National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area • Washington

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

Draft Stehekin River Corridor

Implementation Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

North Cascades National Park Service Complex:

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

August 2010

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan i 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Prepared by 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

Pacific West Region 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Lead Agency: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Cooperating Agency: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 

ABSTRACT 

Description

Recent major floods on the lower Stehekin River are threatening National Park Service (NPS) facilities and natural 

resources within Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA). Because of the current impacts and future risks 

associated with these unprecedented conditions, the purpose of this implementation plan is to enable the NPS to 

meet the goals and direction provided in the 1995 Lake Chelan NRA General Management Plan (GMP). 

The NPS and FHWA have identified a need to evaluate comprehensive and sustainable management strategies and 

linked public-private actions to address the consequences of flooding. This implementation plan is needed to address 

several interrelated issues, including to (1) respond to the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding, (2) 

implement and clarify 1995 GMP guidance, (3) sustain public facilities while protecting natural resources, (4) manage 

limited funding, and to (5) respond to private land-related concerns. 

Summary of Alternatives 

Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Management Practices and Existing Plan Implementation). This alternative 

would maintain the Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment, including raising it through McGregor Meadows. 

Administrative facilities in the floodplain would be relocated near the airstrip as called for by the GMP. Priorities from 

the 1995 Land Protection Plan would continue to be followed. Erosion protection measures would be implemented at 

one site but could eventually be implemented at many sites. 

Alternative 2: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone Where Possible; More High-Priority 

Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone (Preferred). This alternative would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road out 

of the floodplain / channel migration zone around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field. Administrative facilities in 

the floodplain would be relocated near the airstrip. New land protection priorities would be identified through the 

revised Land Protection Plan. New campgrounds and a new raft takeout would be designated. The shooting range 

would be closed. Erosion protection measures would be implemented at three erosion protection sites. 

Alternative 3: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Most Areas; Same Land Acquisition 

as in Alternative 2. This alternative would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road out of the floodplain / channel migration 

zone around McGregor Meadows. Administrative facilities in the floodplain would be relocated near the airstrip. New 

land protection priorities would be identified through the revised Land Protection Plan. New campgrounds would be 

designated. Erosion protection measures would be implemented at five erosion protection sites. 

Alternative 4: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Some Areas; Less High-Priority 

Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone. This alternative would maintain the alignment of the Stehekin Valley 

Road, including raising it through McGregor Meadows. Administrative facilities in the floodplain would be relocated 

near the airstrip. New land protection priorities would be identified through the revised Land Protection Plan. New 

campgrounds and a new raft takeout would be designated. Erosion protection measures would be implemented at 

seven erosion protection sites. 

Public comments on this DEIS will be accepted for 90 days and must be postmarked no later than December 11, 

2010. For further information, please write to Palmer L. Jenkins, Superintendent, Attn: Stehekin River Corridor 

Implementation Plan DEIS, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, 

Washington 98284-1239 or call the superintendent‟s assistant at (360) 854-7201. 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan iii

i. Table of Contents 

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... i

ii. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... xiii

Summary: Purpose of and Need for Management Action ............................................................ xvi

Decision to be Made ..................................................................................................................... xix

Summary: Management Alternatives ............................................................................................ xx

List of Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed ..................................................... xxxv

Summary of Issues and Impact Topics Considered ................................................................. xxxvii

Impact Assumptions ............................................................................................................... xxxviii

Summary of Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ xxxviii

iii. How this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is Organized .............................................. xliii

iv. Public Review of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................. xlv

Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action ...................................................................... 3

A. Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Primary Issues .............................................................................................................................. 3

2. Decision to be Made .................................................................................................................... 5

3. Project Area ................................................................................................................................. 6

4. Purpose and Significance of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area .......................................... 9

B. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 10

1. History of Stehekin River Flooding ........................................................................................... 12

2. Channel Instability Associated with the Transport and Deposition of Gravel ........................... 14

3. Shift from Spring Peak Flooding to Fall Peak Flooding ............................................................ 17

4. Human Manipulation of Lake Chelan and the Stehekin River .................................................. 18

C. Relationship to Other Plans.................................................................................................................... 19

1. Laws: Lake Chelan .................................................................................................................... 19

2. Laws: National Park Service ...................................................................................................... 20

3. Other Federal Laws .................................................................................................................... 21

4. Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................... 22

5. Legal Actions ............................................................................................................................. 23

6. Executive Orders ........................................................................................................................ 23

7. National Park Service Policies ................................................................................................... 24

8. North Cascades National Park Service Complex Plans ............................................................. 27

9. Company Creek Road Environmental Assessments 1989 - 2007 .............................................. 32

10. Stehekin Valley Road Environmental Assessments 1993 - 2007 ............................................ 32

11. Other Related Environmental Assessments ............................................................................. 33
Table of Contents 

iv Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

12. North Cascades National Park Service Complex Studies ........................................................ 33

13. Other Applicable Ordinances and Plans .................................................................................. 34

D. Summary of Public Scoping .................................................................................................................. 35

1. Overview .................................................................................................................................... 35

2. Summary of Concern Statements ............................................................................................... 37

3. Management Alternatives Scoping ............................................................................................ 47

E. Impact Topics ......................................................................................................................................... 51

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 52

2. Impact Topics Analyzed ............................................................................................................ 52

3. Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis ...................................................................... 57

Chapter II: Management Alternatives .................................................................................................... 63

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 63

1. Summary of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)......................................................... 76

2. Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................................................ 78

3. Alternative 2 .............................................................................................................................. 80

4. Alternative 3 .............................................................................................................................. 83

5. Alternative 4 .............................................................................................................................. 86

B. Description of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).................................................................. 88

1. GMP Implementation ................................................................................................................. 89

2. Road Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 91

3. Harlequin Bridge ........................................................................................................................ 91

4. Stehekin Valley Road / Company Creek Road—Private Access .............................................. 92

5. Existing Company Creek Road Erosion Protection Measures ................................................... 92

6. Existing Stehekin Valley Road Erosion Protection Measures and Stehekin Valley Road 

Improvement Project Implementation ........................................................................................... 93

7. Flood Protection Measures ........................................................................................................ 96

8. Materials Sources, Construction, Staging, Restoration, and Mitigation/Monitoring ................. 97

C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 ............................................................................. 99

1. Land Protection Plan Modifications ........................................................................................ 101

2. Stehekin Valley Road Modifications ....................................................................................... 109

3. Stehekin Valley Road / Company Creek Road—Private Access ............................................ 114

4. Recreational Facilities .............................................................................................................. 114

5. Management of Large Woody Debris ...................................................................................... 118

6. Flood Protection Measures ...................................................................................................... 120

7. Interpretation and Education .................................................................................................... 120

8. Research and Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 121
Table of Contents 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan v 

9. Weaver Point Erosion Protection Measures ............................................................................. 122

10. Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures ............................................................. 126

11. Stehekin Valley Road Erosion Protection Measures ............................................................. 130

D. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................... 146

E. Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................. 150

F. Environmentally Preferable Alternative ............................................................................................... 151

Chapter III: Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 155

A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 155

B. Potentially Affected Resources ............................................................................................................ 155

1. Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 155

2. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 157

3. Geology .................................................................................................................................... 158

4. Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 163

5. Geologic Hazards ..................................................................................................................... 163

6. Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 164

7. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 185

8. Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 192

9. Special Status Species .............................................................................................................. 195

10. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 210

11. Visitor Experience ................................................................................................................. 219

12. Wild and Scenic Rivers .......................................................................................................... 225

13. Park Operations ...................................................................................................................... 229

14. Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................................... 234

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 239

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 239

Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 240

Impairment ................................................................................................................................... 241

Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 243

Impact Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 244

Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................ 245

1. Land Use Impacts .................................................................................................................... 245

2. Air Quality Impacts .................................................................................................................. 254

3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts ................................................................................................... 262

4. Geologic Hazards Impacts ....................................................................................................... 282

5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts ............................................................... 283

6. Water Quality Impacts ............................................................................................................. 298
Table of Contents 

vi Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

7. Wetlands Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 306

8. Floodplains Impacts ................................................................................................................. 312

9. Wildlife Impacts....................................................................................................................... 317

10. Special Status Wildlife Impacts ............................................................................................. 327

11. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 334

12. Archeological Resources Impacts .......................................................................................... 334

13. Cultural Resources: Cultural Landscapes Impacts ................................................................. 338

14. Visitor Experience ................................................................................................................. 341

15. Visitor Experience: Access and Transportation Impacts ....................................................... 341

16. Visitor Experience: Interpretation and Education Impacts .................................................... 346

17. Visitor Experience: Visitor Use Opportunities Impacts......................................................... 347

18. Visitor Experience: Safety Impacts........................................................................................ 350

19. Visitor Experience: Scenic Resources Impacts ...................................................................... 352

20. Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts ............................................................................................ 355

21. Park Operations Impacts ........................................................................................................ 360

22. Socioeconomics Impacts ........................................................................................................ 366

23. Hazardous Materials Impacts ................................................................................................. 370

24. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................... 372

25. Relationship between Short-term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ..................................................................................... 373

26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................... 374

Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination ......................................................................................... 403

A. History of Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 403

B. Agency Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................... 404

C. List of Preparers / List of Persons and Agencies Consulted ................................................................ 406

D. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that received the Draft SRCIP/EIS ......................... 408

E. List of Federal Permits ......................................................................................................................... 411

Chapter VI: References .......................................................................................................................... 415

Chapter VII: Glossary and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 427

A. Glossary Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 427

B. Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 435
Table of Contents 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan vii 

List of Appendices 

Appendix 1: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Enabling Legislation (Public Law 90-544)........... 441

Appendix 2: Management Objectives and Actions in the Lake Chelan NRA GMP Applicable to 

the SRCIP ................................................................................................................................................. 445

Appendix 3: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan Management Goals / 

Objectives and Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 451

Appendix 4: Stehekin River Reach Analysis ............................................................................................ 453

Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List .......................................................................................... 469

Appendix 6: Summary of Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 473

Appendix 7: Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Advanced Flood Protection Measures ......................... 483

Appendix 8: Vascular Plants Observed within Proposed Project Areas ................................................... 495

Appendix 9: Proposed Conditions, Covenants and Deed Restrictions (CCRs) ........................................ 509

Appendix 10: 1995 Land Protection Plan Ranking of Private Lands ....................................................... 511

Appendix 11: Alternatives 2 and 3 Proposed Ranking of Private Lands for the Revised Land 

Protection Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 515

Appendix 12: Alternative 4 Proposed Ranking of Private Lands ............................................................. 521

Appendix 13: Revised Land Protection Plan ............................................................................................ 527 

Appendix 14: Carbon Emission Estimates and Calculations .................................................................... 529 

Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper ..................................................................... 533

Appendix 16: Current Knowledge Base Whitepaper (detached) .............................................................. 557

Appendix 17: Draft Floodplains Statement of Findings ........................................................................... 559

Appendix 18: Estimates of Gravel Accumulation in Two Reaches of the Stehekin River ....................... 575
Table of Contents 

viii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

List of Tables 

Table ii-1: Impact Assumptions .......................................................................................................... xxxviii

Table I-1: Chronology and Features of the 10 Largest Floods on the Stehekin River ................................ 13

Table I-2: Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Flood Frequency and Magnitude on the 

Stehekin River ........................................................................................................................... 18

Table II-1: Alternative Comparison Chart .................................................................................................. 64

Table II-2: Proposed Maintenance Compound Structures .......................................................................... 90

Table II-3: 1995 Land Protection Plan Ranking of Private Lands ............................................................ 102

Table II-4: 1995 Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels ......................................................... 103

Table II-5: Proposed Land Protection Plan Criteria Weighting for Alternatives 2 and 3 and 

Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................ 105

Table II-6: Alternatives 2 - 4 Revised Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels ....................... 106

Table II-7: Summary of Revised LPP Ranking for Private Lands in Alternatives 2 and 3 ...................... 107

Table II-8: Summary of Revised LPP Ranking for Private Lands in Alternative 4 .................................. 109

Table III-1: Land Ownership Changes in Lake Chelan NRA 1995 - 2010............................................... 155

Table III-2: Stehekin Average Temperature and Precipitation ................................................................. 165

Table III-3: Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Flood Frequency and Magnitude on the 

Stehekin River ......................................................................................................................... 167

Table III-4: Chronology and Features of the 10 Largest Floods on the Stehekin River ........................... 168

Table III-5: Comparison of Stehekin River Sediment Yield .................................................................... 172

Table III-6: Lower Stehekin River Shoreline Affected by Erosion or Flood Control Structures ............. 179

Table III-7: Potential Exchange Property Characteristics ......................................................................... 191

Table III-8: Potential Recreational Development Sites ............................................................................ 192

Table III-9: Special Status Plants .............................................................................................................. 196

Table III-10: Special Status Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 197

Table III-11: Summary Status for the McGregor Meadows Northern Spotted Owl Activity Site ........... 205

Table III-12: Overview of Pre-contact and Historic Period Archeological Sites in the Lower 

Stehekin Valley ....................................................................................................................... 213

Table III-13: Visitation to Lake Chelan NRA........................................................................................... 222

Table III-14: Existing Maintenance Compound Structures ...................................................................... 232

Table III-15: Stehekin River Inventory and Monitoring Programs........................................................... 233

Table III-16: Per Capita Personal Income ................................................................................................. 235

Table IV-1: Impact Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 244

Table IV-2: Changes to Land Use from Road Improvements .................................................................. 252

Table IV-3: Changes to Land Use from Land Protection Plan Revision .................................................. 253

Table IV-4: Transportation of Materials ................................................................................................... 255

Table IV-5: Estimated Carbon Emissions by Action for Alternatives 1 - 4 ............................................. 256

Table IV-6: Summary of Soils and Vegetation Impacts ........................................................................... 280

Table IV-7: Percentage of Bank Affected Currently by Erosion Protection Measures and 

Proposed under Alternatives1 - 4 in Reaches 1 - 4 ................................................................. 286

Table IV-8: Alternative 1 Flood and Erosion Protection Measures .......................................................... 288

Table IV-9: Alternative 2 Erosion Protection Measures ........................................................................... 290

Table IV-10: Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin River Shoreline Erosion Protection Measures ............... 290

Table IV-11: Alternative 3 Erosion Protection Measures ......................................................................... 292

Table IV-12: Alternative 4 Erosion Protection Measures ......................................................................... 294

Table IV-13: Lower Stehekin River Shoreline Affected by Erosion Protection or Flood-Control 

Structures ................................................................................................................................ 297
Table of Contents 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan ix

Table IV-14: Rehabilitation Actions—Alternatives 1 - 4 ......................................................................... 301

Table IV-15: Impacts to Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 308

Table IV-16: Impact Comparison Chart ................................................................................................... 376
Table of Contents 

x Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

List of Figures 

Figure ii-1: Project Area – Lower Stehekin Valley ................................................................................... xiv

Figure ii-2: Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. xv

Figure ii-3: Magnitude and Timing of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River ............................. xvii

Figure ii-4: Actions Common to All Alternatives..................................................................................... xxii

Figure ii-5: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 1 ............................................................................. xxiv

Figure ii-6: Potential Exchange Lands in the 1995 and Revised Draft Land Protection Plan ................ xxvii

Figure ii-7: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 2 ............................................................................. xxix

Figure ii-8: McGregor Meadows Reroute Map ........................................................................................ xxx

Figure ii-9: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 3 ............................................................................ xxxii

Figure ii-10: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 4 ......................................................................... xxxiv

Figure ii-11: Impact Categories that Contain Major Benefits or Major Adverse Impacts .......................... xli

Figure I-1: Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure I-2: Lower Stehekin Valley ............................................................................................................... 8

Figure I-3: Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 11

Figure I-4: Timing and Magnitude of Peak Discharge for the 2003 Flood on Six North-Central 

Washington Rivers .................................................................................................................... 13

Figure I-5: Net Gravel Transport and Deposition Zones on the Lower Stehekin River ............................. 15

Figure I-6: Stehekin River Large Wood Monitoring 1984 - 2007 .............................................................. 16

Figure I-7: Magnitude and Timing of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River ................................ 17

Figure II-1: Actions Common to All Alternatives ...................................................................................... 77

Figure II-2: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 1 ................................................................................ 79

Figure II-3: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 2 ................................................................................ 82

Figure II-4: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 3 ................................................................................ 84

Figure II-5: McGregor Meadows Reroute Map .......................................................................................... 85

Figure II-6: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 4 ................................................................................ 87

Figure II-7: Typical Road Cross Section and Cross Section with Pullout .................................................. 94

Figure II-8: Potential Exchange Lands in 1995 and Revised Land Protection Plan ................................. 108

Figure II-9: Weaver Point Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 3 - 4 ................................... 123

Figure II-10: Barb Construction Detail ..................................................................................................... 124

Figure II-11: Bioengineering Construction Detail .................................................................................... 125

Figure II-12: Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 4 ............... 128

Figure II-13: Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3 .......................... 129

Figure II-14: Stehekin River Mouth / Milepost 2.0, Boulder Creek ......................................................... 131

Figure II-15: Boulder Creek Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4 ................................ 132

Figure II-16: River Channel Changes at Buckner Hayfield 1988 - 2009 .................................................. 134

Figure II-17: Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4 ............. 135

Figure II-18: Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3 .................... 137

Figure II-19: Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 4 ..... 138

Figure II-20: Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3 ................ 139

Figure II-21: Milepost 8.5 Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4 ................................... 143

Figure II-22: Low Water Plank Crossing .................................................................................................. 144

Figure II-23: Milepost 9.2 Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 3 .............................. 145

Figure III-1: Stehekin River Watershed .................................................................................................... 160

Figure III-2: Lower Stehekin Valley Landforms above Harlequin Bridge ............................................... 161

Figure III-3: Lower Stehekin Valley Landforms below Harlequin Bridge ............................................... 162

Figure III-4: Channel Migration Zone in the Lower Stehekin Valley ...................................................... 169

Figure III-5: Large Woody Debris Accumulation on the Stehekin River 1984 - 2007............................. 173

Figure III-6: Large Woody Debris Storage and Transport Zones ............................................................. 174

Figure III-7: 2007 Large Logjam Locations ............................................................................................. 175
Table of Contents 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xi

Figure III-8: Stehekin River Channel Migrations 1953 – 2009, above Harlequin Bridge ........................ 178

Figure III-9: Erosion Protection Structures on the Stehekin River 2009 .................................................. 180

Figure III-10: Wetlands in the Lower Stehekin Valley ............................................................................. 183

Figure III-11: Lower Stehekin Valley Vegetation .................................................................................... 186

Figure IV-1: Overall layout of the Stream Reaches Analyzed on the Stehekin River .............................. 285
Table of Contents 

xii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

List of Photos 

Photo 1 – Private Cabin, Well, and Septic System Incorporated into Logjam at McGregor 

Meadows (2003) ......................................................................................................................xvi

Photo 2 – Rafters on the Stehekin River .................................................................................................... xix

Photo 3 – Stehekin Valley Road in McGregor Meadows during the 2006 Flood ...................................xxiii

Photo 4 – Floor of NPS Maintenance Shop after 2003 Flood ................................................................... xxv

Photo 5 – Harlequin Bridge ...................................................................................................................xxxvi

Photo 6 – Flooding of NPS Maintenance Area in 2006 Flood ..................................................................... 4

Photo 7 – Destruction of Private Cabin and Damage to Upper Company Creek Road during the 

2003 Flood .................................................................................................................................. 5

Photo 8 – Stehekin River Mouth after the 2003 Flood ............................................................................... 12

Photo 9 – Stehekin Valley Road at Milepost 10 after the 2003 Flood ........................................................ 19

Photo 10 – Stehekin River near Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture during a Fall Flood ............... 25

Photo 11 – Stehekin Valley Road in McGregor Meadows during the 2006 Flood .................................. 112

Photo 12 – Rock Barb and Willow Layers (Bioengineering) on Upper Company Creek Road 

Shortly after Installation .......................................................................................................... 126

Photo 13 – Bank Erosion at Weaver Point— Erosion at Site is Mainly Caused by the River when 

the Lake is Drawn Down, but Waves on the Lakeshore are also a Factor .............................. 127

Photo 14 – Beaver Activity in Riparian Zone near Buckner Rock ........................................................... 156

Photo 15 – Deep pool on Stehekin River at Buckner Rock ...................................................................... 165

Photo 16 – Logjam at McGregor Meadows—Combined with Another Logjam on the Other Side 

of the River, this Feature Covers Nearly 5 Acres, Contains More than 3000 Logs, and 

is 20 feet Deep in Places ......................................................................................................... 176

Photo 17 – Black Bear Fishing for Spawning Kokanee Salmon (Dick Bingham) ................................... 193

Photo 18 – Gray Wolf Pups (Conservation Northwest) ............................................................................ 199

Photo 19 – Bear Paw Prints (Roger Christophersen) ................................................................................ 200

Photo 20 – California Wolverine (U.S. Forest Service) ............................................................................ 201

Photo 21 – Western Gray Squirrel ............................................................................................................ 202

Photo 22 – Northern Spotted Owl ............................................................................................................. 204

Photo 23 – Historic Old Stehekin School ................................................................................................. 218

Photo 24 – Angler on the Stehekin River, Credit: Mike Barnhart ............................................................ 220

Photo 25 – Windsurfer on Lake Chelan .................................................................................................... 224

Photo 26 – Stehekin River near Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture ............................................. 239

Photo 27 – Stehekin River at High Spring Flow Near Frog Island (Stehekin Valley Road is 

Located at Base of Steep Cliffs, about 20 feet from the Eroding Bank) ................................. 271

Photo 28 – Rapid bank erosion at Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture ......................................... 273

Photo 29 – View Upstream at the Left (East) Bank of the Stehekin River Near its Intersection 

with Lake Chelan (Note Rip-rap Bank Armor on Upper Right) ............................................. 276

Photo 30 – Stehekin River at its Junction with Lake Chelan .................................................................... 284

Photo 31 – Lower Stehekin River Valley in 1921 before Water Level of Lake Chelan was Raised 

(Note historic Field Hotel near left-center of the image) ........................................................ 339

Photo 32 – Stehekin Community at the Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture Harvest 

Fest 2009................................................................................................................................. 368

Photo 33 – The Stehekin River near High Bridge..................................................................................... 437
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xiii 

ii. Executive Summary 

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzes a range of alternatives (management 

actions) to respond to the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding in the Stehekin River corridor 

within Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (Lake Chelan NRA or recreation area). The differences 

among the alternatives are primarily related to the way different management strategies are applied. These 

strategies are focused on the floodplain / channel migration zone, land use, and land acquisition and 

exchange. 

