and 

conservation of both renewable and nonrenewable 

resources will be encouraged over more consumptive 

alternatives.

h) Conversion of existing facilities to uses compatible with 

the purposes of the district will be encouraged.

i) Uses that may result in degradation of water quality or 

pollution will be discouraged.

j) The construction or siting of building on slopes with 

gradient greater than 20 percent without assurances of 

acceptable mitigation measures will be discouraged to 
68 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

minimize the potential for erosion; hazards to public 

safety and health; and any adverse impacts on the 

recreation, scenic, scientific, and historic values of the 

area.

k) The clustering of structures is encouraged in 

order to promote open space scenic quality, 

resource conservation, and the efficient provision 

of visitor services. In developing overnight visitor 

accommodations, the combining of accommodation 

units may also be permitted.

6. Specific Uses

a) Permitted Conditional Uses: When consistent with the 

above criteria, permitted conditional uses at appropriate 

locations will include:

•	 Small-scale visitor lodging and/or campgrounds;

•	 NPS and concession housing;

•	 Food service;

•	 Administrative and office facilities for governmental 

purposes;

•	 Commercial and retail services consistent with the 

purpose of the area;

•	 Utility facilities and ancillary services; and

•	 Private residential uses.

b) Restricted Uses: In addition to restrictions noted above, 

the following additional restrictions apply to uses 

specified below.

•	 Applications for construction of multifamily 

dwellings will not be approved unless they would 

facilitate achieving otherwise permitted residential 

density while avoiding construction in critical or 

sensitive areas.

•	 Manufacturing or industrial uses not historically 

typical of the lower Stehekin Valley will not be 

permitted.

•	 Mining, except for limited extraction of sand, rock, 

and gravel for local maintenance use in accordance 

with an NPS-approved sand, rock, and gravel plan, 

will not be permitted.

c) For all proposals that would entail the use or 

consumption of federal property or resources, no 

approval will be granted unless prior federal approval has 

been obtained. 
Appendices and List of Preparers | 69

Table D-1: Points Assigned to Private Property in Stehekin Based on Resource Analysis NPS Tract # Assessor’s Parcel # Name (as of fall 2011) Acres CMZ Deposi- tion Zones AFMZ Debris Cones Hazard Zones Undeveloped 

ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

1101 321817120050 Barnhart, Michael J. et ux 8.38 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 1

1102 321817130100 McKellar, Richard V., et al 6.39 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1

1103 321817130050 Lewman, Darrel, et al 30.72 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 8 1

2102 321808340050 C& M I, LLC 0.7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1

2104 321806420050 Kaminski, Perry 6.65 0 0 6 2 1 1 0 10 1

2105 321808340100 Pinnow, Edward M., et al 17.9 0 0 6 4 1 1 0 12 1

2106 321808330050 Kinman, Marilyn M. 0.3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1

2107 321806420020 Kaminski, Perry 2.49 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1

2108 321806420030 Britt, James M., et us 2.35 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1

2109 321806420040 McMurry, John, et ux 6.28 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1

3100 331831230080, 

331831230060

Stifter, Patricia A. 12.95 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5 4

3108 331831340150 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.11 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 4

3125 331831340050 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

3131 331831340110 Purple Creek Corp. 0.16 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 11 4

4100 331736220900 Hegge, Gary L., et ux 1.73 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

4101 331736220850 Hegge, Gary L., Trustee 1.73 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0

4102 331736220950 Bouslaugh, Tom A., et ux 1.74 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

4104 331736220750 Darvill, Virginia T., et al. 4.31 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

4105 331736220500 Ellis, James L., et ux 0.37 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

4106 331736220550 Bell, Lloyd 3.65 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

4108 331736220100 Bishop, James L., et ux 0.59 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.

Appendix D: Resource Analyses for All Criteria for Private Property in Stehekin
70 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan NPS Tract # Assessor’s Parcel # Name (as of fall 2011)

AcresCMZ Deposition ZonesAFMZDebris Cones Hazard ZonesUndeveloped ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

4110 331736220400 Petersen, Gregory H., et al 0.5 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

4112 331736220350 McGinness, Collin 4.09 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

4114 331736220055 Clark, James D. 1.69 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

4115 331736220060 Weavtel LLC 1.69 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4116 331736210100 Morse Resort Inc. 11.67 5 0 0 2 1 1 0 9 0

4117 331736645020 Heimbigner, Christine 0.14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4120 331736645030 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.69 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