The Alternatives (1 - 4) are based on the purpose and need for the project and conform to existing laws, 

policies, and planning documents, including the National Park Service (NPS) Omnibus Management Act 

(Public Law 105-392) and the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) (NPS 1995a). 

The DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could result from the alternatives considered, 

including: 

 Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Management Practices and Existing Plan 

Implementation) 

 Alternative 2: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone Where Possible; 

More High-Priority Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone (Preferred) 

 Alternative 3: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Most Areas; 

Same Land Acquisition as in Alternative 2 

 Alternative 4: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Some Areas; 

Less High-Priority Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone. 

This DEIS has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S. C. 4321 - 4347, as amended), including the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations found at 40 CFR 1500 - 1508 and other applicable laws; NPS

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a); the NPS NEPA Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making (Director’s Order 12) and handbook (NPS 2001a); 

and other management directives. This DEIS facilitates compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, and other applicable laws and executive orders enacted for the protection of the 

environment. 

This DEIS together with public and agency comments will be used to prepare a final environmental 

impact statement, which will then be used to support a Record of Decision for the proposed action 

(whichever alternative [or parts thereof] is selected). 

Project Area Location 

The project area includes the lower Stehekin Valley, from High Bridge to the head of Lake Chelan, 

including Weaver Point. No actions are considered in adjacent wilderness which begins above about 

1,640 feet elevation in the lower valley (Figure ii-1: Project Area—Lower Stehekin Valley and Figure ii-2: 

Existing Conditions). 
Executive Summary 

xiv Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure ii-1: Project Area – Lower Stehekin Valley 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xv

Figure ii-2: Existing Conditions 
Executive Summary 

xvi Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

SUMMARY: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR MANAGEMENT ACTION

Recent major floods and resultant channel changes on the lower Stehekin River have intensified flood and 

erosion threats to NPS facilities and are impacting natural resources within Lake Chelan NRA. The three 

largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River since 1911 have occurred within the past 15 years, and in 

response, the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood 

damage. Roads, visitor facilities, and private development once thought to be safe from the river are now 

threatened. Because of the current impacts and future risks associated with these unprecedented 

conditions, the primary purpose of this implementation plan is to enable the NPS to meet goals and 

direction provided in the 1995 Lake Chelan NRA GMP (NPS 1995a). Goals for this plan include the 

following: 

 Sustainably operate and maintain NPS administrative facilities, public access (roads and trails), 

and campgrounds; 

 Protect water quality, scenic values, habitat, and natural processes of the Stehekin River; and 

 Continue visitor services provided by the Stehekin Community, including those services and 

facilities found on private lands. 

Photo 1 – Private Cabin, Well, and Septic System Incorporated into Logjam at McGregor Meadows 

(2003) 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xvii 

The NPS, the lead agency in the development of this DEIS, and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the cooperating agency, have identified a need to evaluate comprehensive and sustainable 

management strategies and linked public-private actions to address the consequences of flooding. 

Floodplain utilization is embraced in this plan as the best approach for managing a flood-prone mountain 

river. This concept allows floodwaters to occupy the floodplain to achieve the benefits of slower, 

shallower flood water for all areas and is viewed as a sustainable approach over the long term. Consistent 

with past public-private partnerships on both sides of the river at McGregor Meadows and elsewhere in 

the valley, this plan seeks to develop new management strategies in partnership with private landowners 

where public and private concerns overlap. This implementation plan is needed to address several 

interrelated issues, which are to (1) respond to the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding, 

(2) implement and clarify 1995 GMP guidance, (3) sustain public facilities while protecting natural 

resources, (4) manage limited funding, and to (5) respond to private land-related concerns. 

Primary Issues 

(1) Respond to the Increased Magnitude and Frequency of Flooding. Prior to the late 20th century, 

the Stehekin River was prone primarily to spring snowmelt flooding (Figure ii-3: Magnitude and Timing 

of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River). Since the 1970s, however, the Stehekin River has 

become prone to large fall rain-on-snow floods, which rise quickly and occur from mid-October through 

December. Hydrologic data collected on the river since 1911 confirm the significance of this shift, as 

analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The passage of severe floods in 1995, 2003, and 2006 has led to 

significant changes in the Stehekin River channel, and redefined the boundaries for the 100-year flood. 

The NPS has defined the channel migration zone, where the Stehekin River historically migrated in the 

valley over the past 1,000 years, as the effective floodplain regarding park management actions. As a 

result of this new flood regime, recreational and administrative facilities and developments once thought 

to be safe from the river are now threatened by flooding and bank erosion, while other sites in the 

floodplain have been compromised by larger, more frequent floods. Until now, the NPS has addressed 

problems on a case-by-case basis throughout the valley with the passage of each of these large floods. 

Figure ii-3: Magnitude and Timing of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River 
Executive Summary 

xviii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

(2) Implement and Clarify 1995 Lake Chelan NRA GMP Guidance. The GMP provides broad 

management guidance for Lake Chelan NRA, as well as some specific prescriptions to mitigate the risks 

and consequences of flooding (NPS 1995a). As a programmatic document, the GMP lacks the specific 

management direction needed to respond to the current circumstances imposed by the recent floods. 

Specific actions called for in the GMP that would be implemented in this plan include replacement and 

relocation of the maintenance facility and NPS housing out of the floodplain (NPS Tracts 06-118, 06-104, 

06-121, and 06-122), construction of the Lower Valley Trail and continued maintenance of vehicle access 

on the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads. This implementation plan is needed to inform the 

location, design, construction, and implementation of these actions. Guidance provided by the GMP needs 

to be updated and clarified to reflect the dramatic increase in woody debris since 1995 and recognition of 

the influence of Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan PUD) operations on the level of Lake 

Chelan and the lower Stehekin River. This implementation plan is also needed to evaluate and publicly 

disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed actions on the resources and values of 

Lake Chelan NRA. 

(3) Sustain Public Facilities While Protecting Natural Resources. Management action is needed to 

provide long-term use and access to administrative and recreation facilities. Despite erosion protection 

and flood protection efforts by the NPS and private landowners, bank erosion continues to threaten public 

and private property. Channel changes have increased the rate of erosion and frequency of flooding at 

some sites, while decreasing erosion rates at others. Integrated management actions such as facility 

replacement and relocation, site-specific bank hardening, and limited manipulation of woody debris in the 

Lake Chelan backwater zone now need to be considered to ensure the long-term sustainability of 

infrastructure and protection of resources. Management of large wood and proliferation of bankprotection measures have the potential to impact federally- and state-listed species and to increase the 

spread of nonnative plants. These conditions underscore the need for updated assessment of erosion and 

flood protection measures in the lower Stehekin Valley. 

(4) Manage Limited Funding. The NPS has spent more than $3 million to react to recent flood damage 

and new threats on an event-by-event basis to maintain vehicle access on the Stehekin Valley and 

Company Creek roads. A comprehensive and integrated set of strategies and tactics to meet the goals of 

the GMP and to mitigate the risk and impacts from flooding is urgently needed to enable the NPS to use 

limited funds for the maximum benefit of Lake Chelan NRA. Without this comprehensive approach, the 

NPS would continue to respond on a case-by-case basis, which costs more and could threaten natural 

resources and public safety. 

(5) Respond to Private Land-Related Concerns. Lake Chelan NRA includes approximately 417 acres 

of private land, much of which lies within the floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin 

River. Developments at McGregor Meadows and near the river mouth are particularly vulnerable because 

of their density and their location in more active river reaches. These sections of the river have extensive 

new gravel deposits and rapidly growing logjams as a result of recent floods. The high monetary and 

environmental costs of bank-protection and flood-mitigation measures continue to threaten long-term 

sustainability of recreation area resources and private property. At the river mouth, the accumulation of 

logs in the backwater zone of Lake Chelan has led to deeper floodwater in parts of the floodplain. The 

recent flooding has hastened channel migration, damaged or destroyed several cabins, incorporated debris 

and effluent from septic systems into the river, and increased the flood risk to private lands previously not 

threatened by flooding. The NPS is concerned that these circumstances will continue to adversely affect 

Lake Chelan NRA and Stehekin River natural resources and values. The primary means by which the 

NPS can address this concern is through a land exchange/acquisition program (Land Protection Plan 

(LPP)). The Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan (NPS 1995b) identifies and 

prioritizes private lands for acquisition or exchange from willing sellers. Last updated in 1995, this plan is 

being revised through this DEIS to address new river-channel and floodplain conditions and to create new 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xix 

funding opportunities to help protect Lake Chelan NRA and the Stehekin Community. In conjunction 

with this implementation plan, the Land Protection Plan has been revised to reflect the new river channel 

and flood conditions along the Stehekin River and new criteria for prioritizing land acquisition have been 

developed in response to these conditions. The revised Land Protection Plan is incorporated into 

Alternatives 2 - 4 in this DEIS and can be found in Appendix 13 (detached). 

Photo 2 – Rafters on the Stehekin River 

DECISION TO BE MADE

NEPA requires the documentation and evaluation of potential impacts resulting from federal actions on 

lands under federal jurisdiction. An EIS discloses the potential environmental consequences of 

implementing the proposed action and other reasonable and feasible alternatives. NEPA is intended to 

provide decision makers with sound knowledge of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (or 

parts thereof) available to them. In this case, the superintendent of Lake Chelan NRA (North Cascades 

National Park Service Complex) and the Pacific West Regional Director are faced with deciding which 

alternative to implement from the SRCIP to most effectively implement the 1995 GMP, to sustainably 

operate and maintain Lake Chelan NRA administrative and visitor facilities, and the private Stehekin 

Community and the visitor services it provides. 
Executive Summary 

xx Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Background 

This SRCIP is a response to the effects of the increased frequency and magnitude of flooding on the 

Stehekin River and the adverse effects this flooding has had on NPS infrastructure and private lands in the 

lower Stehekin Valley. 

The following key characteristics of the Stehekin Valley require careful planning to avoid the effects of 

repeated flood damage: 

 The flood prone nature of the Stehekin River, which is due to its geography, watershed shape, and 

steep slopes (includes the potential for the formation and sudden failure of debris dams in the 

narrow canyons above High Bridge) 

 Channel instability from the transport of large amounts of gravel, water, and large wood 

 A shift in the last 30 years from spring floods to larger, more frequent, fall floods 

 A history of river manipulation, including the Lake Chelan Dam, and the addition of erosion 

protection measures to the river over the last 20 years—riparian resources and water quality have 

been adversely affected as destroyed cabins, effluent from septic systems, and other debris are 

incorporated into the river during floods 

SUMMARY: MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

The following description summarizes the differences among the management alternatives. A detailed 

comparison of the alternatives is found in Chapter II: Management Alternatives and in Table II-1: 

Alternative Comparison Chart. Illustrations of the alternatives are found in Figures ii-4 through ii-10.

 Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Management Practices and Existing Plan 

Implementation) 

 Alternative 2: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone Where Possible; 

More High-Priority Land Acquisition in the Channel Migration Zone (Preferred) 

 Alternative 3: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Most Areas; 

Same Land Acquisition as in Alternative 2 

 Alternative 4: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Some Areas; 

Less High-Priority Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone. 

Introduction 

Alternatives 2 - 4 embrace the concept of floodplain utilization to varying degrees. In this concept, 

floodwaters would be allowed to spread out across the floodplain, rather than being constrained by dikes 

or levees. Floodplain utilization is proposed to reduce flood damage in any one area during the largest 

events. 

All of the action alternatives also identify integrated actions that are sustainable. Past integrated actions 

undertaken by the NPS include private-public partnerships to maintain floodplain utilization in McGregor 

Meadows (1998), the ―1948‖ channel (2007), and upper Company Creek Road (2007). In this plan, 

integrated solutions to erosion and floodplain utilization include the proposed actions at Boulder Creek, 

the Stehekin River Mouth, and using the Land Protection Plan revision to ease threats to private property 

and the integrity of the Stehekin River. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxi

On public land, Alternatives 2 - 4 attempt to avoid the channel migration zone, rather than just the 100-

year floodplain. This more conservative approach is used because of the observed rapid changes in 

Stehekin floodplain boundaries during large floods; the high cost of computer models to determine flood 

elevations to map accurate floodplain boundaries; and the inaccuracy of these models. 

The alternatives conform to recreation area policies in the Lake Chelan GMP, which call for removing 

public and administrative facilities from the floodplain. Options for private development in the floodplain 

include exchange of land with the NPS, purchase of private property out of the floodplain, elevating 

cabins, or construction of a variety of physical features to reduce the impacts of flooding (see Appendix 7: 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Advanced Flood Protection Measures). Other alternatives, such as 

construction of additional levees or dikes or dredging, were considered but were dismissed because they 

would have unacceptable impacts on the Stehekin River floodplain, would result in more ecological 

damage, or would require repeated, costly management actions (see ―Alternatives and Actions Considered 

but Dismissed‖ below and in Chapter II).

Because all alternatives involve various treatments of the Stehekin Valley Road, for which the FHWA 

would provide the necessary funding, design, and construction expertise, the FHWA is participating as a 

cooperating agency in the development of this DEIS. 

Summary of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Several actions in this plan are common to all Alternatives (1 - 4) because they were identified in the 

GMP. These actions would also protect public facilities or support the concept of floodplain utilization 

(Figure ii-4: Actions Common to All Alternatives). 

Actions called for by the 1995 Lake Chelan NRA GMP that would be implemented by all alternatives 

include replacement and relocation/construction of the NPS maintenance compound to the north end of 

the airstrip; replacement and relocation/construction of administrative housing in the same area; creation 

of a Lower Valley Trail that connects Stehekin Landing (Landing) to High Bridge and which is also 

connected to the Stehekin River Trail via a footbridge; and the ongoing use of willing seller-willing buyer 

land acquisition and exchange to remove development from the Stehekin River floodplain. Actions 

involving administrative and maintenance facilities will require additional site-specific environmental 

review and are not analyzed in detail in this document. 

The Company Creek Road would be maintained in its existing alignment and existing erosion protection 

measures along the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads would be maintained, including the 400-

foot-long levee constructed in the 1980s. The levee has virtually no effect on floodplain utilization 

because of its short length and location and is necessary to maintain the Company Creek Road in place as 

called for by the GMP. 

The Stehekin Valley Road at Wilson Creek, Milepost 8.0, and Frog Island would be protected in place in 

all alternatives because these locations have severe erosion problems and no viable reroutes. Actions to 

protect these areas, however, would vary among the alternatives. Grade-control structures designed to 

maintain sheet flow in floodplains during large floods at Milepost 7.0 and 9.2 on the Stehekin Valley 

Road and along the upper Company Creek Road would also be maintained. These structures were 

installed by private-public partnerships in 1998 and 2008 and are consistent with the concept of 

floodplain utilization because they protect the road from being occupied by the river. Consistent with the 

current GMP, logjams could be manipulated on the Stehekin River to protect Harlequin Bridge and the 

roads. 
Executive Summary 

xxii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure ii-4: Actions Common to All Alternatives 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxiii 

Recreational Facilities: Bullion Camp would be relocated downstream and across the road to mitigate 

safety concerns associated with hazard trees in the current camp. Day use, however, would be retained at 

the former Bullion Camp. 

Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Management Practices and Existing 

Plan Implementation) 

This alternative would continue existing management practices and improvements called for by existing 

plans (Figure ii-5: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 1). Foremost among these would be continuing 

implementation of the GMP, as described previously under ―Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)‖

and the 1995 Land Protection Plan. 

Photo 3 – Stehekin Valley Road in McGregor Meadows during the 2006 Flood 

Implementation of the 1995 LPP would continue using existing criteria and potential exchange lands. 

Decisions regarding land acquisition priorities would continue to be based on properties identified based 

on currently out-of-date floodplain boundaries and protection of scenic resources (areas of high visual 

sensitivity) along the Stehekin Valley Road. Both the Stehekin Valley Road and the Company Creek 

Road would be retained in their existing alignments. 
Executive Summary 

xxiv Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure ii-5: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 1 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxv 

Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project actions for the Stehekin Valley Road would include 

rehabilitation and surfacing of the road with an asphalt chip seal for 4.9 miles from Harlequin Bridge to 

the winter turnaround (Milepost 9.2), except for areas within the floodplain. There would be slight 

realignment (between Mileposts 6.0 and 6.5) and two grade increases (from Milepost 6.25 to 6.53 and 

from Milepost 6.95 to 7.14) using nearly 5,600 cubic yards of fill through McGregor Meadows, as well as 

implementation of erosion protection measures at Wilson Creek (NPS 2005). To retain the road, 

Alternative 1 would also include maintenance of, but not major improvements to, existing erosion 

protection measures along the lower Stehekin River. Routine maintenance actions, including snow 

removal; spring opening; unpaved road grading, shaping, and repair; paved road asphalt patching; ditch 

clearing; culvert cleaning; vegetation maintenance; and sign replacement would also continue as needed. 

It is anticipated that existing pavement would be resurfaced during or shortly after road projects above 

Harlequin Bridge. 

Photo 4 – Floor of NPS Maintenance Shop after 2003 Flood 

In Alternative 1, unlike the other alternatives, the NPS would continue to react to the consequences of 

each new flood event on a case-by-case basis, producing individual environmental assessments as needed 

to implement management actions. 

Floating large woody debris could continue to be removed from the head of Lake Chelan and used for 

NPS management projects. Individual pieces could also be turned or trimmed (subject to NPS approval) 

to maintain safe rafting in the Stehekin River, while logjams could only be removed to protect Harlequin 

Bridge and public roads. 

Parts of the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road would continue to lie adjacent to and within 

the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. Over time, it is anticipated that this would 

continue to require the NPS to install additional erosion protection measures in the river (e.g., rock barbs) 

to protect roads and public facilities. There would continue to be limited improvements to visitor and 

administrative facilities within the lower Stehekin Valley to implement the GMP. In Alternative 1, 

rehabilitation of the Stehekin Valley Road would be implemented upon approval of this DEIS. 

Replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility and NPS housing (NPS Tracts 06-118, 06-104, 
Executive Summary 

xxvi Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

06-121, and 06-122) would be implemented following site specific environmental analysis and approval 

of a tiered environmental assessment. 

In Alternative 1 as in other alternatives, private landowners could continue to implement the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ―Advanced Flood Protection Measures‖ (Appendix 7), including elevating cabins or 

constructing measures to protect private structures from the largest floods. 

Recreational opportunities associated with the Stehekin River would continue, including camping, rafting, 

and hiking. As noted above, the Lower Valley Trail would be constructed to link the Landing with High 

Bridge, including connecting it to the Stehekin River Trail with a bridge near the mouth of Boulder 

Creek. In this alternative the trail would use 6.1 miles of existing trail and would require 6.3 miles of new 

trail to be constructed. 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives (2 - 4)

In addition to the actions that would be common to Alternatives 1 - 4, there are a variety of elements 

common to Alternatives 2 - 4, including proactive measures to protect administrative and public facilities 

from the future consequences of flooding. 

Erosion Protection Measures: A logjam and new grade-control structure would be installed near 

Milepost 2.0 (Boulder Creek) to maintain sheet flow in the floodplain. Erosion protection measures would 

also be undertaken near the river mouth, Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), Weaver Point, and Milepost 5.3 

(Wilson Creek), though specific actions would vary by alternative. 

The raveling slope at Milepost 8.0 would also be stabilized by laying back the uppermost part of the slope 

brow, which produces most of the large rocks that fall onto the road. A rock wall (100 - 150 feet long and 

3 - 8 feet high) would also be added at the base of the slope. 

Large woody debris could be manipulated within the Lake Chelan backwater zone (0.25 mile from the 

head of the lake up the Stehekin River) if it posed a threat to the Stehekin Valley Road or water quality. 

Under certain conditions, it could also be used for agency-permitted erosion protection measures. 

In addition, because there is a large volume of wood now in the river system and because of the 

backwater influences of Lake Chelan, there is the potential for a large logjam to cause flooding of the 

densely developed area near the Bakery or to preclude access on the Stehekin Valley Road. Under these

emergency conditions, large logjams in this area could be manipulated to remove the threat consistent 

with the GMP. As with other use of large woody debris, the wood taken from this area could only be used 

in the channel migration zone for erosion protection and/or restoration projects. 

Restoration: Restoration of a 300-foot-long riparian strip along the Stehekin River at Buckner 

Homestead lower hayfield and pasture and along the Lower Field would occur, as would bioengineering 

(layered planting of native shrubs) associated with erosion protection measures. 

Private Property Access: If access to private property was compromised by river encroachment, the NPS 

would work with private landowners on a case-by-case basis to evaluate alternative access. 

Land Protection Plan: The NPS would make new exchange lands available through the revised Land 

Protection Plan (Figure ii-6: Potential Exchange Lands in the 1995 and Revised Draft Land Protection 

Plan). 

Recreational Facilities: New individual camping would occur near Rainbow Falls and group camping 

would occur at the Purple Point Horse Camp. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxvii 

Figure ii-6: Potential Exchange Lands in the 1995 and Revised Draft Land Protection Plan 
Executive Summary 

xxviii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 2: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from the Channel Migration Zone 

Where Possible; More High-Priority Land Acquisition/Exchange in the Channel 

Migration Zone (Preferred) 

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative 2 would allow the Stehekin River the most space to utilize its 

floodplain and move within its natural channel migration zone over time (Figure ii-7: Major Actions 

Proposed in Alternative 2). Proposed new bank stabilization on the left bank would be installed at three 

new sites to protect the road, including the Stehekin River mouth, Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), and 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek). At Mileposts 3.8 and 5.3 the river is at the edge of the channel migration 

zone, and relocation into steep cliffs is not feasible. As in other alternatives, Alternative 2 would also 

implement GMP provisions (including maintenance facility and housing relocation and construction of 

the Lower Valley Trail); however, there would be a change in the use of large woody debris to implement 

erosion protection measures. Alternative 2 would include limited use of wood from logjams in the river 

mouth area, where it is influenced by backwater from Lake Chelan. Such use would only be from the tops 

of prescreened jams, and only if the jam would not be destabilized. 

The revised LPP would be used to encourage relocation of private property from within the floodplain / 

channel migration zone to outside the channel migration zone, using management actions such as land 

exchange or land acquisition from willing sellers. Land protection priorities would identify specific 

properties that are most threatened by the Stehekin River as it migrates across its channel migration zone. 

Where if development at these sites were claimed by the river, debris from cabins, wells, and septic 

systems, including effluent, would be incorporated into the river. The criteria in the LPP used to identify 

NPS lands for potential exchange has been weighted more toward removing private development from the 

floodplain in Alternatives 2 and 3 than in Alternative 4 (see Appendix 11 for the priority ranking of 

private lands in Alternatives 2 and 3). New exchange parcels outside the channel migration zone would be 

made available, while some lands available for exchange in the 1995 GMP would no longer be available 

due to new or changed conditions. 

The Stehekin Valley Road would be rerouted from Milepost 5.7 to 7.5 (Figure ii-8). An access road 

would be maintained into McGregor Meadows from Milepost 5.7 to 6.5, to the last parcel of private 

property (07-157), until it is no longer needed. A turnaround at Milepost 6.5 to Milepost 6.8, would 

continue to provide administrative access to the grade-control structures. From Milepost 6.8 to 7.5, the 

road would be rehabilitated as part of the Lower Valley Trail. The portions of the Stehekin Valley Road 

before and after the reroute would also be rehabilitated and surfaced with an asphalt chip seal. Under 

Alternative 2, there would also be a series of erosion protection measures to stabilize those sections of the 

Stehekin Valley Road that are at the edge of the channel migration zone and cannot be relocated without 

major slope removal or extensive new road construction. Woody debris from the tops of some logjams 

and from floating logs in Lake Chelan could also be made available to landowners (for agency-permitted 

erosion protection) under a permit system. The wood could only be used in the channel migration zone for 

erosion protection and/or restoration projects. This action would limit importation of large rock and 

acknowledges the large amount of wood currently on the river. Rock barbs would be constructed at 

Wilson Creek (two to three barbs) and Frog Island (one to two barbs). Three more barbs and a small 

logjam would be located at a key point on the left bank above the river mouth. One or two of the barbs 

would replace 100 feet of rip-rap, and the bank would be revegetated with native shrubs. Another logjam 

would be constructed near Boulder Creek atop a grade-control structure (avulsion sill) away from the 

bank of the river and back into the forest. At Weaver Point, bank stabilization would be coordinated with 

plans under development by Chelan PUD for recreation, erosion, and cultural resource management. 

Riparian restoration and/or bioengineering would enhance riparian vegetation along the bank, at the 

Lower Field, Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, Wilson Creek, Frog Island, and the river mouth. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxix 

Figure ii-7: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 2 
Executive Summary 

xxx Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure ii-8: McGregor Meadows Reroute Map 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxxi 

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 - 4 would involve some manipulation of woody debris within 

the Lake Chelan backwater zone (extending 0.25 mile from the head of the lake up the Stehekin River). In 

this area of the lower Stehekin River and Harlequin Bridge, large logjams that threatened public roads, 

water quality, public safety, and regular access to private property could be altered to relieve threats. 

Recreational opportunities, including camping, rafting, and hiking associated with the Stehekin River 

would be enhanced. As in Alternative 1, the Lower Valley Trail would be constructed to link the Landing 

with High Bridge, including connecting it to the Stehekin River Trail. In this alternative (as in 

Alternative 3), fewer miles of new trail (4.6 miles) would be needed since the trail would use some former 

roadway (1.7 miles) and existing trail (6.2 miles). New group camping opportunities would be located at 

Purple Point Horse Camp to replace the group campsite at Harlequin when it is seasonally flooded. Three 

or four new individual sites would also be located near Rainbow Falls. In addition, a new raft takeout 

would be provided near the Stehekin River mouth, which would require a small new parking area and a 

300-foot-long access road off of the Stehekin Valley Road. Because the shooting range is located along 

the proposed Lower Field reroute, it would be closed and restored. No replacement shooting range would 

be constructed. 

Alternative 3: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in 

Most Areas; Same Land Acquisition/Exchange as in Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would allow the Stehekin River slightly less room to move within its natural channel 

migration zone and therefore would include the use of different erosion protection measures than in 

Alternative 2 (with four barbs and five logjams, instead of six to eight barbs and two logjams) (Figure ii9: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 3). As in other alternatives, Alternative 3 would implement the 

GMP replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility and housing areas and construction of the 

Lower Valley Trail. Different erosion protection approaches were developed since the rock barbs and 

logjams have different benefits and installation impacts. The erosion protection measures increase from 

Alternative 2 through Alternatives 3 and 4, consistent with the overall degree to which each alternative 

constrains the river. As in Alternative 2, there would be a minor change regarding the use of woody 

debris, and the revised LPP would be used. 

The reroute of the Stehekin Valley Road in Alternative 3 would be slightly shorter than the one proposed 

in Alternative 2. The reroute would begin at Milepost 5.7 and would end at Milepost 7.3 (Figure ii-8). 

With the shortening of the reroute, the portion of the existing road that borders Lower Field would be 

stabilized with riparian vegetation and rock barbs. As in Alternative 2, an access road from Milepost 5.7 

to Milepost 6.5 would be retained up to the last private parcel in McGregor Meadows until it is no longer 

needed; and administrative access would also be maintained to Milepost 6.8 for maintenance of gradecontrol structures. From Milepost 6.8 to Milepost 7.3, the road would be rehabilitated as part of the Lower 

Valley Trail. 

Four rock barbs would be constructed along the bank at Weaver Point (two barbs) and Lower Field (two 

barbs), while large logjams would be constructed at Weaver Point, near the Stehekin River mouth, at 

Boulder Creek (and avulsion sill), at Frog Island, and at Wilson Creek. Restoration and/or bioengineering 

(layered planting using native shrubs) would also occur in the same locations as in Alternative 2. 
Executive Summary 

xxxii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure ii-9: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 3 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxxiii 

Management of woody debris would be the same as in Alternative 2. Recreational improvements would 

be similar to Alternative 2; however, additional camping opportunities would also be provided at 

Company Creek at a previously disturbed site outside the Stehekin River channel migration zone, and no 

new raft takeout would be constructed near the Stehekin River mouth. 

Alternative 4: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in 

Some Areas; Less High-Priority Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone 

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would allow for some additional movement of the Stehekin 

River within its channel migration zone, if private property was purchased or exchanged. If Alternative 4 

was selected, the draft LPP (Appendix 13) would be revised to rank high priority lands per the criteria 

shown in Table II-15. Alternative 4 would constrain the movement of the Stehekin River from a large part 

of its floodplain through McGregor Meadows and at Lower Field (Figure ii-10: Major Actions Proposed 

in Alternative 4). Appendix 11 lists the priority ranking of private lands for Alternatives 2 and 3; 

Appendix 12 lists the priority ranking of private lands for Alternative 4. The LPP revision is different 

than in Alternatives 2 and 3. Land exchanges would be focused less on properties along the river, and 

more on sustaining the current development pattern. Because of this, there would be fewer parcels with a 

high priority for acquisition that would allow for their removal from the channel migration zone. Some 

private development in flood-prone areas near the river channel, however, would be considered for 

exchange or purchase. Actions associated with GMP implementation (including replacement and 

relocation of the maintenance facility and NPS housing and construction of the Lower Valley Trail) 

would be the same as in ―Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 

As in Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be stabilization and riparian restoration of the bank along the 

Lower Field. As in Alternative 1, instead of a reroute around McGregor Meadows, Stehekin Valley Road 

would be raised in some locations to minimize flood damage, and 4.9 miles of the road would be 

rehabilitated and paved between Harlequin Bridge and the winter turnaround. 

There would be additional placement of barbs and bioengineering for erosion protection measures 

implemented along the Stehekin River, not only at the Lower Field, but also near Milepost 7.0 and 

Milepost 9.2. To maintain the Stehekin Valley Road in its existing alignment, Alternative 4 would have 

the greatest number of locations where erosion protection measures would be undertaken. Rock barbs 

would be constructed at Weaver Point (two barbs), Stehekin River mouth (three barbs), Frog Island (two 

barbs), Wilson Creek (two to three barbs), Lower Field (two barbs), Milepost 7.0 (two barbs), and 

Milepost 9.2 (three barbs), and a large logjam/avulsion sill would be constructed at Boulder Creek along 

the bank extending into the forest. Riparian restoration and/or bioengineering (layered planting associated 

with rock barbs or logjams) would also occur in the same locations as in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Use of woody debris would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3 (with both NPS and private, permitted 

use), except that woody debris could be used from the tops of prescreened logjams from areas below the 

Bullion raft launch, including at McGregor Meadows. (This is in contrast to Alternatives 2 and 3, which 

restrict taking logs from the river to below Boulder Creek in the Lake Chelan backwater zone.) 

Recreational improvements would be the same as in Alternative 3 except there would be a raft launch in 

this alternative, as in Alternative 2. Construction of the Lower Valley Trail would be similar to that 

proposed in Alternative 1, with 6.1 miles of existing trail and 6.3 miles of new trail, but it would follow 

more sections of the existing road under this alternative. 
Executive Summary 

xxxiv Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure ii-10: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 4 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxxv 

LIST OF ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED

Under NEPA,(40 CFR 1504.14 (a)) alternatives may be eliminated from detailed study based on the 

following reasons: 

 Technical or economic infeasibility; 

 Inability to meet project objectives or resolve need for the project; 

 Duplication of other less environmentally damaging alternatives; 

 Conflicts with an up-to-date valid plan, statement of purpose and significance, or other policy; 

and therefore, would require a major change in that plan or policy to implement; and 

 Environmental impacts too great, in either a cumulative or site-specific sense. 

The following alternatives or variations were considered during the design phase of the project, but 

because they met one or more of the above criteria, they were rejected. Information about why these 

alternatives or actions were rejected is included in Chapter II (D: Alternatives and Actions Considered but 

Dismissed) of this document: 

 Allow use of the airstrip for exchange to relocate private property outside of the floodplain. 

 Implement additional flood protection (bank hardening) measures, such as rip-rap or levees along 

the banks of the Stehekin River to prevent flooding. 

 Implement additional erosion protection measures at Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture 

 Exchange lands to allow private landowners to establish or maintain flood/erosion protection. 

 Take action as part of the plan to solely protect private property. 

 Reroute the Road at Milepost 8.0. 

 Reestablish the south side Stehekin Valley Road along the Company Creek Road alignment, 

including constructing a new bridge. 

 The scope of the plan should include the entire Stehekin River Watershed, including the area 

above High Bridge. 

 Sediment and large woody debris sources above High Bridge and/or in the whole Stehekin 

watershed should be evaluated for treatment. 

 The Stehekin River should be contained within a channel to reduce flooding of private property 

and public facilities. 

 The plan should include actions that would resolve issues in the whole lower valley. 

 The goal of the plan should be to allow natural processes to occur unimpeded so that natural 

flooding and erosion can continue to occur without regard to its effect on facilities and private 

property. 

 Plan alternatives should include consideration of rerouting the Company Creek Road. 

 Excess materials, including large woody debris and excavated gravel generated by the plan 

should be used for other public and private projects in Stehekin. 

 Use suitable gravel from Stehekin for projects in the valley instead of importing materials at high 

cost. 
Executive Summary 

xxxvi Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Pile burning or consumptive use of large woody debris generated by the plan should be 

considered. 

 The plan should consider changes to the Sand, Rock and Gravel Plan to allow use of gravel 

generated by plan actions. 

 Gravel removal should be used instead of land exchanges. 

 Dredging should be part of the plan as long as it is done in a way that minimizes impacts. 

 Reroute the Road at Milepost 9.2. 

 Relocate the shooting range in Alternative 2. 

Interdisciplinary Analysis / Technical Committee 

Analysis of impacts to wildlife, plants, and cultural resources was conducted primarily by NPS staff. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted on impacts to threatened and endangered species, including 

the northern spotted owl. In addition, because of the large amount of hydrologic and geologic data on the 

Stehekin River; the complexity of the Stehekin River system; and the number of issues, sites, and actions 

considered in this plan, the NPS established a technical committee for this planning effort. The committee 

included representatives from Chelan County, Chelan PUD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife, and Geomax PC, a private 

consulting engineer familiar with Stehekin. The technical committee provided scientific and regulatory 

information related to long-term river and floodplain management in the lower Stehekin Valley. 

Photo 5 – Harlequin Bridge 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxxvii 

To comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the purpose of the technical committee was 

not to advise the NPS on plan development, but rather to assess technical information and the 

applicability of regulations regarding proposed management alternatives and actions. Meetings of the 

technical committee were held to identify issues and to review alternative development in spring 2008; to 

conduct a field review of potential actions and sites in summer 2008; and to analyze impacts associated 

with specific alternative actions. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED

Impacts of each alternative have been analyzed. The impact topics focus the discussion of impacts on the 

comparison of affected resources. 

The following impact topics have been retained because measurable impacts would occur from 

implementation of the alternatives and because concerns about impacts were expressed by the public 

and/or the interdisciplinary team. A detailed analysis of their inclusion is given in Chapter I: Purpose of 

and Need for Management Action. 

 Land use 

 Air quality 

 Soils and vegetation 

 Water resources (including hydraulics and streamflow characteristics, water quality, wetlands, 

and floodplains) 

 Geologic hazards 

 Wildlife 

 Special status wildlife 

 Prehistoric and historic archeological resources 

 Historic structures 

 Visitor experience (including access and transportation, visitor use opportunities, interpretation 

and education, scenic resources, and safety) 

 Wild and scenic rivers 

 Park operations 

 Socioeconomics 

 Hazardous materials 

 Unavoidable adverse impacts 

 Relationship between short-term use of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity 

 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources 
Executive Summary 

xxxviii Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The topics listed below either would not be affected or would be affected only negligibly by the 

alternatives evaluated in this DEIS. Therefore, these topics have been dismissed from further analysis. A 

detailed rationale for dismissing these and other impact topics is given in Chapter I: Purpose of and Need 

for Management Action. 

 Water quantity 

 Special status plants 

 Traditional cultural (ethnographic) resources 

 Museum collections 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

 Lightscapes 

 Wilderness 

 Soundscapes 

 Prime and unique farmlands 

 Energy consumption (carbon footprint of alternatives is discussed in Air Quality) 

 Environmental justice. 

IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS

Acreage impacts and other quantified impacts provided within the analysis are preliminary. This 

information is provided to convey the relative differences in impacts among alternatives and is from 

multiple sources, including the 30 percent road designs provided by Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Final impact numbers would likely be 

within 10 percent of the numbers provided in Table ii-1: Impact Assumptions and throughout this 

document. Estimated road impacts have been rounded to the nearest half or whole acre, although some 

specific differences are given within, depending on the impact being discussed. Impacts associated with 

erosion protection measures and recreational features have been derived from designs based on the 

anticipated area that would be affected. Implementation of these measures would have similar impacts but 

could be slightly more or less than the approximate impact figures identified. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NEPA requires that environmental documents disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed federal 

action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any adverse environmental effects that cannot be 

avoided should the proposed action be implemented. These analyses provide the basis for comparing the 

effects of the alternatives. NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity and duration of impacts, 

indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and measures to mitigate impacts. In addition to determining the 

environmental consequences of the preferred and other alternatives, NPS Management Policies 2006

(NPS 2006a) and Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2001a) require analysis of potential effects to determine if 

actions would impair park resources. 

Below is a summary of major adverse and beneficial impacts that would occur under the alternatives 

(Table ii-1: Impact Assumptions). These impacts are further defined in Chapter IV of the DEIS. In Table 

IV-16: Impact Comparison Chart, in addition to major impacts, negligible, minor, and moderate impacts 

are described. For each impact topic, effects of the alternatives are assessed by context, type, duration, 

area, and intensity, and include a discussion of cumulative impacts. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xxxix 

Table ii-1: Impact Assumptions 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Overall road mileage 4.9 mi Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1

Actual area 

(road length × 16 ft)

9.4 ac Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1

Estimated lands 

available for 

exchange 

37 ac 24 ac Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2

Site-specific road 

improvements

(pullouts, winter 

turnaround)

0.8 ac 0.9 ac 0.9 ac Same as Alt 1

McGregor Meadows 

Access Road

N/A 1.3 ac

(0.8 mi)

Same as alt 2 N/A

Number of barbs 

(acres)

0 6 - 8 (0.5) 4 (0.3) 16 - 17 (1.1)

Number of logjams 

(acres)

0 2 (0.1) 5 (0.3) 3 (0.1)

Maintenance / 

housing relocation

5 - 8 ac Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1

Recreational 

improvements

3.1 ac 3.6 ac 3.4 ac 3.5 ac

Restoration

a. Riparian 1.5 ac 4.1 ac 3.9 ac 2.9 ac

b. Upland 3.6 ac 4.4 ac 3.7 ac 3.7 ac

c. Bioengineering

(barbs and logjams)

n/a 0.6 ac 0.6 ac 1.2 ac

Total restoration 

(a+b+c)

5.1 ac 9.1 ac 8.2 ac 7.8 ac

Total disturbance 10 ac (new)

37 ac (LPP)

12 ac (existing)

28 ac (new)

24 ac (LPP)

8 ac (existing)

28 ac (new)

24 ac (LPP)

9 ac (existing)

11 ac (new)

24 ac (LPP)

12 ac (existing)

Alternatives 2 and 3 have major benefits in eight impact categories, while major negative impacts occur 

in five categories. Benefits in Alternative 2 would occur in land use, soils and vegetation, hydraulics and 

streamflow, water quality, wetlands, floodplains, NPS operations, and hazardous materials impact 

categories. Most of these beneficial impacts are from removal of the NPS maintenance facility and 

housing and 1.9 miles of road from the floodplain in McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field. An 

updated Land Protection Plan in Alternatives 2 and 3 would create opportunities for private landowners 

and the NPS to remove some of the most threatened floodplain development. As shown in Figure ii-11, 

Alternatives 1 and 4 have fewer major beneficial effects than Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Most of the major negative impacts in Alternatives 2 and 3 are associated with short- and long-term 

disturbances to land use, vegetation and soils, water quality, and wildlife during construction of the new 

road around McGregor Meadows and NPS facilities. The reroute includes the possibility of disturbing a 

nesting site for northern spotted owls. Alternatives 1 and 4 avoid immediate encroachment on the owl 

activity area, but over the long term, anticipated channel avulsion in the valley near the nesting site would 

require additional activity to protect the road and could disturb the owls. 

All of the action alternatives would add to cumulative effects on the Stehekin River by installation of new 

erosion protection structures. Alternative 2 would add six to eight rock barbs at three sites, an increase in 
Executive Summary 

xl Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the total number of barbs on the river from the current 30, and an increase in affected streambank from 

6.5 to 8.3%. At Frog Island and Wilson Creek, the road is currently at the edge of its channel migration 

zone, and the added barbs would be viewed as a moderate impact. Proposed barbs at the Stehekin River 

mouth are along a terrace in the middle of the channel migration zone, and therefore have a larger impact 

than at the other two sites. At Frog Island and the Stehekin River mouth, impacts are mitigated to some 

degree because rock barbs and bioengineering would replace existing rip-rap. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have similar cumulative impacts on river processes, but in Alternative 3 large 

engineered log jams would be installed instead of some rock barbs. By focusing on maintaining the 

Stehekin Valley Road in place, Alternative 4 would add to cumulative impacts to the river by adding 16 - 

17 new rock barbs, increasing the amount of affected streambank from 6.5 to 9.5%. While Alternative 1 

proposes the fewest new erosion protection structures, it would add more fill to the floodplain at 

McGregor Meadows to elevate the road, and would restrict the river from more of its floodplain, similar 

to Alternative 4. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xli 

Figure ii-11: Impact Categories that Contain Major Benefits or Major Adverse Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xliii 

iii. How this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is 

Organized 

i. Table of Contents. This lists the chapters and primary subsections of each and where they may be 

found within the document. 

ii. Executive Summary. This section contains a summary of the main sections of this DEIS. 

iii. How this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is Organized. This section (the current section) 

describes what is contained in each section of the document.

iv. Public Review of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This is a guide to how to comment 

on the DEIS.

Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action. This chapter identifies the purpose and need 

for the proposed actions. It also introduces Lake Chelan NRA, the project area, and the planning 

background for the project, including the purpose and significance of Lake Chelan NRA. It identifies 

related laws, policy, and park and other agency plans and summarizes public participation to date. 

―Impact Topics‖ describes the potentially affected resources and laws or policy relating to their inclusion 

in this DEIS. This section also identifies those resources that have been dismissed from further analysis 

due to their having no or negligible identified potential environmental consequences. 

Chapter II: Management Alternatives. This chapter describes the proposed alternative courses of 

action, including the reasons for dismissing options that do not meet project objectives or other defined 

criteria. It also identifies and provides analysis related to the selection of the environmentally preferable 

alternative. The alternative comparison chart (Table ii-1) highlights the major impacts among the 

alternatives. 

Chapter III: Affected Environment. ―Affected Environment‖ provides information about the existing 

environment, focusing on those resources that could be affected by the decisions in the alternatives. 

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences. This chapter describes the impacts of each alternative on 

Lake Chelan NRA resources, including cumulative impacts. ―Methodology‖ introduces key background 

material for the analysis presented in the ―Environmental Consequences‖ section. Similar to Chapter II:

Management Alternatives, the ―Environmental Consequences‖ section contains an impact comparison 

chart (Table IV-16) to compare the differences in projected impacts among the alternatives. 

Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination. This chapter summarizes information about internal and 

public scoping and preparation and review of the DEIS and includes a list of preparers, identifying 

agencies, and individuals consulted during the planning process. 

Chapter VI: References. This chapter provides bibliographical information for sources cited in this 

DEIS. 

Chapter VII: Glossary. This chapter provides definitions for acronyms and technical terms used in this 

DEIS. 
How this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is Organized 

xliv Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Appendices. These sections support the analysis and information within the Draft SRCIP/EIS, and 

include the following: 

Appendix 1: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Enabling Legislation (Public Law 90-544)

Appendix 2: Management Objectives and Actions in the Lake Chelan NRA GMP Applicable to 

the SRCIP 

Appendix 3: Land Protection Plan Management Goals / Objectives and Guidelines 

Appendix 4: Stehekin River Reach Analysis 

Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List 

Appendix 6: Summary of Mitigation Measures 

Appendix 7: Army Corps of Engineers Advanced Flood Protection Measures

Appendix 8: Vascular Plants Observed within Proposed Project Areas 

Appendix 9: Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Deed Restrictions 

Appendix 10: 1995 Land Protection Plan Ranking of Private Lands 

Appendix 11: Alternatives 2 and 3 Proposed Ranking of Private Lands 

Appendix 12: Alternative 4 Proposed Ranking of Private Lands 

Appendix 13: Revised Land Protection Plan (Detached) 

Appendix 14: Carbon Emissions Estimates and Calculations 

Appendix 15: Laws, Policies, and Regulations Whitepaper 

Appendix 16: Current Knowledge Base Whitepaper (Detached) 

Appendix 17: Draft Floodplains Statement of Findings 

Appendix 18: Estimates of Gravel Accumulation in Two Reaches of the Stehekin River 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan xlv 

iv. Public Review of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The public comment period for this draft SRCIP/DEIS will extend no later than 90 days after the 

Environmental Protection Agency files the notice of availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. 

The SRCIP/DEIS is being made available to the public, federal, state, and local agencies and 

organizations through a wide variety of news media, direct mailing, placement on the park’s website, and 

announcements in the SRCIP newsletter. Copies may also be found at the following public libraries: 

Chelan, Wenatchee, and Seattle and Golden West Visitor Center in Stehekin. 

During the comment period, comments may be submitted through any one of several methods. 

Mail: North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

Attn: SRCIP/DEIS 

810 State Route 20 

Sedro-Woolley, Washington 98284 

Phone: Project Leader Jon Riedel (360) 854-7330 

NOCA Headquarters (360) 854-7200 

E-mail: noca_planning@nps.gov 

Park Website: NOCA homepage: www.nps.gov/noca/srcip

At the PEPC website, select the ―Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan.‖ The 

full text document, an online comment form, and instructions for submitting online 

comments are under the ―Documents and Links‖ tab. Please use the online comment 

form to submit your ideas, questions, or comments. 

Please include ―Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan‖ in the subject header. 

For the ease of record keeping, the park would prefer that comments be made on PEPC or the park 

website as opposed to emails and phone calls. 

Comments may also be made in person at one of the upcoming public workshops. The specific dates and 

times for these meetings will be announced in local newspapers, in the SRCIP newsletter, and online at 

the above website. A limited number of additional copies of this document are available from the above 

mailing address. 

Public comments and contributions are an invaluable part of this planning process and the NPS looks 

forward to comments on this draft SRCIP/DEIS. 

Freedom of Information Act Notice 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personally identifiable information 

in your comment, please be aware that due to recent litigation, NPS practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business 

hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home addresses from the 

rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances 

in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent’s identity, as allowable by law. If 

you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of 
Public Review of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

xlvi Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

your comment. Anonymous comments, however, may not be considered. We will always make all 

submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives of officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. 

Responses to comments on the SRCIP/DEIS will be addressed in the final EIS. (For more information 

about specific agency and staff consultation, see the section in this document entitled ―List of Preparers / 

Persons and Agencies Consulted‖ in Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination.) 
CHAPTER I:

Purpose of and Need

for Management Action

Devils Island

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 3 

CHAPTER I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR MANAGEMENT 

ACTION 

A. PURPOSE AND NEED 

Recent major floods and resultant channel changes on the lower Stehekin River have intensified flood and 

erosion threats to National Park Service (NPS) facilities and are impacting natural resources within Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA). The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River since 

1911 have occurred within the past 15 years, and in response to this increased frequency of major floods, 

the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood damage. 

Roads, visitor facilities, and private development once thought to be safe from the river are now 

threatened. Because of the current impacts and future risks associated with these unprecedented 

conditions, the primary purpose of this draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan / 

environmental impact statement (SRCIP/EIS) is to enable the NPS to meet the goals and direction 

provided in the 1995 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP) (NPS 1995a). Goals for this plan include the following: 

 Sustainably operate and maintain NPS administrative facilities, public access (roads and trails), 

and campgrounds 

 Protect water quality, scenic values, habitat, and natural processes of the Stehekin River 

 Continue visitor services provided by the Stehekin Community, including those services and 

facilities found on private lands. 

The NPS, the lead agency in the development of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the cooperating agency, have identified a need to evaluate 

comprehensive and sustainable management strategies and linked public-private actions to address the 

consequences of flooding. This implementation plan is needed to address several interrelated issues, 

including to (1) respond to the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding, (2) implement and clarify 

1995 GMP guidance, (3) sustain public facilities while protecting natural resources, (4) manage limited 

funding, and to (5) respond to private land-related concerns. 

1. PRIMARY ISSUES

(1) Respond to the Increased Magnitude and Frequency of Flooding. Prior to the late 20th century, 

the Stehekin River was prone primarily to spring snowmelt flooding. Since the 1970s, however, the 

Stehekin River has become prone to large fall rain-on-snow floods, which rise quickly and occur from 

mid-October through December. Hydrologic data collected on the river since 1911 confirm the statistical 

significance of this shift, as analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The severe floods in 1995, 

2003, and 2006 have led to significant changes in the Stehekin River channel and redefined the 

boundaries for the 100-year flood. As a result, recreational and administrative facilities and developments 

once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened by flooding and bank erosion, while other sites 

in the floodplain have been compromised by larger, more frequent floods. Until now, the NPS has 

addressed problems on a case-by-case basis throughout the valley with the passage of each of these large 

floods. 

(2) Implement and Clarify 1995 GMP Guidance. The GMP provides broad management guidance for 

Lake Chelan NRA, as well as some specific prescriptions to mitigate the risks and consequences of 

flooding (NPS 1995a). As a programmatic document, the GMP lacks the specific management direction 

needed to respond to the current circumstances imposed by the recent floods. Specific actions called for in 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

4 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the GMP that would be implemented in this plan include replacement and relocation of the maintenance 

facility and NPS housing out of the floodplain (NPS Tracts 06-118, 06-104, 06-121, and 06-122), 

construction of the Lower Valley Trail, and continued maintenance of vehicle access on the Stehekin 

Valley and Company Creek roads. This implementation plan is needed to inform the location, design, 

construction, and implementation of these actions. Guidance provided by the GMP needs to be updated 

and clarified to reflect the dramatic increase in woody debris since 1995 and recognition of the influence 

of Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan PUD) operations for power generation on the level of 

Lake Chelan and the lower Stehekin River. This plan is also needed to evaluate and publicly disclose the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of these actions on the resources and values of Lake Chelan 

NRA.

Photo 6 – Flooding of NPS Maintenance Area in 2006 Flood 

(3) Sustain Public Facilities While Protecting Natural Resources. Management action is needed to 

provide long-term use and access to administrative and recreation facilities. Despite erosion protection 

and flood protection efforts by the NPS and private landowners, bank erosion continues to threaten public 

and private property. Channel changes have increased the rate of erosion and frequency of flooding at 

some sites, while decreasing erosion rates at others. Integrated management actions such as facility 

replacement and relocation, site-specific bank hardening, and limited manipulation of woody debris in the 

Lake Chelan backwater zone now need to be considered to ensure the long-term sustainability of 

infrastructure and protection of resources. Management of large wood and proliferation of bankprotection measures have the potential to impact federally and state-listed species and to increase the 

spread of nonnative plants. These conditions underscore the need for updated assessment of erosion and 

flood protection measures in the lower Stehekin Valley. 

(4) Manage Limited Funding. The NPS has spent more than $3 million to react to recent flood damage 

to maintain vehicle access on the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads and to respond to new 

threats on an event-by-event basis. A comprehensive and integrated set of strategies and tactics to meet 

the goals of the GMP and to mitigate the risk and impacts from flooding is urgently needed to enable the 

NPS to use limited funds for the maximum benefit of Lake Chelan NRA. Without this comprehensive 

approach, the NPS would continue to respond on a case-by-case basis, which costs more and could 

threaten natural resources and public safety. 
A. Purpose and Need 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 5 

(5) Respond to Private Land-Related Concerns. Lake Chelan NRA includes approximately 417 acres 

of private land, much of which lies within the floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin 

River. (The channel migration zone is defined as where the river has historically migrated in the valley 

over the past 1,000 years.) Developments at McGregor Meadows and near the river mouth are particularly 

vulnerable because of their density and their location in more active river reaches. These reaches, or 

sections of the river, have extensive new gravel deposits and rapidly growing logjams as a result of recent 

floods. The high monetary and environmental costs of bank-protection and flood-mitigation measures 

continue to threaten the long-term sustainability of recreation area resources and private property. At the 

river mouth, accumulation of logs in the backwater zone of Lake Chelan has led to deeper floodwater in 

parts of the floodplain. The recent flooding has hastened channel migration, damaged or destroyed several 

cabins, incorporated debris and sanitary systems into the river, and increased the flood risk to private 

lands previously not threatened by flooding. The NPS is concerned that these circumstances will continue 

to adversely affect Lake Chelan NRA and Stehekin River natural resources and values. The primary 

means by which the NPS can address this concern is via the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Land 

Protection Plan (LPP) (NPS 1995b). The LPP (NPS 1995c) identifies and prioritizes private lands for 

acquisition or exchange from willing sellers. Last updated in 1995, this plan is being revised through this 

DEIS to address new river channel and floodplain conditions, and to create new funding opportunities to 

help protect Lake Chelan NRA and the Stehekin Community. 

Photo 7 – Destruction of Private Cabin and Damage to Upper Company Creek Road during the 

2003 Flood 

2. DECISION TO BE MADE

This DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

and its implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 - 1508); NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

6 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

2006a); NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making (Director’s Order 12) (NPS 2000a) and handbook; Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800); 

related guidance; and applicable executive orders. 

NEPA requires the documentation and evaluation of potential impacts resulting from federal actions on 

lands under federal jurisdiction. An EIS discloses the potential environmental consequences of 

implementing the proposed action and other reasonable and feasible alternatives. NEPA is intended to 

provide decision makers with sound knowledge of the environmental consequences of the alternatives 

available to them. In this case, the superintendent of Lake Chelan NRA (North Cascades National Park 

Service Complex) and the Pacific West Regional Director are faced with deciding which alternative to 

implement from the SRCIP to most effectively implement the 1995 GMP, to sustainably operate and 

maintain administrative and visitor facilities, and the private Stehekin Community and the visitor services 

it provides. 

Interdisciplinary Analysis / Technical Committee 

Analysis of impacts to wildlife, plants, and cultural resources was conducted primarily by NPS staff. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted on impacts to threatened and endangered species, 

including the northern spotted owl. In addition, because of the large amount of hydrologic and geologic 

data on the Stehekin River, the complexity of the Stehekin River system, and the number of issues, sites, 

and actions considered in this plan, the NPS established a technical committee for this planning effort. 

The committee included representatives from Chelan County, Chelan PUD, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, USFWS, Washington Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife, and Geomax PC, a 

private consulting engineer familiar with Stehekin. The technical committee provided scientific and 

regulatory information related to long-term river and floodplain management in the lower Stehekin 

Valley. 

To comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the purpose of the technical committee was 

not to advise the NPS on plan development, but rather to assess technical information and the 

applicability of regulations regarding proposed management alternatives and actions. Meetings of the 

technical committee were held to identify issues and to review alternative development in spring 2008; to 

conduct a field review of potential actions and sites in summer 2008; and to analyze impacts associated 

with specific alternative actions. 

3. PROJECT AREA

The project area includes the lower Stehekin Valley from High Bridge to the head of Lake Chelan, 

including Weaver Point. No actions are considered in adjacent wilderness, which is located above about 

1,640 feet in elevation in the lower valley. 

Lake Chelan NRA is located in north central Washington State and is bordered on the north by North 

Cascades National Park, on the east by the Lake Chelan / Sawtooth Wilderness area (OkanoganWenatchee National Forest), on the south by the Wenatchee National Forest, and on the west by the 

Glacier Peak Wilderness Area (Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest) (Figure I-1: Project Area and 

Figure I-2: Lower Stehekin Valley). Approximately 90 percent of Lake Chelan NRA (56,000 acres) is 

included within the Stephen Mather Wilderness Area (NPS 2000b). Lake Chelan NRA is one of three 

NPS units managed as part of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. 
A. Purpose and Need 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 7 

Figure I-1: Project Area 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

8 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure I-2: Lower Stehekin Valley 
A. Purpose and Need 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 9 

The Stehekin Valley was originally considered for national status as early as 1906. A much later Senate 

report (Senate Report 700, October 31, 1967) recommended that the area become a national recreation 

area (rather than a national park) and to include within it the private lands of the Stehekin Valley, because 

it was believed that the properties were principally owned by descendants of the early homesteaders and 

because services could be provided to visitors by the remote Stehekin Community. The hunting lobby, 

however, pushed hardest for the national recreation area classification (Louter 1998:50 - 52). Senate 

Report 700 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 Stehekin Valley is a glacial valley that begins at the crest of the Cascade Range near Cascade Pass 

(North Cascades National Park) and ends at the mouth of the Stehekin River where the river flows into 

Lake Chelan, the third-deepest natural lake in the United States. The developed lower valley is 

remarkable for the rapid change in river pattern, from boulder-strewn gravel bars at McGregor Meadows 

to sandbars at the lake edge, within 7 miles. Tributaries enter the lower Stehekin Valley as hanging 

valleys, with deep gorges containing thundering waterfalls. Lake Chelan is a 55-mile-long, 1,500-footdeep lake whose level was raised 21 feet by a hydroelectric/flood-control dam in the 1920s. 

Approximately the upper 5 miles of Lake Chelan and the lower 9 miles of the Stehekin River are included 

in Lake Chelan NRA. 

4. PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Significance 

The following statements from the recently completed North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

Foundation Statement (NPS 2006b) are those that apply specifically to Lake Chelan NRA: 

 Within Lake Chelan NRA, Stehekin is a private-land based community that provides visitors with 

an opportunity to see and experience life in a remote setting that is not accessible by roads and is 

surrounded by wilderness. 

 Set in a glacier-carved trough 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 National Recreation Area 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. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

10 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Purpose 

The purpose of Lake Chelan NRA is to ―...provide for public outdoor recreational use and enjoyment 

...and for conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic and other values‖ (Enabling Legislation for Lake 

Chelan NRA, Public Law 90-544, October 2, 1968). Today Lake Chelan NRA functions as a gateway to 

more than 2 million acres of roadless wilderness. Management is dedicated to conserve the scenery for 

outdoor recreation and education, the natural and cultural values of the lower Stehekin Valley, Lake 

Chelan and surrounding wilderness, while respecting the remote Stehekin Community (NPS 2006b). 

Management Objectives for Lake Chelan NRA include: 

 Natural Resource Management: Manage Lake Chelan NRA as an integral part of a larger 

regional ecosystem, and protect and restore the components and processes of naturally evolving 

park ecosystems, including the natural abundance, biodiversity, and ecological integrity of plants, 

animals, water and soil to the extent public safety considerations permit (NPS 1995a:19). 

 Cultural Resource Management: Protect and interpret the park’s archeological, historic and 

ethnographic resources. Treatment of historic properties would be undertaken in accordance with 

NPS policies and the park’s cultural resource management plan in consultation with the 

Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and other interested persons as appropriate under 36 CFR 800... (NPS 1995a: 28). 

 Visitor Experience: Emphasize selected opportunities that focus on natural, cultural, and 

recreational values, through both structured and unstructured ways and both solitary and social 

means. Visitors encounter facilities and services in a rural Stehekin Community context where 

needs are balanced with preservation of a nearly pristine natural environment (NPS 1995a: 29). 

B. BACKGROUND 

This plan is a response to the effects of the increased frequency and magnitude of flooding on the 

Stehekin River and the adverse effects this flooding has had on NPS infrastructure and private lands in the 

lower Stehekin Valley (Figure I-3: Existing Conditions). 

The following key characteristics of the Stehekin Valley require careful planning to avoid the effects of 

repeated flood damage: 

1. The flood prone nature of the Stehekin River, which is due to its geography, watershed shape, and 

steep slopes (includes the potential for the formation and sudden failure of debris dams in the 

narrow canyons above High Bridge) 

2. Channel instability from the transport of large amounts of water, gravel, and large wood 

3. A shift in the last 30 years from spring floods to larger, more frequent fall floods 

4. A history of river manipulation, including the Lake Chelan Dam, and the addition of erosion 

protection measures to the river over the last 20 years—riparian resources and water quality have 

been adversely affected as destroyed cabins, effluent from septic systems, and other debris are 

incorporated into the river during floods. 
B. Background 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 11

Figure I-3: Existing Conditions 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

12 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 8 – Stehekin River Mouth after the 2003 Flood 

1. HISTORY OF STEHEKIN RIVER FLOODING

Inventorying, monitoring, and research have been conducted primarily on the lower 10 miles of the river 

above Lake Chelan. The USGS flow gauge near Boulder Creek was installed in 1911 and is the basis for 

understanding flood magnitude and frequency in the watershed. 

The Stehekin River watershed encompasses approximately 220,000 acres (344 square miles). Public lands 

comprise 99 percent of the watershed and includes the Glacier Peak and Stephen Mather wilderness areas. 

Steep slopes, a dense network of tributary streams, and the location of the river’s headwaters along the 

wet Pacific Crest have led to the frequent and rapid rise of floodwaters on the river, perhaps more so than 

any other river in eastern Washington (Figure 1-4: Timing and Magnitude of Peak Discharge for the 2003 

Flood on Six North-Central Washington Rivers).
B. Background 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 13

Figure I-4: Timing and Magnitude of Peak Discharge for the 2003 Flood on Six North-Central 

Washington Rivers 

Just above the developed lower valley, the Stehekin River is joined by three major tributaries within 5 

miles. Deep bedrock canyons within this zone deliver water, sediment, and large wood quickly to the 

wide lower valley below High Bridge. These narrow box canyons are potential sites for the formation and 

failure of temporary debris dams, which add an unpredictable element to flooding on the Stehekin River. 

Some anecdotal and observed evidence indicates that the temporary formation and rapid failure of a 

debris dam on the Stehekin River above High Bridge led to the record peak flow of 25,600 cubic 

feet/second (cfs) in October 2003 (Table I-1: Chronology and Features of the 10 Largest Floods on the 

Stehekin River). 

Table I-1: Chronology and Features of the 10 Largest Floods on the Stehekin River 

Date Flood Type Discharge (cfs) Recurrence Intervala

October 20, 2003 Intense rainfall 25,600b100 - 500 years

November 29, 1995 Rain on snow 20,900 100 years

November 07, 2006 Rain on snow 19,100 100 years

May 29, 1948 Snowmelt 18,900 100 years

November 07, 1948 Rain on snow 18,400 50 - 100 years

December 26, 1980 Rain on snow 17,300 50 years

June 16, 1974 Snowmelt 16,600 25 years

November 24, 1990 Rain on snow 14,700 10 years

June 02, 1968 Snowmelt 14,400 10 years

June 10, 1972 Snowmelt 14,400 10 years

June 21, 1967 Snowmelt 13,900 10 years

a

Flood recurrence interval based on approach discussed below.

b

Flood discharge estimated due to gauge malfunction.
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

14 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

2. CHANNEL INSTABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION OF 

GRAVEL

The gradient of the Stehekin River at its confluence with Agnes Creek is about 80 feet per mile. This 

decreases to 50 feet per mile above McGregor Meadows, and to 25 feet per mile just above Lake Chelan. 