4121 331736220050 Clark, Judith 6.62 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

4124 331736420050 McLean, Mark A 0.58 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 4

4127 331736121550 Griffiths, William S., et al 0.2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1

4128 331736121700 Bridges, Jon 0.16 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1

4130 331736121200 Pearl, Warren L. 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

4131 331736121050 Parks, Terry V. 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

4136 331736120750 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2

4137 331736120700 StewFam LLC 0.18 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1

4139 331736140150 Glenn, Nicholas A. 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

4143 331736121000, 

331736120950

Sherman, Angela C. 0.33 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2

4144 331736121250 Breeze, William E. 0.28 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4145 331736121500 Freeman, Lillian A., et al 0.22 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0

4147 331736121600 Hubbard, Duane L., et ux 0.2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1

4148 331736121350 

331736121300 

331736121400

Dinwiddie, Randall R. 0.7 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4149 331736120350 Stehekin Joint Venture LLC 0.24 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0

4150 331736121450 Dinwiddie, Randall R., et ux 0.24 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4153 331736220600 Libbey, Caroline L. 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4154 331736120200 Buehler, Walter E., et al, Trustees 0.53 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4155 331736120150 Bohn, Willis C., et al, Trustees 0.32 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.
Appendices and List of Preparers | 71

NPS Tract #Assessor’s Parcel #Name (as of fall 2011)AcresCMZ Deposition ZonesAFMZDebris Cones Hazard ZonesUndeveloped ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

4156 331736120100 Liberty, Janet L., et al 0.64 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4157 331736120050 First United Methodist Church 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

4158 331736110150 Higgins, Ben C., et al 0.48 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2

4162 331736140050 Morehead, Harriet O., Trustee 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

4163 331736140100 Hazell, Marjorie J. 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

4165 331736120900, 

331736120850, 

331736120800

Menefee, Jill D., et al 0.56 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0

4166 331736121100 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.66 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

4169 NO DATA Parks, Terry 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

4172 NO DATA Parks, Terry 0.72 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

4173 NO DATA Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

4177 331736220300 Kelly, Patrick J., et al 0.48 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

4178 33173622050 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 0.48 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4179 331736110100 Gaukroger, James G. 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

4180 331736110050 Gaukroger, Robin R. 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

4181 331736645016 Parks, Terry 0.03 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4183 331736121650 Griffith, Jimmy E., et al 0.18 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4184 331736121850, 

331736645005

Gordon, Carole B., Custodian 0.48 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0

4186 331736121750 Skidz LLC 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4

4187 331736120300 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.35 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4188 331736121150 Parks, Terry 2.98 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4189 331736121255 Noble, Daniel, et ux 0.22 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4

4190 331736220650 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 0.18 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

4191 331736220700 Libbey, Caroline 0.38 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

4192 331736220551 Karapostoles, Caitlin, et al 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

4193 331736221010, 

331736220150

Parsons, Jeffrey L., et ux 1.18 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.
72 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan NPS Tract # Assessor’s Parcel # Name (as of fall 2011)

AcresCMZ Deposition ZonesAFMZDebris Cones Hazard ZonesUndeveloped ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

4194 331736220155 Courtney, Mistaya M. (CP) 0.48 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4195 331736221005 Theubet, James H., Trustee 0.48 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

4197 331736220200 Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 0.48 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

4198 331736221015 Seemiller, Joseph 0.48 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

4199 331736221020 Griffith, Frederick L., et al 0.48 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

5102 331726240200, 

331726240250

Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 1.68 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

5104 331726120050 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

5107 331726110210 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 4.85 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0

5109 331726140150 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 1.52 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

5111 331726140250 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 0.76 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

5112 331726140300 Jacobson, Neal, et ux 0.76 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

5113 331726140350 Weagent, Rodney W., et al 0.76 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

5119 331726410100 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5120 331726140400 Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 0.76 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

5121 331725330100, 

331725330050

Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 6.76 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

5123 331726110210 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 22.15 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 0

5124 331725645040 Morehead, Dwight T., et ux 0.21 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

5125 331725645048 Courtney, Reed 0.41 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

5126 331725645055 Denning, Michael 0.85 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

5127 331725645060 Hudak, Renee Y., et al 0.85 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

5128 331725645005 Ward, Norma V. 0.85 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

5130 331725645010 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.43 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

5132 331725330155 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 7.15 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0