Within this zone, decreases in channel steepness cause the river to deposit coarse gravel during big floods 

and to erode banks. Four distinct areas of net gravel deposition have been identified in the lower Stehekin 

Valley (Figure I-5: Gravel Transport and Deposition and Channel Instability Zones on the Lower 

Stehekin River). 

The McGregor Meadows area is the site of massive gravel deposition during floods because the valley 

widens threefold in this reach, which results in a drop in gradient, gravel deposition, and channel 

instability (i.e., river creates multiple channels). The next two gravel deposition and channel instability 

zones occur above and between the Company, Rainbow, and Boulder Creek alluvial fans. These fans 

constrict the river and cause an increase in channel gradient and stability. River kilometers 2 - 3, 6 - 7, 

and 11 - 12, where relatively straight, steep sections of the river are net transport zones for sediment and 

large wood (where large woody debris and sediment move freely down river), are also areas of relative 

channel stability. In contrast, the wood and sediment storage zones between these fairly stable reaches are 

characterized by the existence of massive logjams, multiple side channels, and channel instability. The 

fourth major zone of deposition and channel instability in the lower Stehekin Valley is where the river 

meets the backwater of Lake Chelan. A 2000 Chelan PUD study showed that at full pool the lake 

influence on the river extended about a quarter mile upstream during a 100-year flood (Chelan PUD 

2000). 

Bank erosion and storage of gravel on the lower Stehekin River have been dramatic in the past 50 years. 

Annual total sediment load on the Stehekin River is estimated at 32,000 cubic yards per year, with about 

17 percent, or 5,440 cubic yards per year, transported along the bed of the river as gravel (Riedel pers. 

comm. 2008). Bank erosion measured since 1962 at 16 sites averaged about 25 feet, with some sites 

stable and others with as much as 110 feet of erosion. Bank erosion at all sites yielded an estimated 

500,000 cubic yards of gravel to the channel over 47 years. While large amounts of gravel are stored in 

the lower valley, it appears some gravel has moved through the river and into Lake Chelan. 

The massive movement and deposition of gravel makes consideration of periodic dredging as a tool for 

addressing the flood threat highly problematic, expensive, and unsustainable (Riedel 2009). Based on 

estimates of gravel deposition since 1995 at two important, half-mile-long sections of the river 

(McGregor Meadows and near the Stehekin River Mouth), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated 

an cost over time of about $12 million for channel deepening and for removal and transport of gravel to 

Company Creek Pit (Riedel 2009) (see ―D. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed‖ and 

Appendix 18). 

Gravel deposited along the channel causes large logs to accumulate during floods. Due to the rapid 

increases in wood on the river, the NPS conducted three comprehensive surveys of large wood 

accumulations (1984, 2000, and 2007), which have documented a major increase in large woody debris 

accumulation on the lower Stehekin River (Figure I-6: Stehekin River Large Wood Monitoring). This 

would need to be repeated to remove gravel continuously washed down by the river. 
B. Background 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 15

Figure I-5: Net Gravel Transport and Deposition Zones on the Lower Stehekin River 

Note development in two of these zones (McGregor Meadows and Stehekin River Mouth), shown in white. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

16 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure I-6: Stehekin River Large Wood Monitoring 1984 - 2007 

In 2007, there were 166 logjams consisting of 10 or more pieces on the lower river that contained a total 

volume of 400,000 cubic yards. In the 2000 survey, there were 101 logjams with a total volume of about 

130,000 cubic yards. In 1984, about 10 years after the last large-scale logjam removal, there were 128 

logjams with a total volume of about 22,000 cubic yards (Riedel 2007). The substantial increase in large 

woody debris is attributed primarily to the passage of the three major floods in 1995, 2003, and 2006. The 

accumulated wood is now viewed as a benefit because it creates pools (habitat for aquatic life) and slows 

the spread of water during big floods and provides other wildlife habitat. 

To some extent, the increase in wood below Harlequin Bridge in the last 40 years may appear unusually 

large because up to the early 1970s, the large woody debris was occasionally removed. In 1972, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, under contract with the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), 

the precursor to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), removed most large 

logjams on the Stehekin River below Harlequin Bridge. Removal of large woody debris was funded in an 

attempt to reduce the flood and erosion risk to private property within Stehekin. Federal and state 

regulations have changed to generally discourage large scale manipulation like this because it is 

recognized as not financially, or ecologically, sustainable. 
B. Background 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 17

3. SHIFT FROM SPRING PEAK FLOODING TO FALL PEAK FLOODING

Analysis of nearly 100 years of flow records indicates that in about 1975 the Stehekin River switched 

from a system dominated by spring snowmelt floods to one dominated by larger, more frequent, fall rainon-snow floods. Illustrating this shift, the three largest floods on record have occurred within the past 15 

years and were fall events (Figure I-7: Magnitude and Timing of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin 

River).

Figure I-7: Magnitude and Timing of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River 

The importance of this shift and the two-season nature of flooding on the river is that floods have become 

larger and more frequent. Analysis of the flood record by the USGS Water Resources Division showed 

that analyzing the frequency and size of fall floods separately from spring floods—instead of together, as 

is typically done—gave a more realistic view of how often major floods like those in 1995, 2003, and 

2006 might be expected to occur on the Stehekin River (Riedel pers. comm. 2008). Although the length 

of the record is somewhat limited, floods comparable to these recent large floods might be expected to 

occur once every 20 years, not once every 100 years, as previously believed (Riedel pers. comm. 2008). 

When spring and fall flood peaks are looked at separately, it is clear that the high peaks of the fall floods 

are being obscured by the combination of the spring and fall data, leading to an overall lower prediction 

of the maximum flood discharge (Table I-2: Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Flood 

Frequency and Magnitude on the Stehekin River).

Based on analysis of recent flood-related seasonal changes on the Stehekin and other Pacific Northwest 

rivers, it is likely that the Pacific Northwest will continue to see an increase in the frequency and 

magnitude of fall flooding related to an increase in winter temperature and increase in eastern Washington 

rain-on-snow events. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

18 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table I-2: Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Flood Frequency and Magnitude on the 

Stehekin River 

Recurrence 

interval

(probability in

given year)

Discharge (cfs) for

combined fall and 

spring floods 

(85 events)

Discharge (cfs) for

spring floods alone

(70 events)

Discharge (cfs) 

for fall floods 

alone (16 events)

10 - year (0.1) 14,950 13,740 21,360 

20 - year (0.04) 17,560 15,100 26,220 

50 - year (0.02) 19,490 16,190 29,850 

100 - year (0.01) 21,400 17,910 33,490 

Note: This approach is used to analyze flood records with mixed fall and spring floods.

4. HUMAN MANIPULATION OF LAKE CHELAN AND THE STEHEKIN RIVER

With the construction of the Lake Chelan Dam in the 1920s, flooding in the lower Stehekin Valley began 

to be influenced by the level of Lake Chelan. The Chelan PUD showed that the backwater effect of Lake 

Chelan at full pool extends nearly 0.25 mile upstream from the river mouth, effectively raising the 100-

year flood event elevation 0.5 foot (Chelan PUD 2000). Within this zone, the backwater effect also likely 

influences gravel deposition and formation of logjams. 

In the years following establishment of Lake Chelan NRA, in response to ongoing bank erosion and 

threats to private lands and NPS facilities, the NPS and private landowners have reacted to erosion and 

flooding on the Stehekin River on a case-by-case basis by installing numerous structures. Extensive bank 

treatments were first placed in the 1960s by the filling of Lake Chelan at Silver Bay and placement of riprap at the Stehekin River Resort, as well as the construction of the 400-foot-long crib and levee at upper 

Company Creek Road in the 1980s. In response to gravel deposition at McGregor Meadows during large 

floods, the NPS has placed 10 rock barbs since 1995 to protect the upper Company Creek Road. 

A recent inventory identified 46 sites with bank stabilization measures, including 15 locations with riprap, 14 sites with cabled logs (two of these also have rip-rap), and four locations with log-cribbing or 

logjams. Bank barbs have become the favored approach to bank-erosion problems in the past 15 years due 

to their effectiveness and relatively low cost. There are now 8 sites on the river with a total of 30 bank 

barbs installed, primarily to protect public roads (Riedel pers. comm. 2008). Most are concentrated in the 

unstable gravel deposition zone near the McGregor Meadows / Company Creek Road area (13 structures 

on both sides of the river). Because gravel deposition raises the elevation of the riverbed, bank barbs can 

become buried and ineffective. Five of the bank barbs installed since 1995 on the Stehekin are 

hydraulically ineffective less than 15 years after installation. The burial of these bank barbs is not unusual 

on mountain rivers that carry massive amounts of gravel. 

Together, all of the erosion structures affect approximately 8,211feet (1.56 miles) of Stehekin River 

shoreline, or approximately 6.5 percent of the river within Lake Chelan NRA. 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 19

Photo 9 – Stehekin Valley Road at Milepost 10 after the 2003 Flood 

C. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS 

This section includes laws, regulations, executive orders, National Park Service Policy, and North 

Cascades NPS Complex planning documents and studies applicable to the SRCIP. 

1. LAWS: LAKE CHELAN

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Enabling Legislation (Public Law 90-544) (selected sections) 

(see Appendix 1: Lake Chelan Enabling Legislation for the legislation in its entirety). This legislation 

established the Lake Chelan NRA, identified its key purposes, and provided the basis for land exchanges. 

Title III, section 301: 

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 areas 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. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

20 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

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 there for 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. 

Title IV, section 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. 

Appropriations Bill for the Department of the Interior, H.R. 1977, Title I, Section 117 (1996) 

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

2. LAWS: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

National Park Service Organic Act (1916) (16 USC 1) 

The Organic Act (NPS Organic Act, 16 USC 1) established the NPS and the purpose of national parks. 

Unless their enabling legislation states otherwise, the Organic Act applies to all units of the national park 

system, including Lake Chelan NRA. 

The National Park Service shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known 

as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified...by such means and 

measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and 

reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects 

and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and 

by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 

See also Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

1970 National Park Service General Authorities Act (as amended) (Public Laws 

91-368, 94-458, and 95-250—the Redwood Act) (16 USC 1a et seq.) 

This act prohibits the NPS from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and 

purposes for which the parks have been established (except as directly and specifically provided for by 

Congress in the enabling legislation for the parks). Therefore, all units are to be managed as national 

parks, based on their enabling legislation and without regard for their individual titles. Parks also adhere 

to other applicable federal laws and regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), the NHPA, the Wilderness Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. To articulate its 

responsibilities under these laws and regulations, the NPS has established management policies for all 

units under its stewardship (see ―7. National Park Service Policies‖ and Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, 

and Policies Whitepaper). 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 21

3. OTHER FEDERAL LAWS

National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) (42 USC 4341 et seq.) 

NEPA requires the identification, documentation, and public disclosure of the environmental 

consequences of federal actions. Section 102 of the act requires that ―in every recommendation or report 

on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, there be a detailed statement concerning the environmental impact of a proposed 

action.‖ Regulations implementing NEPA are set for by the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Parts 1500 - 1508). CEQ regulations establish the requirements and process for 

agencies to fulfill their obligations under the act. 

NEPA sets up a procedural requirement for the preparation of environmental impact statements. An EIS 

requires public involvement throughout the decision-making process. In an EIS, the impacts of the 

proposed action and the alternatives to the proposed action are clearly presented to enable a clear basis for 

choice from among the options by the decision maker and the public. 

The NPS has adopted specific procedures for analyzing environmental impacts and complying with 

NEPA (Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking [NPS 2001a]). See also Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

Clean Water Act (Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217) (33 USC 1241 et seq.) 

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

Clean Air Act (as amended) (Public Law 88-206) (42 USC 7401 et seq.)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) states that park managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect park air 

quality and air quality-related values (including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural 

resources, and visitor health) from adverse air pollution impacts. Special visibility-protection provisions 

of the CAA also apply to Class I areas, including new national rules to prevent and remedy regional haze 

affecting these areas. Under existing visibility-protection regulations, the NPS has identified ―integral 

vistas‖ that are important to the visitor’s visual experience in many NPS class I areas, and it is NPS policy 

to protect these scenic views. North Cascades National Park is a class I area and Lake Chelan NRA is a 

class II area under the CAA. 

Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205) (16 USC 1531 et seq.)

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966 as amended) (Public Laws 89-665 and 95-

515) (16 USC 470) 

The purpose of the NHPA is to preserve, conserve, and encourage the continuation of the diverse 

traditional prehistoric, historic, ethnic, and folk cultural traditions that underlie and are a living expression 

of American heritage. The act directs federal agencies to inventory historic properties (Section 110) and 

to take into account the effect of any undertaking (a federally funded or assisted project) on historic 

properties (Section 106). Historic property is any district, building, structure, site, or object that is eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because the property is significant at the national, 

state, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture. Requirements 

for implementing Section 106 are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 800). 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

22 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (Public Law 96-95) (16 

USC 470aa) 

This act provides a means for additional protection of archeological resources and for prosecuting the 

collecting of resources on federal lands. Its purpose is to secure, for the present and future benefit of the 

American people, the protection of archeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian 

lands (NPS 2006: 5.3.5.3). 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) (Public Law 90-542) (16 USC 1271 - 1287)

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970 (as amended) (Public Law 91-646) (42 USC 4601 et seq.) 

This law mandates offering ―just compensation‖ for real property based on a Fair Market Value appraisal, 

and sets criteria for appraisals. The law also mandates certain land acquisition and relocation benefits, like 

moving reimbursement, to eligible parties involved with a federal realty acquisition. 

Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-409) (43 USC 1701) 

This act sets up a process to ―facilitate and expedite land exchanges pursuant to the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 and other applicable laws for the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture by (a) providing more uniform rules and regulations pertaining to land appraisals which 

reflect nationally recognized appraisal standards; and (b) establishing procedures and guidelines for the 

resolution of appraisal disputes.‖ It also sets up the means ―to provide sufficient resources to the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure that land exchange activities can proceed consistent 

with the public interest‖ and requires a ―study and report concerning improvements in the handling of 

certain information related to federal and other lands.‖

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (Public Law 88-578) 

(16 USC 460l et seq.) 

This act provides funds for and authorizes federal assistance to the states in planning, acquisition, and 

development of needed land and water areas and facilities and provides funds for the federal acquisition 

and development of certain lands and other areas. The amendments (July 15, 1968) provide that the 

values of the properties shall be approximately equal or may be equalized in part by cash. 

4. FEDERAL REGULATIONS

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

limited to the following: Minerals Management (36 CFR 9) and Rights-of-Way (36 CFR 14). 

36 CFR Part 17 

This regulation provides the means to identify lands ―suitable for disposal‖ and determines the range of 

acceptable uses (typically for single-family residential and related outbuildings), with associated deed 

restrictions and/or protective easement criteria that can be applied to lands in the identified special-use 

zones. Similar to the Part 18 requirement for a ―high-bid‖ auction, Part 17 requires a similar Fair Market 

Value appraisal and competitive bidding process. In Part 17, however, the landowner has a right of 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 23

preference to match the high bidder if the lands are offered for disposal within two years following 

acquisition. To use this authority in Stehekin, the seller (exchange proponent) is offered the preference via 

the exchange to take other park land (not public domain lands) in lieu of a cash payment from the NPS for 

their ―offered‖ lands. 

36 CFR Part 18: Leasing of Properties in Park Areas 

This regulation contains the how-to, step-by-step process for doing NPS land exchanges as generally 

alluded to in Director’s Order 25: Land Acquisition (NPS 2001b). It only applies specifically, however, 

to exchange of historic properties under the NHPA. 

When combined with the North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan NRA, and Ross Lake NRA 

legislation (Section 302), these regulations provide the practical authority to use 36 CFR Parts 17 and 18 

and other applicable authorities for the Secretary to acquire lands within the complex and to exchange 

lands within Lake Chelan NRA (Stehekin). This legislation is applicable and provides a unique authority 

outside the more generic references in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and in NPS Director’s 

Order 25 (NPS 2001b). 

36 CFR Part 800: Advisory Council Regulations 

This regulation implements Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

40 CFR Part 1500 - 1508: NEPA Regulations 

This regulation implements the National Environmental Policy Act. 

5. LEGAL ACTIONS

United States v. Chelan County CS-92-331-AMM (E.D. Wash.) 

This ruling quieted title to Stehekin Valley Road in the name of the United States against Chelan County, 

and permanently enjoins Chelan County from interfering with the NPS’s administration and management 

of Stehekin Valley Road (NPS 1993a).

6. EXECUTIVE ORDERS

The following executive orders are among those applicable to land management in the Stehekin Valley. 

Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 (1977, 42 CFR 26951, PL 93-234 

Section I) (as amended by Executive Order 12148, 1979, 44 FR 43239, 42 USC 

4321)

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 (1977, 42 FR 26961) (as amended 

by Executive Order 12608, 1987, 52 FR 34617, 42 USC 4321)

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

24 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 (1999, 64 FR 6183) (as amended by 

Executive Order 13286, 2003, 68 FR 10619, 42 USC 4321)

This executive order was crafted ―to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their 

control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.‖

It requires federal agencies whose actions may affect invasive species to identify their actions, and to use 

relevant programs and authorities to: 

 prevent the introduction of invasive species; 

 detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and 

environmentally sound manner; 

 monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; 

 provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been 

invaded; 

 conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and 

provide for environmentally sound control ... ; and 

 promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. 

It also states that federal agencies may not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that will cause or promote 

the introduction and spread of species unless the agency believes that the benefits of such actions clearly 

outweigh the harm and has taken all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm in 

conjunction with such actions. 

Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation Executive Order 13352 (2004, 69 FR 

52989, 42 USC 4332) 

This purpose of this executive order is ―to ensure that the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, 

Commerce, and Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency implement laws relating to the 

environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative conservation, with an emphasis 

on appropriate inclusion of local participation in federal decision making, in accordance with their 

respective agency missions, policies, and regulations.‖ In doing so, federal agencies are directed to ―carry 

out the programs, projects, and activities of the agency that they respectively head that implement laws 

relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that: facilitates cooperative conservation; 

takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally 

recognized interests in land and other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation in 

federal decision-making; and provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with 

protecting public health and safety.‖

7. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE POLICIES

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) governs the way park managers make decisions on a wide range 

of issues that come before them. Excerpts from several sections applicable to this plan are highlighted 

below. 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 25

Photo 10 – Stehekin River near Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture during a Fall Flood 

Section 3.3, Land Protection Plans 

...Land Protection Plans (LPPs) should be prepared to determine and publicly document 

what lands or interests in land need to be in public ownership and what means of 

protection area available to achieve the purposes for which the unit was created... 

Land acquisition priorities will be guided by a park unit’s land protection plan. 

Superintendents will ensure that land protection plans are developed, and periodically 

reviewed and updated to identify what land or interests in land would facilitate achieving 

desired park purposes... 

Section 4.3.4, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

...No management actions may be taken that could adversely affect the values that 

qualify a river for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Section 4.6.4, Floodplains 

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

26 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Section 4.6.6, Watershed and Stream Processes 

See Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

Section 9.2.1.1, Park Roads 

Park roads will be well constructed, sensitive to natural and cultural resources, reflect the 

highest principles of park design, and enhance the visitor experience. Park roads are 

generally not intended to provide fast and convenient transportation; rather, they are 

intended to enhance the quality of a visit while providing for safe and efficient travel with 

minimal or no impacts on natural and cultural resources. For most parks, a road system is 

already in place. When plans for meeting the transportation needs of these parks are 

updated, a determination must be made as to whether the road system should be 

maintained as is, reduced, expanded, reoriented, eliminated, or supplemented by other 

means of travel. Before roads are chronically at or near capacity the use of alternative 

designation points or transportation systems or limitations on use will be considered as 

alternatives to road expansion. 

Park road designs are subject to NPS Park Road Standards, which are adaptable to each 

park’s unique character and resource limitations. Although some existing roads do not 

meet current engineering standards, they may be important cultural resources whose 

values can and should be preserved with attention to visitor safety. 

Section 9.4.4, Maintenance Structures 

Maintenance structures will be consistent in design, scale, texture, and details with other 

park facilities. Optimally, they will be screened or located in areas remote from public 

use... 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making 

This order identifies the standards to which NPS environmental analysis documents, including categorical 

exclusions, environmental assessments (EAs), and EISs, must comply. It contains a list of applicable 

Departmental (Interior) and agency (NPS) categorical exclusions. 

Director’s Order 25: Land Protection 

This order articulates the framework for land protection and the process for the acquisition of land and 

interests in land within the authorized boundaries of units of the NPS. It summarizes applicable 

information from Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) and sets forth other requirements and 

responsibilities as they relate to the NPS’s land protection program. 

Director’s Order 87A: Park Roads and Parkways 

The fundamental purpose of national parks ...dictates that the quality of the park 

experience must be our primary concern. Full enjoyment of a national park visit depends 

on its being a safe and leisurely experience. The distinctive character of park roads plays 

a basic role in setting this essential unhurried pace. Consequently, park roads are 

designed with extreme care and sensitivity with respect to the terrain and environment 

through which they pass—they are laid lightly onto the land (p. 7). 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 27

Each segment of every park road should relate to the resource it traverses in a meaningful 

way and should constitute an enjoyable and informative experience in itself while 

providing the visitor the utmost in visual quality...The horizontal and vertical alignment 

and cross-section should respect the terrain, blending into the environs...The purpose of 

park roads remains in sharp contrast to that of the federal and state highway systems. 

Park roads are not intended to provide fast and convenient transportation; they are 

intended to enhance visitor experience while providing safe and efficient accommodation 

of park visitors and to serve essential management access needs (p. 7). 

Park roads are constructed only where necessary, and only as necessary to provide access 

for the protection, use and enjoyment of the natural, historical, cultural and recreational 

resources which constitute our National Park System. National park roadways, where 

they exist, are planned for leisurely sightseeing and are located with sensitive care for the 

environment and designed with extreme care. They are often narrow, winding, and 

hilly—but therein may lie their appeal... (p. 13). 

Thus park roads are often an end in themselves, rather than just a means to an end, in 

contrast to more conventional highway systems. For some, such as the handicapped, 

roads may provide the only means of park use, thereby reinforcing the case for their 

being intimately blended with the resource. Where terrain and safety conditions permit 

and where such uses are advocated by the general management plan, opportunities should 

be provided for random stopping to enable park visitors to more completely experience 

the park resources (p. 13). 

8. NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX PLANS

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Executive Summary, Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

The final GMP executive summary (NPS 1995c) identifies the key features and actions associated with 

the selected alternative in the GMP. Because it is derived from the GMP, it contains the vision for Lake 

Chelan NRA: 

The rustic setting of Lake Chelan (LACH) would be part of a transition from the down 

lake recreational, residential, agricultural, and industrial setting to the very wild and 

natural North Cascades National Park. The use of LACH resources by visitors and 

residents would be limited to preserve the natural, scenic, and cultural values of the area. 

(NPS 1995c: 5). 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement 

The final GMP (NPS 1995a) provides some additional detail about the management objectives and 

corresponding actions that would be undertaken in Stehekin. This plan identifies the following 

management objectives associated with the management of Lake Chelan that would be implemented or 

clarified by the SRCIP. 

Natural Resource Management: The NPS would 

 manage Lake Chelan NRA as an integral part of a larger regional ecosystem and protect and 

restore the components and processes of naturally evolving park ecosystems, including the 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

28 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

natural abundance, biodiversity, and ecological integrity of plants, animals, water, and soil to the 

extent public safety considerations permit (NPS 1995a:19). 

 not manipulate the Stehekin River to protect federal property except that it would protect roads in 

erosion / river conflict zones [if certain criteria were met] (NPS 1995a:20). 

 not manipulate the river to protect private property [but would also not take action] to prevent 

private owners from manipulating the river on their land to protect their property unless [they] 

would significantly harm recreation area resources or were in violation of local, state, or federal 

ordinances, regulations, or laws (NPS 1995a:20). 

 manipulate woody debris in the Stehekin River or its tributaries only to protect public roads and 

bridges according to the criteria above (NPS 1995a:21). 

 work with the county to encourage private property owners to protect natural river processes.... 

The highest priority would be placed on acquiring lands through exchange or purchase, that are 

threatened by or where development threatened natural river processes (NPS 1995a:21). 

 [encourage property owners] to minimize impacts on wetland, floodplain, shoreline or riparian 

areas (NPS 1995a:21). 

 [relocate] NPS structures that could be threatened by river processes (NPS 1995a:23). 

 [bring campgrounds in regulatory floodplains] into compliance with floodplain guidelines (NPS 

1995a:23). 

 [encourage property owners] to minimize impacts on wetland, floodplain, shoreline, or riparian 

areas. The NPS would take appropriate measures where actions threatened to cause significant 

impacts on wetland, floodplain, shoreline, or riparian areas (NPS 1995a:23). 

 restrict mining to the Company Creek borrow pit for NPS maintenance and public use and minor 

reconstruction only; [and] allow for importing of material from outside the valley for new 

construction (NPS 1995a:23). 

 [conserve and recycle sand, rock, and gravel] whenever possible (e.g., consider conservation 

through maintenance and road system design. No sand, rock, or gravel would be removed from 

the 100-year floodplain of the Stehekin River or its tributaries (NPS 1995a:24). 

 [restore the] natural character of the lake and river edge on public lands, [including] areas within 

200 feet of the lake and river shoreline (NPS 1995a:27). 

Visitor Experience: The NPS would 

 [pave the Stehekin Valley Road] from the Landing to 9-mile (NPS 1995a:30). 

 [manage the Stehekin River] as a dynamic natural system.... Opportunities for visitors to 

appreciate the power and intricacy of the river as a natural system would be enhanced 

(NPS 1995a:30). 

Land Use and Development: The NPS would 

 Provide transportation and access to, from, and within the NRA to accomplish a quality visitor 

experience, fulfill resource management objectives, and meet local Stehekin Community needs 

(NPS 1995a:32 - 33). 

 [maintain] the current character (slow leisurely pace) and surface (chip seal) of the main valley 

road from [the] Landing to Harlequin Bridge (NPS 1995a:33). 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 29

 [pave and reduce] to a single-lane (12 - 14 feet wide) with pullouts that would be visible from 

both directions (18 feet wide; 30 - 35 feet long) [the road between Harlequin Bridge and 9-mile] 

(NPS 1995a:33). 

 [maintain] Company Creek Road ... in its current alignment and condition (NPS 1995a:34). 

 [develop] an 11-mile pedestrian and horseback trail ... from the Landing to High Bridge; 

sensitive areas would be avoided to minimize impacts. It would be marked and maintained as a 

cross-country ski route as well. A pedestrian and horseback riding trail system that connects key 

lower valley features to the Stehekin Valley Road would also be developed (NPS 1995a:34). 

 [improve Weaver Point dock facilities] to accommodate the Purple Point dock and allow seasonal 

moving of the dock between Purple Point and Weaver Point (NPS 1995a:34). 

 [retain all NPS campgrounds] (NPS 1995a:39). 

 [consolidate some NPS and concession housing] in clustered sites beside the airstrip, based on 

environmental parameters and in compliance with compatibility criteria (NPS 1995a:39). 

 [relocate NPS vehicle fuel storage / dispensing to the airstrip] (NPS 1995a:39). 

 [locate maintenance facilities near the airstrip] (NPS 1995a:40). 

Park Operations: The NPS would 

 provide road maintenance for all designated public roads including the Stehekin Valley Road ... 

(including snow removal 9 miles upvalley) (NPS 1995a:48). 

 strengthen working relationships with others, defining shared objectives and developing strategies 

that lead to cooperative agreements for the management of natural, scenic, cultural, and 

recreational resources (NPS 1995a:48). 

See also Appendix 2: Management Objectives and Actions in the Lake Chelan NRA GMP Applicable to 

the SRCIP and Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper for more information on the 

GMP. 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan 

This plan (NPS 1995b) has been revised as part of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in this DEIS. 

The LPP’s purpose is to: 

 Determine what land or interests in land need to be in public ownership, and what means of 

protection other than fee acquisition are available to achieve unit purposes as established by 

Congress. 

 Inform landowners about NPS intentions for buying or protecting land through other means 

within the unit. 

 Help managers identify priorities for making budget requests and allocating available funds to 

protect land and unit resources. 

 Find opportunities to help protect the unit by cooperating with state or local governments, 

landowners, and the private sector. 

The Lake Chelan LPP includes six management objectives to meet the overall goal to ensure that land 

uses on public and private lands are compatible with the purpose of the park, and 13 guidelines that form 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

30 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the basis for implementing the plan (Appendix 2: Management Objectives and Actions in the Lake 

Chelan NRA GMP Applicable to the SRCIP).

The LPP also identified compatibility criteria that assist in determining how uses contribute to or detract 

from the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. The compatibility criteria were first identified in 1988, and then 

updated in 1992 and in 1995. Four purposes guide the application of the compatibility criteria: 

 To identify uses that would harm, degrade, or adversely affect resource values 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 character of the valley. 

 To encourage conversion from a higher-impact land use to a lower-impact land use (NPS 

1995b:12 - 13). 

Residents may ask the Complex superintendent for a compatibility determination and should receive a 

letter within 45 days, subject to a 30-day extension for more information, if needed. 

Land use protection techniques detailed in the LPP include agreements (cooperative and overlay district), 

regulations, and various methods of acquisition (fee, easement, donation, exchange, purchase, purchase 

and sellback, reservation of life or term estates, and condemnation). Priorities (high, medium, and low) 

are also established. 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Stehekin Landing and Valley Development 

Concept Plan 

These combined plans (NPS 1995d) prescribe NPS development plans for the Stehekin Landing, Stehekin 

Valley (roads, trails, and transportation services), and the Airstrip area. 

Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan

This plan (NPS 1995e) stipulated that no sand, rock, or gravel would be removed from the 100-year 

floodplain of the Stehekin River or its tributaries and that material needed for construction would be 

barged in. Guidelines include the following: 

Allow mining of sand, rock and gravel in Stehekin Valley but restrict mining to the 

Company Creek borrow pit for NPS maintenance and public use and minor 

reconstruction only; allow for importing of material from outside the valley for new 

construction. (NPS 1995a:23) 

Sand, rock and gravel will be conserved and recycled whenever possible (e.g., consider 

conservation through maintenance and road system design). (NPS 1995a:24) 

To ensure conservation of sand, rock and gravel, the National Park Service proposes to 

limit the use of in-park material to 1,400 cubic yards per year: 1,200 cubic yards for NPS 

use and 200 cubic yards per year for private use over a proposed 10-year excavation 

cycle—i.e., in the event of a large flood, the remaining 10-year stockpile could be used in 

one year... The superintendent will have the option to exceed the established limit in the 

event of an emergency such as a major flood. (NPS 1995e:10 - 11). 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 31

The plan projected that the paving of the Stehekin Road from Harlequin Bridge to Milepost 9.0 would 

reduce gravel use, but anticipated that road repairs would continue to be required following flood events. 

It did not address specific projects, such as relocating the road farther away from the river. It does specify 

when and for what purposes material from the local Company Creek Pit in Stehekin may be used (NPS 

2005a:7). 

The Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan is related to the current proposed project because some material from 

the local Company Creek Pit would be used for certain aspects of the project. Because the proposal would 

need to comply with the plan, material from this source could only be used in certain instances, such as to 

repair flood-damaged road sections. In this plan, material that has been determined to be excess to Lake 

Chelan NRA needs (oversize material and some screened material) could also be used. Much of the earthrelated material needed for the current project, however, would come from road reroutes or would be 

barged in from an outside source (NPS 2005a:7). 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Transportation Plan 

Campgrounds: All campgrounds will be retained. Weaver Point Campground will be expanded and 

some sites will be moved back from the shoreline. Campsites will be low density, unobtrusive and safe, 

with ample screening. Water will be provided and all sites will have access to pit or composting toilets. 

will be removed from hazardous areas as necessary. (NPS 1995f:2) 

Stehekin Valley Road: The transportation plan repeats the language in the GMP regarding the Stehekin 

Valley Road (see ―Land Use and Development‖ section above). 

Company Creek Road: Company Creek Road will be maintained in its current alignment and condition. 

Erosion control systems along the upper Company Creek Road will be removed and replaced, designed to 

keep the road from eroding during frequently recurring flood events (i.e., 10- to 25-year recurrence 

interval), and will be made from rock, soil, and native vegetation ... 

Public roads below Cottonwood will be protected in active river erosion zones only if (1) there are no 

feasible alternatives, (2) funds are available, (3) the actions will have less impacts than other alternatives, 

and (4) the actions are permitted by county, state, and other federal agencies. No new road construction 

will be permitted in active river conflict zones. (NPS 1995f:9) 

Trails: The Transportation Plan repeats the GMP language (see above) and adds the following: 

Some old and abandoned road alignments may be converted to new trail loops in the lower valley. (NPS 

1995f:9 - 10) 

One new trail system, from the Castle area to the river trail, will be developed, including a suspension 

bridge just below the confluence of Boulder Creek. (The existing river trail connects the Weaver Point 

and Harlequin Bridge areas). (NPS 1995f:10) 

The use of bicycles on roads will be encouraged, but bicycles will not be allowed on pedestrian trails 

except on connections to features and in some campgrounds. (NPS 1995f:10) 

Maintenance Facility: A new maintenance facility will be constructed near the airstrip, including shuttle 

bus storage and maintenance, equipment, a repair building, a search and rescue fire cache, and a 

helicopter pad. Hazardous material, propane, and gasoline storage and NPS vehicle fuel storage and 

dispensing will also be relocated to the airstrip area in a safe area outside the 500-year floodplain. The 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

32 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

future use or removal of the existing maintenance facility has yet to be determined; however, any use 

would be compatible with floodplain management guidelines. (NPS 1995f:13) 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Forest Fuel Reduction Plan / Firewood 

Management Plan 

The Forest Fuel Reduction Plan (NPS 1995g) was developed and implemented to reduce forest fuel 

accumulation in selected coniferous stands in the Stehekin Valley. The goals are to protect the safety of 

human life and property in the valley, to protect natural and cultural resources, to restore the forest to a 

late successional stage, and to protect old growth forest, particularly ponderosa pine. The plan provides 

for selective thinning and use of management-ignited controlled fires to reduce the fuel supply and risk of 

wildfires. It specifies the disposition of firewood obtained from tree thinning and also provides for longterm monitoring of the program to evaluate management actions (NPS 2005e:7). 

The Stehekin Valley Road is the main route that would be used by visitors or residents to exit the Lake 

Chelan NRA in the event of a wildfire. Maintenance of the road is an important part of the strategy to 

protect Lake Chelan NRA users and local citizens from wildfire and structural fires. This is also the route 

that would be used to bring in equipment and personnel to fight wildfires in this area. Thus, protection of 

the road from wildfire is an important part of the strategy to protect resources and personal property in 

this area. As part of the fuel management program, management-prescribed and controlled fires are set 

and thinning of the forest are methods used to reduce fuels in the valley and to maintain a healthy late 

successional forest. NPS also conducts wildfire-suppression activities through its forest fuel reduction 

program (NPS 1995a).

9. COMPANY CREEK ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 1989 - 2007 

See Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List.

10. STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 1993 - 2007 

See Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List. 

Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project Environmental Assessment 

This EA included actions on 5 miles of the road from Harlequin Bridge to below High Bridge, including 

paving, reroutes (1,100 feet and 2,200 feet in length), raising of the road surface, and drainage 

improvements at specific locations, including repair of culverts, installation of bank protection, and 

installation of new barbs. 

There are some measures that have not yet been implemented from the selected action in the Stehekin 

Valley Road Implementation Project Environmental Assessment (NPS 2005a) that would be included in 

all alternatives in the SRCIP. Implementation of some portions of the Road Improvement Project EA 

were put on hold because immediately following the preparation of the Road Improvement Project EA, a 

second 100-year flood occurred on the Stehekin River in 2006 and it became clear to NPS and FHWA 

staff that surfacing, rehabilitation and raising sections of the Stehekin Valley Road were not going to be 

enough to prevent future damage to the roadway. As a result, the NPS began implementation of some 

actions from the EA but postponed implementation of others to undertake a more comprehensive analysis 

of the Stehekin River corridor to determine what actions would best protect public facilities and allow 

continued access to private property with respect to the apparent flood regime changes on the Stehekin 

River. 
C. Relationship to Other Plans 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 33

Those measures that have not yet been implemented from the selected action in the Stehekin Valley Road 

Improvement Project Environmental Assessment and FONSI (NPS 2005a) would either be included in all 

alternatives or have been modified in the action alternatives based on new information and are explained 

below. Impacts of these modified actions are the same as were described in that EA/FONSI. 

These measures include rehabilitation of the road from Harlequin Bridge to Milepost 9.2, surfacing of the 

road, installing erosion protection measures at Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek), and construction of new 

pullouts and a winter turnaround / parking area. Because of the proposed reroutes, other measures from that 

EA, such as the grade raise in McGregor Meadows, would only be implemented as part of Alternative 1 

or 4 (see ―Description of Alternatives 1 - 4‖ for each alternative discussed in Chapter II: Management 

Alternatives).

The following actions were implemented as noted: 

 (2006) Milepost 7.0: permanent reroute of approximately 1,000 feet (0.19 mile) following 

emergency reroute (constructed after October 2003) moved farther away from river. Revegetation 

also completed from Milepost 7.0 to 7.5. 

 (2006) Milepost 7.5: reroute road farther from Stehekin River (2,300 feet, or 0.44 mile). 

 (2007) Milepost 8.0: repair and reinforce existing stream bank revetment; install four new barbs 

downstream of two existing barbs. 

 (2005) WeavTel 

 (2003) Courtney-Kellers Park Land Exchange 

 (2003) Griffith Cabin Housing Replacement 

11. OTHER RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

Finding of No Significant Impact: Acquisition of Interest in Private Land in the 

Stehekin Valley Environmental Assessment 

Under this EA/ Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (NPS 2003a), the NPS acquired 5.0 acres of 

private land (Tract 04-103) near the head of Lake Chelan to protect high resource values and exchanged 

7.15 acres of federal land (Little Boulder/Boulder creeks) (Tract 05-131) previously identified in the 1995 

LPP (NPS 1995b) as potentially available for exchange. This action was undertaken to provide protection of 

river dynamics and natural processes within the floodplain of the Stehekin River. 

12. NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX STUDIES

Stehekin River Floodplain Mapping: In 1993, the NPS updated and corrected the 1981 FEMA floodplain 

map by adding 14 cross sections upstream, recalculating Manning’s roughness values, and by using a more 

accurate base map (NPS 1993b). This map was not adopted by Chelan County/FEMA, but was used in 

development of the 1995 GMP (NPS 1995a) and other actions. 

Large Woody Debris: In the 1980s, the NPS commissioned a study of large wood accumulations that 

resulted in a report by Mason and Koon (1985). Following up on this study, NPS repeated large wood 

inventories in 2000 and 2007. 

Stehekin River Inventory Report: In 2004, NPS published a technical report on the results of several 

inventory and monitoring programs on the Stehekin River (NPS 2004b).

Sediment Yield: A study by NPS and Chelan PUD in 2001 compared 1978 and 2000 Chelan PUD surveys 

at the river mouth to assess vertical changes in the Stehekin River bed (Chelan PUD 2001a). The NPS 

estimated annual sediment yield at 25,000 cubic yards per year, with about 17 percent, or 5,600 cubic yards, 

of that contained in bed load. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

34 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Backwater Effect of Lake Chelan: Chelan PUD studied the effect of the manipulated level of Lake 

Chelan on flooding and backwater in the lower Stehekin River (Chelan PUD 2001b). The study was 

based on a one-dimensional hydraulic model, and indicated that a backwater effect extends at least 0.25 

mile up the river from the lake and increases the 100-year flood elevation by approximately 0.5 feet. 

Flood Frequency Analysis: In 2008, the USGS reanalyzed the flood data for the Stehekin River to 

update analyses used in the 1997 Company Creek EA. The analysis was revisited using the flood data 

from large events in 2003 and 2006, and a new approach that separated spring and fall flood events for 

statistical analysis of magnitude and frequency. As a result, this analysis provided a return interval of 20 

years for the 200,000 cfs flood, in contrast to the 100-year return interval used in the 1981 FEMA study. 

Information Summaries: In addition to these studies, there were two ―white papers‖ prepared to 

summarize the status of information on various resources for the SRCIP: Laws, Regulations, and Policies

(Zipp 2008; see Appendix 15) and Current Knowledge Base (Riedel 2009; see Appendix 16). 

13. OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND PLANS

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington State Hydraulic Code: see Appendix 15: Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. 

CHELAN COUNTY 

Chelan County Comprehensive Plan 

Under Chelan County zoning regulations, the Stehekin Valley is in a general-use zone, where singlefamily residential is the primary use. Property owners, however, can petition the county for a conditionaluse permit to use land for other than residential purposes. These petitions are considered on a case-bycase basis. Consideration involves public hearings before the board of adjustment (NPS 1995c:8). 

Chelan County Code, Flood Hazard Development 

Development in flood hazard zones is limited by Chelan County. 

Section 3.20.040 Purpose 

It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the general public health, safety, and welfare, and to minimize 

public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas, by providing standards designed to 

 Protect human life and health; 

 Minimize expenditure of public moneys and reduce the need for uneconomical flood-control 

projects; 

 Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and usually undertaken at 

the expense of the general public; 

 Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 

 Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities, such as water and gas mains and electric, 

telephone, and sewer lines, and streets and bridges located in flood hazard areas; 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 35

 Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood hazard 

areas so as to minimize future flood loss; 

 Ensure that potential buyers are aware that the property is located in a flood hazard area; 

 Ensure that those who occupy the flood hazard areas assume responsibility for their own actions; 

and 

 Satisfy the requirements established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as failure to 

do so would jeopardize federal financial support to the county and its citizens. (Res. 99-91 (part), 

July 6, 1999; Res. 89-56 Section 106, May 30, 1989). 