5133 331725430050 Staley, James E., et al 0.85 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 0

5135 331725430050 Buehler, Thomas M., et al 27.65 2 0 0 6 1 1 0 10 4

5136 331725430200 Nielsen, Robert C., et ux 0.34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1

5140 331726240150 Carpenter, Adrienne, et al 2.13 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.
Appendices and List of Preparers | 73

NPS Tract #Assessor’s Parcel #Name (as of fall 2011)AcresCMZ Deposition ZonesAFMZDebris Cones Hazard ZonesUndeveloped ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

5141 331726240100 Sargo, Herbert J., et al 2.17 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

5142 331726240050 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2.48 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

5144 331725645045 Morehead, Lawrence E., et ux 0.21 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

5145 331726410050 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.65 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

5147 331725645035 Morehead, Harriet O., Trustee 0.42 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

5150 331725645020, 

331725645025

Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.58 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

5157 331726410250 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 2.99 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

5158 331725430150 Gaskill, Karl B. 3.03 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 2

5159 331725430300 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.21 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 1

5160 331725430170 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.65 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 1

6102 331722120050 Fultz, Elizabeth R. 4.06 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0

6106 331723330050 Ward, Vince, et ux 2.9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

6111 331722440100 Peterson, Gail 0.21 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

6113 331722140050 Miles, Michael, R. 0.18 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0

6114 331722140100 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.24 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

6116 331722120100 Valenti, Ron, et ux 0.7 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 0

6119 331722130050 Peterson, B. Jean 6.7 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

6120 331722140150 Stevens, John C., et al 0.32 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7100 331717110050 McConnell, Carolyn A. 4.36 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

7105 331716220600 Blomberg, John 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

7107 331716210600 Courtney, James O., Trustee 1.12 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7109 331716220200 Mundal, Anne S., et al 0.71 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0

7110 331736220250 Walker, Allan E., III, et al, Trustees 0.68 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0

7114 331716120075 Duke, Loretta 2.15 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7115 331716120050 Thompson, Laura J., et al 2.15 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7116 331716220150 Neuzil Living Trust 1.6 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 0

7121 331716440005 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.
74 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan NPS Tract # Assessor’s Parcel # Name (as of fall 2011)

AcresCMZ Deposition ZonesAFMZDebris Cones Hazard ZonesUndeveloped ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

7122 331716440050 Saulsbury, David, et ux 2.32 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7124 331716440200 Lavender, Teresa 1.18 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0

7125 331716410450 Evans, Linda R., et al 2.48 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

7127 331716410550, 

331716410600, 

331716410650, 

331716410850

Winkel, Alvy H., et ux 1.78 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

7130 331716410750 Burhen, William S., et ux 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

7131 331716410800 Bingham, John R., et ux 0.97 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0

7133 331716410300, 

331716410250, 

331716410200

Winkel, Martin E., et ux 6.19 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0

7134 331716410400, 

331716410350

Winkel, Alvy H., et ux 0.7 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0

7138 331716410150, 

331716410100

Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

7142 331716140050 Scherer, Jonathan, et ux 9.95 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 0

7145 331716410950 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.97 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0

7147 331716410900 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.71 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0

7149 331716220500 Barnhart, Michael J. 0.61 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0

7150 331716220450 Barnhart, Michael J. 1.01 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0

7153 331716220300 Schmid, Walter D. 0.9 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0

7157 331709330050 Leader, Thomas W., et al 28.7 6 0 0 6 1 1 1 15 0

7166 331716410500 Pitts, Donald, et ux 0.32 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7168 331716411000 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.47 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0

7176 331716210100 Leaf, Robert H., et al 2.48 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 0

7177 331716210250 Thompson Family Trust 0.64 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 0

7179 331716220350 Nawalinski, Thomas E., et ux 0.9 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0

7184 331716210300 Woodward, Douglas L. 0.8 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 0

7185 331716210050 Lehman, Robert A., et ux, Trustees 0.97 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 0

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.
Appendices and List of Preparers | 75

NPS Tract #Assessor’s Parcel #Name (as of fall 2011)AcresCMZ Deposition ZonesAFMZDebris Cones Hazard ZonesUndeveloped ParcelsRare HabitatWetlandCultural ResourcesTotal Points*Scenic Viewpoint

7186 331716120100 Mitchell, Robert D., Jr., et al 3.53 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0

7187 331716411050 Parlette, Linda O’Neal, et al 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7188 NO DATA Unknown (Company Creek Road) 0.61 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

7189 331716440150 Kurth, David W., et ux 0.58 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0

7190 331716440100 Morrison, Randy C. 0.53 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

7191 331716440260 Garfoot, Wendy 3 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

7192 331716440250 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 1.4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

7193 331716240050 Courtney, James O. 2.99 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7195 331716240100 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 3.02 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7196 331716240200 Courtney, Mark L. 2.01 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7197 331716240250 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

7198 331716240300 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0

7199 331716120150 Danielson Stehekin Cabin Mgt, LLC 4.97 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 0

7200 331709340100 Bowles, Stephen B., et ux, Trustees 1.74 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 0

7201 331709340300 Ramos, Myra 3 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 10 0

7202 331716220900 Blomberg, John 0.09 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0

7204 331716410850 Robinson, Aaron D. 0.4 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 0

8101 331707000050 Ray and Esther Courtney Family, LLC, 

et al

20 4 0 0 4 0 1 1 10 0

8105 331707240055 Courtney, Clifford G. 5.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

The “Scenic Viewpoint” column above is not considered in the “Total Score” for each parcel, but rather is used for scenic easement considerations according to the criteria 

described in Chapter 5 of this Land Protection Plan.
76 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

North Cascades Complex

An Act to establish the North Cascades National Park and Ross 

Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas, to designate 

the Pasayten Wilderness and to modify the Glacier Peak Wilderness, in the State of Washington, and for other purposes (82 Stat. 

926). 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I - NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK

SEC. 101. In order to preserve for the benefit, use, and inspiration of present and future generations certain majestic mountain 

scenery, snowfields, glaciers, alpine meadows, and other unique 

natural features in the North Cascade Mountains of the State of 

Washington, there is hereby established, subject to valid existing 

rights, the North Cascades National Park (hereinafter referred 

to in this Act as the “park”). The park shall consist of the lands, 

waters, and interests therein within the area designated “national 

park” on the map entitled “Proposed Management Units, North 

Cascades, Washington,” numbered NPCAS-7002, and dated 

October 1967. The map shall be on file and available for public 

inspection in the office of the Director, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, and in the office of the Chief, Forest 

Service, Department of Agriculture.

TITLE II - ROSS LAKE AND LAKE CHELAN 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS

SEC. 201. In order to provide for the public outdoor recreation 

use and enjoyment of portions of the Skagit River and Ross, Diablo, and Gorge Lakes, together with the surrounding lands, and 

for the conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic, and other 

values contributing to public enjoyment of such lands and waters, 

there is hereby established, subject to valid existing rights, the 

Ross Lake National Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to in 

this Act as the “recreation area”). The recreation area shall consist 

of the lands and waters within the area designated “Ross Lake 

National Recreation Area” on the map referred to in section 101 

of this Act.

SEC. 202. In order to provide for the public outdoor recreation 

use and enjoyment of portions of the Stehekin River and Lake 

Chelan, together with the surrounding lands, and for the conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic, and other values 

contributing to public enjoyment of such lands and waters, there 

is hereby established, subject to valid existing rights, the Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area (hereinafter referred to in this 

Act as the “recreation area”). The recreation area shall consist of 

the lands and waters within the area designated “Lake Chelan 

National Recreation Area” on the map referred to in section 101 

of this Act.

TITLE III - LAND ACQUISITION

SEC. 301. Within the boundaries of the park and recreation areas, 

the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to in this Act as 

the “Secretary”) may acquire lands, waters, and interests therein 

by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, except that he may not acquire any such interests within 

the recreation areas without the consent of the owner, so long 

as the lands are devoted to uses compatible with the purposes of 

this Act. Lands owned by the State of Washington or any political 

subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation. Federal 

property within the boundaries of the park and recreation areas is 

hereby transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for administration by him as part of the park and recreation 

Appendix E: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Enabling Legislation (Public Law 90-544)
Appendices and List of Preparers | 77

areas. The national forest land within such boundaries is hereby 

eliminated from the national forests within which it was heretofore located.

SEC. 302. In exercising his authority to acquire property by exchange, the Secretary may accept title to any non-Federal property within the boundaries of the park and recreation areas and in 

exchange therefor he may convey to the grantor of such property 

any federally owned property under his jurisdiction in the State 

of Washington which he classifies as suitable for exchange or 

other disposal. The values of the properties so exchanged either 

shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately 

equal the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the 

grantor or to the Secretary as the circumstances require.