Chelan County Emergency Resolution #2007-42 

On March 12, 2007, Chelan County issued an Emergency Resolution (#2007-42) declaring an ―imminent 

danger at several locations in the Stehekin River and upper Lake Chelan due to increased flooding risk.‖

The purpose of the Resolution was to ―request that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

issue an expedited written permit to perform work to reduce the flooding risk in the Stehekin 

Community.‖ The Resolution identified several specific locations for flood protection measures, 

including upper Company Creek Road, based on concerns voiced by landowners and recommendations 

provided by the Corps of Engineers, Emergency Management Division (NPS 2007:10 - 11).

D. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING 

1. OVERVIEW

Public involvement is a key component of the NEPA process. In this part of the process, the general 

public, federal, state, and local agencies and organizations are provided an opportunity to identify 

concerns and issues regarding the potential effects of proposed federal actions. The opportunity to provide 

input is called ―scoping.‖ 

Internal scoping engaged professional staff of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and the North 

Cascades National Park Complex and other NPS offices (Pacific West Region and Denver Service 

Center) to provide information regarding proposed actions that could affect Lake Chelan NRA resources. 

Internal scoping by NPS staff began in fall 2007. A variety of concerns were identified regarding 

vegetation, wildlife, maintenance, water resources, cultural resources and planning through participation 

in a formal internal scoping meeting held from October 28 -31, 2007. Comments were also solicited 

formally and informally from park and federal highway planning team members, from other agency staff, 

and from the technical committee. Internal scoping continued throughout the development of this DEIS. 

As a key step in the overall conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process necessary 

for achieving the goal of partnering to achieve coordinated Stehekin River management, the NPS sought

public comments and relevant information to guide the preparation of the DEIS. Among the objectives of 

this public scoping were to: 

 Invite participation from federal, tribal, state, local governments and other interested parties; 

 Inform all interested parties about the scope of the problem and the need to find solutions; 

 Identify a preliminary range of management alternatives (in addition to a no-action alternative 

that would be used as a baseline of existing conditions from which to evaluate proposed changes 

in management); 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

36 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Identify substantive environmental (including natural, cultural, recreational and socioeconomic) 

issues which warrant detailed environmental impact analysis, and eliminate issues or topics which 

do not require analysis; and 

 Identify potential environmental consequences and suitable mitigation strategies. 

Public scoping was conducted through the following means: a press release describing the intent to begin 

the public involvement process through comments on the proposed project was issued on January 7, 

2008; a newsletter was distributed to approximately 350 people on the park’s mailing list and was 

available in park visitor centers; and it was announced via the park’s website in January. In addition the 

formal Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2008. 

The public outreach called for by Section 106 of the NHPA has been integrated into the NEPA process in 

accordance with the NPS Programmatic Agreement and Management Policies (2006a). 

Informal preliminary scoping for the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement began on January 22, 2008. During scoping, the NPS held three open 

house public meetings in Stehekin (January 22, 2008), Wenatchee (January 23, 2008) and Seattle 

(January 24, 2008). All parties wishing to express concerns or provide information about management 

issues which should be addressed in the forthcoming conservation planning and environmental impact 

analysis process were strongly encouraged to submit written comments. 

Professional staff, including some members of the technical committee, was available to introduce the 

project, give presentations on scientific data, answer questions, and to accept comments. The public was 

encouraged to provide comments during the meetings and/or to submit written comments. The meetings 

were attended by approximately 73 people. There were 84 comments made at the Stehekin Public 

Meeting by 23 people who signed in, 73 comments made at the Wenatchee Public Meeting by 26 people 

who signed in, and 69 comments made at the Seattle Public meeting by 24 people who signed in. 

Twenty-one public comment letters were also received: 16 from individuals, 3 from nonprofit 

organizations (The Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation Association, North Cascades 

Conservation Council), 1 from the Environmental Protection Agency, and one from a business (Stehekin 

River Resort). These were received via PEPC (3 letters), U.S. mail (12), and/or email (6) and fax. Several 

were received both via email and U.S. mail and one was received via U.S. mail and fax. These public 

comment letters included approximately 216 comments. One letter was mailed from California, all of the 

others listed Washington State addresses. Eight letters/emails identified a Stehekin address, two other 

individuals submitting letters/emails identified themselves as Stehekin property owners. 

Comments were submitted directly to the park at the following address: 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Attn: SRCIP-EIS, 810 State Route 20, SedroWoolley, WA 98284. Comments were also submitted via the NPS Planning Environment and 

Public Comment (PEPC) website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/noca or sent via e-mail to the 

superintendent, project manager or NOCA_planning@nps.gov. Information about the planning 

process was regularly updated and posted on the park’s website: www.nps.gov/noca and on PEPC. 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 37

2. SUMMARY OF CONCERN STATEMENTS

Public Scoping 

The public comments from both the meetings and the letters (456) were sorted into 26 different 

categories, three of which were further split to reflect the diversity of comments received. These 

ultimately resulted (from additional sorting and combining) in the 128 concern statements listed below 

plus the ones listed in the lower section that were considered but dismissed, or were outside the scope of 

the proposed plan. The comments have become part of the public record. 

Purpose and Need (3 comments) 

 The purpose and need should conform to NEPA and its implementing regulations. 

Alternatives (6 comments) 

 The alternatives should conform to NEPA and its implementing regulations. 

 Alternatives that include heavy-handed manipulation of the Stehekin River are probably not 

within the scope of the plan. 

Vision/Philosophy (37 comments) 

 The plan should be holistic in its approach and should articulate clear goals and objectives that 

result in sustainable long-term management strategies. 

 The SRCIP should identify and justify its area of potential effects. 

 The alternatives should identify a wide range of management strategies to accomplish the purpose 

and need. Implementation of the alternatives will necessarily include tradeoffs. 

 The plan should balance the need for resources with effective management strategies that 

generate them. In doing so, it should involve the Stehekin Community. 

 Scientific understanding of the effects of climate change should be applied to determining the 

vision for management. 

 The plan should be comprehensive. 

 The plan should identify criteria for valley development and have as its goal allowing for 

appropriate development while maintaining natural processes. 

 The Stehekin Valley and Community were included in the national park system as part of Lake 

Chelan NRA because they are of national significance. Notwithstanding development, the 

protection of Stehekin resources should be a high priority to preserve for future generations. 

 The Stehekin Community is a unique resource recognized by the enabling legislation for Lake 

Chelan NRA. 

 The Stehekin River should not be modified to preserve or limit flooding effects on private 

property. 

 There is an inherent conflict between preserving the Stehekin Community and allowing natural 

flooding to occur on the Stehekin River. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

38 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 The goal of the plan should reflect a long-term balance between allowing natural processes to 

continue unimpeded and allowing for appropriate sustainable (flood-protected) development, 

including safe public recreation, facilities, and private lands. 

 There appears to be a conflict between the erosion control and flood protection actions NPS has 

taken in the Stehekin Valley and its assertion that it cannot act or expend funding to protect 

private property. 

 Although NPS asserts that the original goal to remove private development from the main valley 

corridor is no longer valid, actions taken by NPS to protect Company Creek Road appear to be 

implementing that goal. 

 The plan should include actions that would resolve issues in the whole lower valley. 

 The plan should balance private property protection and fish habitat with respect to the 

accumulation of large woody debris. 

Alternative Focus (4 comments) 

 One alternative should focus on minimal disturbance to natural systems. 

Impact Topics (44 comments) 

Socioeconomic / Cumulative Impacts 

 Land exchanges may affect the value of land in Stehekin or encourage speculation. 

 A cumulative effects analysis of previous efforts by NPS and private landowners to install erosion 

and flood protection measures should be included. These measures have exacerbated the 

consequences of flooding on private property. 

 A comprehensive analysis of the costs of the alternatives, encompassing the cost of purchasing 

remaining private lands, in comparison to continuing to install erosion and flood protection 

measures, should be included. 

Impairment 

 The plan should include analysis of impairment and how it is applied. 

Land Use 

 Development in Stehekin should be clustered to minimize impacts. 

 Public and private land use in each alternative should be evaluated to determine its ecological and 

visitor use consequences.

Environmental (Natural, Cultural, and Social) Impacts 

 A socioeconomic analysis of the impacts of land exchanges and other actions should be 

conducted. 

 Among the impacts that should be included in the environmental impact analysis are the 

following: terrestrial and/or aquatic habitat loss, alteration, degradation, and fragmentation; 

indirect effects, particularly stimulated development, human activities, and impacts to wilderness 

values; cumulative effects to specific resources of concern; impacts to plant and animal species, 

particularly state- and federally listed (e.g., northern spotted owl, bull trout), candidate, and other 

sensitive species; impacts to water quality and/or drinking water; introduction and/or spread of 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 39

invasive species; cultural, historical impacts, including those pertaining to tribes; hydrological 

alterations; stream bank hardening; loss and/or restoration of riparian areas; recreation and access; 

safety concerns; and costs. 

 The plan should identify the consequences of changing the large woody debris management 

policy in Stehekin. 

Visitor Experience 

 Analysis of the effects of the alternatives on visitor experience should be included. 

 Analysis of the effects of the alternatives on recreational use should be included. 

 Analysis of the effects of the alternatives on the Stehekin Community should be included. 

Natural Resources 

 Analysis of the effects of the alternatives on natural resources (fish, vegetation, wildlife, soils, 

river hydrology, etc.) should be included. 

 The Lower Field should not be considered for exchange due to its adjacency to northern spotted 

owl habitat. 

 There is an apparent conflict between identifying the ecological sensitivity of the Lower Field 

with respect to northern spotted owls and identifying a proposed Stehekin Valley Road reroute 

above it. Other existing and potential ecological and human factors, such as fire and noise, also 

have effects on northern spotted owls. 

 The use of pesticides should be carefully considered/should not occur near the Stehekin River. 

Large Woody Debris / Sediment (30 comments) 

 Selective removal of gravel and large woody debris from the Stehekin River should occur to 

minimize impacts from flooding. There is an overabundance of these materials in the Stehekin 

River. 

 The plan should determine the origin and need for large woody debris, including its role in the 

river system, and whether the number of logjams is appropriate. 

 The plan should determine whether management changes are needed for large woody debris. 

 Large woody debris could be used in engineered logjams. 

 Logjams should be retained to minimize disruption to the ecosystem. 

 Logjams should be removed (in some/all instances) to minimize flooding impacts. 

 If large woody debris /gravel is not removed, it will continue to increase and contribute to the 

formation of logjams and increased impacts from flooding. 

 There is a need to understand the origin of the wood in the logjams. 

 The plan should determine how large woody debris manipulation could be used to enhance fish 

and wildlife habitat. Analysis of the need for large woody debris within the river system should 

occur. 

 The amount of large woody debris now in the river is a natural phenomenon and was historically 

altered so that it is perceived now to be an overabundance. 

 Removal of logjams will not fix problems related to flooding. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

40 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 The plan should determine the relationship of wood to gravel, especially the consequences of the 

accumulation of these at the Stehekin River mouth. 

 Excess materials, including large woody debris and excavated gravel, generated by the plan 

should be used for other public and private projects in Stehekin. 

Sediment (11 comments) 

 Sediment and large woody debris sources above High Bridge/in the whole Stehekin watershed 

should be identified. 

 Road relocation/moving the road and allowing the river to encroach on the former roadway will 

result in the movement of sediment downvalley. 

 Gravel mining may have unintended consequences elsewhere. 

Land Exchange (68 comments, plus 6 related to impacts—see above)

Land Exchanges: Lower Field

 Disposition of the Lower Field should be reconsidered. It should be removed from the 1995 Land 

Protection Plan list of eligible properties. The Lower Field is northern spotted owl habitat. The 

Lower Field offers good wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Land Exchanges: Concern About Need for / Desire for NPS Purchase 

 Land purchase and exchanges are the most effective means of allowing the Stehekin River to 

migrate within its floodplain. Land acquisition is an effective means of allowing the river to 

migrate naturally. 

 The effects of land exchanges on private property should be considered in the plan. 

 Before any land is identified for exchange, there should be a survey of the need for additional 

exchange lands, analysis of the amount of property in the floodplain, analysis of eligibility for 

FEMA buyout, and other factors. 

 The emphasis in the plan should be on land purchase, rather than exchange and on strategies to 

ensure the protection of existing public lands. Land exchanges and easements should be a 

secondary consideration. 

 Public lands should not be exchanged. Exchanging public lands will adversely affect Lake Chelan 

NRA resources. Land exchanges may reward poor decision making (buying land within the 

floodplain). 

 Land exchanges have a variety of adverse effects, including shifting development to high ground, 

taking unfair advantage of government resources, encouraging development and speculation, and 

resulting in increased development. 

 Consider the Walker property for land exchange. 

 Condemnation of lands should be considered in the Land Protection Plan. 

 NPS should seek funding for land acquisition. 

 The plan should establish criteria for land exchanges and analyze effects on adjacent lands and 

values. 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 41

 Justification for a revised Land Protection Plan should be included in the plan, followed by 

systematic evaluation of the relative values of public lands identified for exchange. Evaluation 

should include those lands that might be available for acquisition instead of exchange. 

 Land exchanges should/should not occur in the Stehekin Valley. 

 There should be a list of available lands for exchange in the plan. Lands adjacent to private 

property in Keller’s Park should not be on the list. 

 The plan should identify whether floodplain lands can be exchanged for lands at higher elevation 

and whether partial exchanges of flood-affected portions of private property can occur. 

 Land exchanges may include covenants/restrictions. Exchanged lands should have the same 

development rights. 

 The plan should include and identify the benefits of clustering development. 

 Proposed land acquisitions and exchanges should be evaluated with respect to management 

viability and access. 

Land Exchanges: Availability 

 There are few lands available for exchange compared to the amount of private land within the 

floodplain. 

 Other strategies (beyond land exchanges) may need to be used in the plan to remove private lands 

from the floodplain. 

 The criteria for evaluating whether to offer public lands for exchange should be revisited, 

including the aesthetic criteria and whether an entire parcel should be excluded for one criterion. 

 Land exchanges should be limited to those lands with low resource or scenic values. 

Land Exchanges: Priority Setting 

 Land exchanges should focus on removing private lands from the floodplain. 

 The plan should identify the criteria for prioritizing land exchanges. 

Jurisdiction (12 comments) 

 Land management agencies with responsibility for Stehekin should cooperate in the plan. 

 The plan should describe consultation with Native American Tribes. 

 The plan should identify jurisdictional responsibility along the Stehekin River, especially at the 

mouth and with respect to floating or submerged large woody debris. 

 The plan should clarify the jurisdiction and management of large woody debris for NPS and 

private landowners. 

Policy/Regulation Changes (6 comments) 

 The plan should clarify the policy for and management of gravel mining. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

42 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Potential Modifications to GMP (5 comments) 

 The plan should make changes to the management of large woody debris. 

 The plan should reaffirm the GMP policy of manipulating large woody debris to minimize 

recreational boating impacts. 

 The plan should clarify how the GMP can be modified. 

Fisheries Habitat (10 comments) 

 The plan should identify the ecological need for large woody debris and how the amount now 

present relates to that need. Large woody debris should be used for bank protection and erosion 

control. 

 The plan should identify the ecological benefits of large woody debris for fish and fish habitat. 

 The plan should identify whether large woody debris left high and dry is beneficial to fish or 

whether it could be available for use. 

Floodplain Facilities / Mapping (13 comments) 

 The plan should identify options for floodplain mapping, including the advantages and 

disadvantages of each. 

 The plan should take into account the time needed to develop new FEMA floodplain maps. 

 New floodplain maps are key to determining sustainable management strategies in the plan. 

 The plan should identify what facilities would be allowed to remain in the floodplain and why. 

 The plan should evaluate public essential and nonessential facilities in the floodplain and whether 

they are still needed and should be relocated. 

 The plan should identify if there are any structures (other than buildings) that should be removed 

from the floodplain. 

Stehekin Community Principles / Viability (14 comments) 

 The plan has the potential to affect the viability of the Stehekin Community if additional private 

lands are purchased or exchanged. There should be no reduction in the amount of private land 

within the Stehekin Valley. 

 The proposed clustering of development will affect the privacy of landowners who purchased 

lands away from other developed lands. 

Proposed Projects (26 comments) 

 The plan should consider what would occur if the Stehekin River changes course at Buckner 

Homestead hayfield and pasture. 

 The 12 projects identified as potentially needed at the public scoping meetings should be 

implemented. 

 The plan should consider taking a broad look at long-term visitor needs in the Stehekin Valley, 

including changes to the location or configuration of campgrounds and potential demand for 

additional low-elevation camping. 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 43

 The plan should consider implementing work to protect the road/private property north of 

Milepost 5.5. 

 Bank erosion above the Stehekin River Resort should be stabilized. 

 The plan should identify opportunities for public-private partnerships on proposed projects. 

 The plan should identify removal of gravel and/or large woody debris from the head of the lake to 

minimize flooding impacts to the river mouth and hazards for recreational boaters. 

 The plan should consider taking action near Frog Island [and at the maintenance facility]. 

 The plan should leave the logjams at McGregor Meadow and No Name Creek in place. 

 The plan should include replacement and relocation of NPS facilities in the floodplain, including 

the maintenance yard. 

 The plan should identify future problem flooding areas and plan for them before they occur. 

 The plan should encourage Chelan County to modify zoning related to floodplain development. 

 The plan should identify whether gravel bars can or should be manipulated. 

 The plan should consider filling the deep channel on the White property. 

Erosion Protection (8 comments) 

 The plan should consider/should avoid additional actions to stabilize the banks of the Stehekin 

River. 

 The placement of large woody debris for erosion protection/flood control can result in 

downstream effects. 

 Adding bank hardening, such as levees, may result in exacerbating the effects of flooding. 

Road Relocation (27 comments) 

 If road relocation threatens private property, that property should be added to the list of those that 

have the option for land exchange. 

 The Stehekin Valley Road should/should not be relocated. 

 The plan should identify how private landowners will access their property should the road be 

relocated. 

 Access roads could be minimally constructed/maintained. 

 Rerouting the road will affect the stability of properties it is rerouted around. 

 Constructing and maintaining rerouted roads will have a wide array of adverse effects. 

 Modifications to Company Creek Road need to be considered in the plan. 

 Work done on the Company Creek side of the Stehekin River has adversely affected properties on 

the Stehekin Valley Road side. No comparable work has been done to protect them. 

Emergency Planning / Landowner Interim Actions (23 comments) 

 The plan should address emergency actions landowners can take. 

 What criteria define how landowners can treat large woody debris, including floating logs, on 

their private property? What permits are needed? 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

44 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Private landowners can take action to install flood protection measures on their own property. 

NPS should provide technical assistance to landowners undertaking flood protection measures 

and emergency actions. 

 Agencies have a responsibility to communicate flooding risk to landowners so they can take 

action. 

Agency/Political/Community Involvement and Technical Assistance (9 comments) 

 There should be increased involvement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, politicians, 

technical experts and the Stehekin Community in the planning process and its outcomes.

 Technical assistance is needed for Stehekin landowners. 

 Educational and interpretive, as well as technical, information related to flood protection and 

climate change needs to be more available for Stehekin landowners, residents, and the general 

public. 

Recreational Use (4 comments) 

 The plan should determine the effect of the accumulation and management of large woody debris 

on recreational uses. 

 Effects on the viability of the Lower Valley Trail should be considered in the plan. 

 A recommendation that modifications to the River Trail be included in the plan. 

Water Quality (2 comments) 

 Flooding of septic systems has an effect on water quality. Good water quality is important to 

maintain for the Stehekin Community water system. 

Research / Climate Change Issues (6 comments) 

 The flooding regime on the Stehekin River has been affected by climate change. Future effects 

are unknown. 

 Ongoing effects from climate change need to be projected to the degree possible to aid in 

planning for the future. Climate change effects need to be considered in the environmental 

analysis. 

Restoration (2 comments) 

 Restoration of purchased and exchanged lands, as well as abandoned sections of roadway, should 

occur. 

Funding the SRCIP (8 comments)

 How will plan implementation be funded? Funding of proposed actions should be identified and 

addressed. 

 The costs of alternatives should be determined. 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 45

a. Issues and Concerns Addressed in this Document 

All of the above issues and concerns were considered in the planning process or are addressed in this 

document except for those identified under the second heading below. 

b. Issues Considered but Dismissed

The following issues were initially considered by the planning team, but were eventually rejected for 

various reasons. This reasoning is given in Chapter II: Management Alternatives under the heading ―D. 

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed‖ (from further review). 

 The scope of the plan should include the entire Stehekin River watershed, including wilderness 

area above High Bridge. 

 The Stehekin River should be contained within a channel to reduce flooding of private property 

and public facilities. 

 The goal of the plan should be to allow natural processes to occur unimpeded so that natural 

flooding can continue to occur without regard to its effect on facilities and private property. 

 Plan alternatives should include consideration of rerouting the Company Creek Road. 

 There is a great deal of suitable gravel for Stehekin projects in the valley that could be used 

instead of importing materials at high cost. 

 Pile burning of large woody debris generated by the plan should be considered. 

 Sediment and large woody debris sources above High Bridge/in the whole Stehekin watershed 

should be evaluated for treatment. 

 Gravel removal should be used instead of land exchanges. 

 Dredging should be part of the plan as long as it is done in a way that minimizes impacts. 

 The plan should consider changes to the Sand, Rock, and Gravel plan to allow use of gravel 

generated by plan actions. 

c. Issues and Concerns outside the Scope of this Document 

The following issues generated through public scoping are not within the scope of this project and are 

therefore not analyzed in detail in the document: 

 Concern that the plan would modify the wilderness boundary. 