SEC. 303. Any owner of property acquired by the Secretary 

which on the date of acquisition is used for agricultural or singlefamily residential purposes, or for commercial purposes which 

he finds are compatible with the use and development of the park 

or the recreation areas, may, as a condition of such acquisition, 

retain the right of use and occupancy of the property for the same 

purposes for which it was used on such date, for a period ending 

at the death of the owner or the death of his spouse, whichever 

occurs later, or for a fixed term of not to exceed twenty-five years, 

whichever the owner may elect. Any right so retained may during 

its existence be transferred or assigned. Any right so retained may 

be terminated by the Secretary at any time after the date upon 

which any use of the property occurs which he finds is a use other 

than one which existed on the date of acquisition. In the event 

the Secretary terminates a right of use and occupancy under this 

section, he shall pay to the owner of the right the fair market value 

of the portion of said right which remains unexpired on the date 

of termination.

TITLE IV - ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. The Secretary shall administer the park in accordance 

with the Act, of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1-4), as 

amended and supplemented.

SEC. 402. (a) The Secretary shall administer the recreation areas 

in a manner which in his judgment will best provide for (1) public 

outdoor recreation benefits; (2) conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to public enjoyment: 

and (3) such management, utilization, and disposal of renewable 

natural resources and the continuation of such existing uses and 

developments as will promote or are compatible with, or do not 

significantly impair, public recreation and conservation of the 

scenic, scientific, historic, or other values contributing to public 

enjoyment. In administering the recreation areas, the Secretary 

may utilize such statutory authorities pertaining to the administration of the national park system, and such statutory authorities 

otherwise available to him for the conservation and management 

of natural resources as he deems appropriate for recreation and 

preservation purposes and for resource development compatible 

therewith. 

(b) The lands within the recreation areas, subject to valid existing rights, are hereby withdrawn from location, entry, and patent 

under the United States mining laws. The Secretary, under such 

reasonable regulations as he deems appropriate, may permit the 

removal of the nonleasable minerals from lands or interest in 

lands within the recreation areas in the manner prescribed by 

section 10 of the Act of August 4, 1939, as amended (53 Stat. 1196; 

43 U.S.C. 387), and he may permit the removal of leasable minerals from lands or interests in lands within the recreation areas in 

accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as 

amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), or the Acquired Lands Mineral 

Leasing Act of August 7,1947 (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), if he finds 

that such disposition would not have significant adverse effects on 

the administration of the recreation areas.

(c) All receipts derived from permits and leases issued on lands 

or interests in lands within the recreation areas under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, or the Acquired 

Lands Mineral Leasing Act of August 7, 1947, shall be disposed of 

as provided in the applicable Act; and receipts from the disposition of nonleasable minerals within the recreation areas shall be 

disposed of in the same manner as moneys received from the sale 

of public lands.
78 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

(d) The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and 

waters under his jurisdiction within the boundaries of the recreation areas in accordance with applicable laws of the United 

States and of the State of Washington, except that the Secretary 

may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no 

hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, 

administration, fish and wildlife management, or public use 

and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the 

Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only 

after consultation with the Department of Game of the State of 

Washington.

(e) The Secretary shall not permit the construction or use of any 

road within the park which would provide vehicular access from 

the North Cross State Highway to the Stehekin Road. Neither 

shall he permit the construction or use of any permanent road 

which would provide vehicular access between May Creek and 

Hozomeen along the east side of Ross Lake.

TITLE V - SPECIAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. The distributive shares of the respective counties of 

receipts from the national forests from which the national park 

and recreation areas are created, as paid under the provisions 

of the Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260), as amended (16 U.S.C. 

500), shall not be effected by the elimination of lands from such 

national forests by the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 502. Where any Federal lands included in the park or recreation areas are legally occupied or utilized on the effective date of 

this Act for any purpose, pursuant to a contract, lease, permit, or 

license issued or authorized by any department establishment, or 

agency of the United States, the Secretary shall permit the persons 

holding such privileges to continue in the exercise thereof, subject 

to the terms and conditions thereof, for the remainder of the term 

of the contract, lease, permit, or license or for such longer period 

of time as the Secretary deems appropriate.

SEC. 503. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect adversely or to authorize any Federal agency to take any action that would 

affect adversely any rights or privileges of the State of Washington 

in property within the Ross Lake National Recreation Area which 

is being utilized for the North Cross State Highway.

SEC. 504. Within two years from the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

shall agree on the designation of areas within the park or recreation areas or within national forests adjacent to the park and 

recreation areas needed for public use facilities and for administrative purposes by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary 

of the Interior, respectively. The areas so designated shall be 

administered in a manner that is mutually agreeable to the two 

Secretaries, and such public use facilities, including interpretive 

centers, visitor contact stations, lodges, campsites, and ski lifts, 

shall be constructed according to a plan agreed upon by the two 

Secretaries.

SEC. 505. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede, 

repeal, modify, or impair the jurisdiction of the Federal Power 

Commission under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063), as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), in the recreation areas.

SEC. 506. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 

sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, 

but not more than $3,500,000 shall be appropriated for the acquisition of lands or interest in lands.

TITLE VI - WILDERNESS

SEC. 601. (a) In order to further the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act, there is hereby designated, subject to valid existing rights, the 

Pasayten Wilderness within and as a part of the Okanogan National Forest and the Mount Baker National Forest, comprising 

an area of about five hundred thousand acres lying east of Ross 

Lake, as generally depicted in the area designated as “Pasayten 

Wilderness” on the map referred to in section 101 of this Act.

(b) The previous classification of the North Cascades Primitive 

Area is hereby abolished.

SEC. 602. The boundaries of the Glacier Peak Wilderness, an area 

classified as such more than thirty days before the effective date of 
Appendices and List of Preparers | 79

the Wilderness Act and being within and a part of the Wenatchee 

National Forest and the Mount Baker National Forest, subject to 

valid existing rights, are hereby extended to include portions of 

the Suiattle River corridor and the White Chuck River corridor 

on the western side thereof, comprising areas totaling about ten 

thousand acres, as depicted in the area designated as “Additions 

to Glacier Peak Wilderness” on the map referred to in section 101 

of this Act.

SEC. 603. (a) As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, the 

Secretary of Agriculture shall file a map and legal description of 

the Pasayten Wilderness and of the Glacier Peak Wilderness, as 

hereby modified, with the Interior and Insular Affairs Commit-

tees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, 

and such descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if 

included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of cleri-

cal or typographical errors in such legal descriptions and maps 

may be made.

(b) Upon the filing of the legal descriptions and maps as provided 

for in subsection (a) of this section the Pasayten Wilderness and 

the additions to the Glacier Peak Wilderness shall be admin-

istered by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the 

provisions of the Wilderness Act and thereafter shall be subject to 

the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas designated 

by that Act as wilderness areas, except that any reference in such 

provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be 

deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 604. Within two years from the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall review the area within the 

North Cascades National Park, including the Picket Range area 

and the Eldorado Peaks area and shall report to the president, in 

accordance with subsections 3(c) and 3(d) of the Wilderness Act 

(78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c) and (d)), his recommendation as 

to the suitability or nonsuitability of any area within the park for 

preservation as wilderness, and any designation of any such area 

as a wilderness area shall be accomplished in accordance with 

said subsections of the Wilderness Act.
80 | Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Land Protection Plan

NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

COMPLEX

Palmer (“Chip”) L. Jenkins, Superintendent

Anne Braaten, GIS Specialist

Sharon Brady, Physical Science Technician

Elizabeth Boerke, Environmental Protection Specialist

Vicki Gempko, Natural Resource Program Manager

Jesse Kennedy, Branch Chief, Cultural Resources

Jack Oelfke, Chief, Resources Management

Jon Riedel, Geologist (SRCIP Project Manager)

Paul Slinde, Chief, Maintenance

Roy Zipp, Environmental Protection Specialist

SEATTLE SYSTEM SUPPORT OFFICE, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE

Rick Wagner, Chief, Division of Land Resources

Amanda Kaplan, Planning and Environmental Compliance

Frank Sannino, Cartographer

Wayne Hill, Realty Specialist

Rose Rumball-Petre – Environmental Protection Specialist

List of Preparers
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the 

Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands 

and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and 

water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks 

and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through 

outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility 

for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in 

island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS • NOCA • July 2012 • 168 • 114165A

Printed on Recycled Paper

Clouds over Lake Chelan. Photo courtesy of volunteer photographer John Chao.
Priority Mail

Postage and Fees 

PAID

U.S. Department of the 

Interior

Permit No. G-83

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

c/o North Cascades National Park Service Complex

810 State Route 20

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284-1239