 A recommendation to include plans for the road/trail above High Bridge. 

 Selective tree removal in the upper valley may have an effect on reducing logjams. Plan actions 

should reduce the potential for the additional formation of logjams. 

 A recommendation that the plan include establishment of the Bridge Creek hiker’s hostel. 

These actions are outside the scope of the proposed plan because they include actions that would take 

place above High Bridge (outside the project area that has been defined for the plan) or because they are 

actions that are not related to the effects of flooding on public facilities and private lands within the 

Stehekin Valley. They are therefore not considered in the accompanying analysis. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

46 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The following two issues were also brought up during public scoping: 

 Concern about the Lake Chelan NRA using the most effective strategies for treating invasive 

plants, including comparing the strategies with respect to cost, repeated applications of pesticides, 

nonchemical means of control, effectiveness/use in other areas, and the effects of pesticides on 

water and nontarget plants and wildlife. 

 A recommendation that volunteer groups be used in invasive plant management. 

These actions are beyond the scope of the proposed project. Although invasive plant management would 

continue to occur, the SRCIP is not the means under which planning for invasive plant treatment is 

orchestrated. Lake Chelan NRA is currently in the process of creating an Invasive Plant Management Plan 

and these comments are being considered within the scope of that plan. 

Included in public scoping was: 

 A recommendation that the plan include actions for supporting sustainable economic activity in 

Stehekin. 

Although the SRCIP considers economic impacts associated with changes in land use in Stehekin, 

creating a plan that would create sustainable economic activity in Stehekin is beyond the scope of the 

proposed plan. 

Some comments suggested items that the park could consider in future Stehekin planning, including: 

 Concern that the need to relocate campsites or campgrounds be part of a much larger plan for 

long-term visitor use in the Stehekin Valley. 

 Concern that there would be increased demand for low-elevation camping as lodging costs 

increase. 

A long-term plan for campground management/dealing with increasing lodging costs in Stehekin is 

beyond the scope of managing flood-related impacts in the river corridor. Because these actions are not 

part of the plan, they are not considered in the accompanying analysis. What is considered are 

modifications to the use of campsites consistently affected by flooding and the development of new 

campgrounds to replace these, as well as the relocation of a camp affected by hazard trees. 

The following concerns are related to the plan, but are not within the scope of the plan to solve: 

 Land exchange appraisals should consider the effects of flooding. 

There would be no changes to the way land exchange appraisals are conducted for the plan. Land 

exchange appraisals are conducted under a set of laws, regulations, policies, and professional appraisal 

standards, which take into consideration flood-related impacts to buildings, access, and structures. This 

plan does not supersede this legislative or policy direction. It should also be noted that appraisals do take 

into account the elements that contribute to fair market value. 

 Stehekin landowners need an emergency response plan. 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 47

Emergency response on private property is under the jurisdiction of Chelan County. The NPS has been 

coordinating, and will continue to coordinate, with the County on emergency-response planning and 

actions, including by providing staff to assist with planning. 

 Plan alternatives should focus on climate change, or climate change educational opportunities. 

 Future impacts and costs associated with climate change should be modeled and predicted in the 

plan. 

All alternatives are based on ongoing research related to potential impacts from climate change, river 

dynamics, and flooding. Analysis of flood data for the last century points to a shift in the Stehekin system 

from one dominated by spring floods to one dominated by larger fall events. The analysis of the 

alternatives considers how this changing flood regime will influence the proposed actions within the 

project area. Modeling future climate change and its effect on flooding is beyond the scope of the plan. 

Further, uncertainty in the pace of changes caused by global warming precludes making specific 

management decisions based on models. In the same way, focusing the alternatives on climate change 

would not result in a wide range of options to address flooding of public and private property in the 

Stehekin Valley. 

 The plan should identify management policies that should be changed. 

 Public domain lands (never in private ownership) should be considered for exchange. 

Changing government and NPS policies is a lengthy and controversial process that is beyond the scope of 

the plan. 

 Designate/do not designate the Stehekin River as a Wild and Scenic River. 

The SRCIP is not the right vehicle for a Wild and Scenic River designation for the Stehekin River. That 

process requires a separate study, which is currently unfunded. Nonetheless, the lower Stehekin River is 

eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation for its recreational values. In adherence to NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a), however, the SRCIP will not affect the criteria which make the 

Stehekin River eligible as a Wild and Scenic River. 

3. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SCOPING

Additional public scoping took place during the alternative development period. Three public open houses 

were held, two in Stehekin (August 26 - 27, 2008) and one in Seattle (August 28, 2008). In addition, 17 

comment letters were received via fax (1), PEPC (3), e-mail (8), or regular mail (6)—some were received 

in more than one format. 

The 17 letters were received from 12 individuals (some duplicate or signed by more than one person), 3 

nonprofit organizations (National Parks and Conservation Association, Western Lands Project, and 

Stehekin Heritage); 1 school district (Stehekin School District); 1 county government (Chelan); and 2 

businesses (Island Resources, Ltd., and Stehekin River Resort). 

These letters contained approximately 65 individual comments, summarized as follows in the following 

62 concerns: 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

48 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternatives 

General 

 There should be a ―community‖ alternative that would show increased cooperation among 

federal, state, county, and private parties. 

 There is support / lack of support for various alternatives and portions of alternatives. 

 Wild and Scenic River designation for the Stehekin River should be considered in the plan. 

 The proposal for the Stehekin Valley Trail should be more fully developed, including how it 

relates to the plan (including impacts from relocating the road on the Old Wagon Road proposed 

alignment). 

 There should be additional interpretive information about living in Stehekin as part of the 

proposed plan. 

 There are ongoing concerns about gravel accumulation. 

 There is concern about paving unstable sections of the Stehekin Valley Road. 

 What will happen to the existing maintenance facilities (including the YACC yard)? 

Implementation 

 The SRCIP should include an implementation plan with a timeline and identify potential funding 

sources, both public and private. 

 There were questions about the details of implementation that are not fully described within the 

current array of alternatives (in the newsletter). 

 There were questions about the cost of implementing the alternatives. 

Drainage Modifications 

 There should be routine preventative maintenance on culverts and drainages. 

 Wilson Creek flow is outside the channel, causing it to make a circuitous route back to the 

culvert, overflowing the road. 

 Jonathan Creek is plugged. 

 Culverts and catch basins should be checked in the spring and fall. 

Vehicle Turnaround 

 There were questions about the vehicle turnaround and other measures that are incorporated into 

the plan as a result of the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project implementation. 

 There was concern about the large size of the parking area / turnaround. 

Large Woody Debris Management 

 There was concern about whether or not large woody debris manipulation is included in the 

alternatives. 

 There was a question about the alternatives proposing NPS vs. private use of large woody debris. 
D. Summary of Public Scoping 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 49

 The SRCIP should include active and ongoing management of large woody debris in the Stehekin 

River and provide opportunities for relocation of large woody debris within the system. 

Bank Erosion Protection 

 The NPS should implement immediate bank-protection action on NPS land to protect the 

Stehekin River Resort. 

 Erosion protection measures on NPS land above the Stehekin River Resort would protect private 

property. 

 The plan should include additional bank-hardening measures. 

 The Stehekin River should not be confined. 

 Additional information about bank-protection measures, such as cabling logs, should be provided. 

 Current and future bank stabilization projects where both private and public lands are involved 

should be approached in a comprehensive manner. 

 The plan should use a reach-based approach that considers an entire project regardless of land 

ownership to design bank stabilization projects. 

Reroutes 

 There were concerns about private property being on ―the wrong side‖ of the reroute due to the 

protection measures afforded the public access route (along the Stehekin Valley Road). 

 The cost of /need for the reroutes was questioned. 

 There were concerns about future access to McGregor Meadows when the reroute is 

implemented. 

 The plan should address concerns about utility, firefighting, and other access as well as egress on 

the former Stehekin Valley Road access to McGregor Meadows if a reroute is implemented. 

 Impacts to downstream neighbors should be included in reroute decisions. 

 The access road through McGregor Meadows might not be maintained to a standard that would 

allow protection of adjacent properties. 

 The cost of reroute alternatives in comparison to annual maintenance and maintenance of the 

proposed access road was questioned. 

 The reroutes may be subject to rockslides, and snow and debris avalanche risk. 

Recreational Development 

 The group camp near Rainbow Falls would be more desirable than the north bank of Company 

Creek. 

 There was a question about the need for raft ramps at Harlequin and above the Stehekin River 

Resort based on the volume of rafting and the impacts, when there is a raft ramp at Bullion. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

50 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Land Acquisition and Exchange 

 Land exchanges may not provide a public benefit. 

 There should be a moratorium on land exchanges until all parcels have been made available (post 

EIS).

 The corral land near the bakery should be considered for land exchange. 

 The plan may result in the continued loss of private property in Stehekin. 

 There is erosion of the private land base in Stehekin and potential long-term negative effects of 

that on the Stehekin Community. 

 The Land Protection Plan should provide financial assistance as well as purchase for property 

owners willing to relocate out of the channel migration zone. 

 The Rice property should not be exchanged. 

 There would be impacts to the Stehekin School from proposed land exchanges, including 

adjacency of private vs. public property, particularly from the Rice property. 

 There were questions about the NPS’s use of land acquisition / exchange as a strategy and how it 

relates to U.S. Forest Service use of the same (i.e., why the NPS does not have a step-by-step 

policy). 

 The plan may concentrate activity in the lower valley. 

 There was a question about whether an existing life-estate where the Stehekin River has occupied 

the property would qualify for exchange. 

 There was concern about the Webb-Walker and the Griffin-Getty properties on the list of 

potential exchange lands. 

 The lands available / potentially available / unavailable for exchange were inadequately portrayed 

on maps at the public open houses in Stehekin and Seattle. 

 Land exchanges should include the removal of not only buildings from the floodplain but also the 

water systems, septic systems, and electrical systems (including septic tanks, plastic infiltrators, 

conduit, plumbing, well casings, pumps, etc. buried in the ground). 

 The above items should also be removed when NPS acquires developed lands. 

 There should be oversight and completion inspections to ensure removal of NPS acquired 

structures. 

 NPS buildings that were torn down this summer still have water systems, wastewater systems, 

and power conduits buried in the ground at these sites. NPS should remove this buried utility 

system infrastructure. 

 All proposed land exchange property should meet the criteria of nonfederal ownership. 

 There was a question about whether the property adjacent to and upvalley of the Stehekin Ranch 

was part of the Maxwell homestead. 

 The criteria used to determine NPS property eligibility for exchange should consider the channel 

migration zone before other priorities, such as wildlife. 

 Land exchanges should be a high priority in the final plan. 

 Chelan County offered a commitment to working with NPS to address zoning and cluster 

development opportunities that may help to facilitate additional land exchanges. 
E. Impact Topics 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 51

Other Questions 

There were questions about 

 Whether the road would be elevated through McGregor Meadows if the reroute was implemented 

 Jurisdiction and a request for resolution of it by the NPS related to large woody debris build-up

 Where the alternatives would allow the manipulation of large woody debris. 

All of these were considered in the additional development of the alternatives except the following, which 

are (at least) partially outside the scope of the proposed plan (explanations follow): 

 The NPS should implement immediate bank-protection action on NPS land to protect the 

Stehekin River Resort. 

The NPS is prohibited from expending funds or taking actions specifically to protect private property. In 

addition, actions proposed within the context of this plan must undergo environmental analysis and 

approval in a Record of Decision before implementation can occur. 

 There should be a moratorium on land exchanges until all parcels have been made available (post 

EIS).

Land exchanges were specifically included within the scope of the plan because they are currently 

available as a protection strategy under the 1995 plan (NPS 1995b). The NPS cannot alter the LPP

priority system without modification to the LPP, which is being done as part of this planning process. 

 The Land Protection Plan should provide financial assistance as well as purchase for property 

owners willing to relocate out of the channel migration zone. 

The NPS cannot provide financial assistance to landowners for exchange or acquisition, except where it is 

specifically authorized due to the need for compensation for unequal exchange property values or where it 

adds value to land purchases. 

 There were questions about NPS’s use of land acquisition / exchange as a strategy and how it 

relates to U.S. Forest Service use of the same (i.e., why the NPS does not have a step-by-step 

policy). 

The NPS does not have a ―cookbook‖ of how to conduct land acquisition or exchanges, because 

compared to other agencies, like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

the NPS conducts a very small number of exchanges and the criteria that allow NPS exchanges are more 

narrowly defined. 

In addition, because the following concern was raised during initial scoping, reasoning for its exclusion is 

given above (see ―C. Issues and Concerns outside the Scope of this Document‖):

 Wild and Scenic River designation for the Stehekin River should be considered in the plan. 

E. IMPACT TOPICS 

This section describes the issues developed with public involvement during the planning process. It also 

includes the impact topics which will be carried forward in the analysis of the alternatives. Impact topics 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

52 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

are the potentially affected resources. Laws or policy related to their inclusion in this EIS are also noted. 

This section also identifies those resources that have been dismissed from further analysis due to their 

having no identified or negligible potential environmental consequences. 

1. INTRODUCTION

NPS resource specialists and planning staff identified issues and concerns that may have an effect on or 

be affected by actions in the proposed alternatives. Other agencies, including Chelan County, the 

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided input 

at meetings and through the Technical Committee. Permanent and seasonal residents of the Stehekin 

Valley and the general public provided comments at meetings and open houses. 

Impact topics have been identified on the basis of the NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a),

federal laws, regulations, and orders, and NPS staff knowledge of resources in the Stehekin Valley. 

Additional issues and concerns were identified from internal scoping responses and public meetings held 

in Stehekin, Wenatchee, and Seattle. Some of the main issues and concerns included the following: 

 Frequent flooding of the Stehekin Valley Road impacts Lake Chelan NRA operations and visitor 

experience by reducing access to the interior of the park. 

 Construction of riverbank erosion protection measures would impact water quality and 

streamflow, because it would be necessary to perform in-water work and the proposed rock barbs 

would alter streamflow. These structures also affect the natural erosion process of the river. 

 A series of actions related to maintaining the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road, 

including raising the roadbed, road reroutes, and bank stabilization, would occur within the 

floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River and could affect their characteristics. 

 Construction activities would temporarily increase noise that may affect visitor experience in the 

wilderness area surrounding the road. 

 Soils and vegetation would be impacted by the road reroutes, which would require clearing and 

grading and removal of soils and vegetation. 

 Proposed road reroutes could impact threatened and endangered species in areas where the road is 

moved closer to occupied habitat. Actions could include habitat removal, increased long-term 

noise from road traffic and human disturbance, and temporary construction noise. 

 Gravel roads cause dust, and impacts to water quality, vegetation, and visitor experience. 

Maintaining gravel roads also requires either gravel extraction from the Lake Chelan NRA 

Company Creek borrow pit, which is a limited resource, or importing material by barge, which is 

expensive. 

NPS staff consolidated the issues and selected the impact topics described below to facilitate the analysis 

of environmental consequences. A brief rationale for the selection of each impact topic is given below. In

addition, a discussion of impact topics dismissed from further consideration and the rationale for 

dismissing them is located in the following section. 

2. IMPACT TOPICS ANALYZED

Impacts of each action and alternative have been analyzed for the topics discussed below. These impact 

topics focus the discussion on comparing the environmental impacts among alternatives on affected 

resources. 
E. Impact Topics 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 53

Physical Resources 

Land Use: NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) provides direction for protection of lands and 

resources within park units, acquisition of nonfederal lands that are within park units, and cooperation 

with agencies, tribes, and private property owners to provide appropriate protection measures. The Lake 

Chelan NRA GMP (NPS 1995a) provides the framework for the types of land uses allowed within the 

project area. Land use refers to the general characteristics of how land is allocated among various 

administrative, preservation, recreational, and development needs. Management zones were established 

under the Lake Chelan NRA GMP and land use priorities were identified in the LPP (NPS 1995c). Because 

land use could change as a result of the implementation of the action alternatives, it is included as an impact 

topic. 

Air Quality: The Clean Air Act of 1963 as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq., PL 88-206) was established 

to promote the public health and welfare by protecting and enhancing the Nation’s air quality. The act 

establishes specific programs that provide special protection for air resources and air quality-related 

values associated with NPS units. Section 118 of the CAA requires a park unit to meet all federal, state, 

and local air quality pollution standards. 

Lake Chelan NRA is a class II area under the CAA. The surrounding North Cascades National Park and 

Glacier Peak Wilderness are class I areas. Class II areas allow only moderate increases in certain air 

pollutants, while class I areas (primarily large national parks and wilderness areas) are afforded the 

highest degree of protection, meaning that very little additional deterioration of air quality is permitted. 

The Act states that park managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality-related values 

(including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and visitor health) from 

adverse air pollution impacts (EPA 2000). Because road rehabilitation and construction could affect air 

quality, air quality is included in the impact topics. 

Geologic Hazards: Geologic hazards are common within Lake Chelan NRA and include earthquakes, 

rock falls, debris flows, and swift mountain streams. The proposed alternatives, would have measurable 

effects on increasing or reducing impacts from or exposure to some geologic hazards. Within the 

proposed project area hazards exist at the following locations: alongside steep valley slopes on the edge of 

the moraine at McGregor Meadows; at Milepost 8.0 (from the steep slope beyond the angle of repose); 

rock fall hazards off the steep valley side walls (Alternatives 2 and 3); and debris cones along the reroutes 

in Alternatives 2 and 3. Because of the potential impacts of the alternatives on these features, geologic 

hazards are included as an impact topic. 

Soils: Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) require the NPS to understand and preserve and to 

prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil. The 

alternatives include ground-disturbing activities of previously disturbed and undisturbed soils. Road 

reroutes would result in alteration of geomorphology (land forms) because of proposed road cuts and 

slope regrading. The concurrent loss of vegetation would also likely increase the potential for erosion and 

cause additional alteration of soil properties. Therefore, soils impacts are included in this DEIS. 

Water Resources: The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the CWA (33 USC 

1251 et seq., PL 92-500 and PL 95-217), is a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, to enhance the quality of water resources, and to 

prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) provides direction 

for the preservation, use, and quality of water in national parks. 

Water Quality: Section 401 of the CWA as well as NPS policy requires analysis of impacts on 

water quality. The Stehekin River is a Category 1 waterway that is given maximum protection 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

54 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

under state water quality regulations (WAC 173-201A). The alternatives would take place within, 

and in close proximity to, the Stehekin River. Construction activities may include in-water work 

and earth disturbance, which increases the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur and 

can adversely impact water quality. In addition, the current annual maintenance of the Stehekin 

Valley Road requires replenishment of gravel on the roadway. The use of this material on the 

road is a source of continuing sediment input to the Stehekin River from road/riverbank erosion, 

where those areas of the road are located in close proximity to the river from flooding, and major 

stormwater runoff. Because of potential impacts from sedimentation and work that might occur 

within and next to the Stehekin River, water quality is addressed in this EIS. 

Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics: The Lake Chelan NRA GMP (NPS 1995a) 

provides guidelines for the implementation of actions that affect the Stehekin River, its 

tributaries, and the Stehekin Valley Road. The GMP allows manipulation of the river only for 

road projects in erosion/river conflict zones under certain conditions. The Stehekin River is prone 

to severe flooding in spring and fall, which periodically damages the roadway. The largest floods 

recorded occurred in 1948, 1995, 2003 and 2006, and have caused major changes to the river and 

associated damage to the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road. When extreme flood 

velocities and depths occur, rapid erosion of the riverbank and road may occur. The proposed 

alternatives would involve riverbank improvements to protect the road, which may affect 

hydraulics and streamflow characteristics. 

Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 requires that impacts to wetlands be addressed. Numerous 

wetlands are located along the Stehekin River. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires 

federal agencies to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands. Executive Order 11990, 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a), and Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection

(NPS 2002a) direct that wetlands be protected and that wetlands and wetland functions and values 

be preserved. They further direct that direct or indirect impacts to wetlands be avoided whenever 

there are practicable alternatives. Actions within the alternatives would affect the edge of the 

Stehekin River, a riparian area, considered a wetland. 

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires an examination of 

impacts to floodplains and potential risk involved in placing facilities within floodplains. NPS 

Management Policies 2006, The Planning Sourcebook (General Management Planning) NPS 

2005, and Director’s Order 12 (Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making) (NPS 2001a), and Director’s Order 77-2 (Floodplain Management Guideline) 

(NPS 2003b) provide guidelines for proposals that occur in floodplains. Executive Order 11988 

requires that impacts to floodplains be addressed (see Appendix 17: Draft Floodplains Statement 

of Findings). A key purpose of the plan is to remove development from the Stehekin River 

floodplain / channel migration zone to the extent possible. 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation: NEPA calls for examination of the impacts on the components of affected ecosystems. 

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) calls for protecting the natural abundance and diversity of park 

native species and communities, including avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating potential impacts from 

proposed projects. The alternatives are likely to result in tree removal and other vegetation loss as well as 

enhancement or restoration of vegetation. Therefore, vegetation is included as an impact topic in this 

DEIS. 

Wildlife: NEPA calls for examination of the impacts on the components of affected ecosystems. NPS 

policy is to protect the natural abundance and diversity of park native species and communities, including 
E. Impact Topics 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 55

avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating potential impacts from proposed projects. More than 163 native 

species of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates have been recorded in the park, including 40 mammals, 104

birds, 8 reptiles, 5 amphibians, and 6 native fish (Kuntz and Glesne 1993; Duke Engineering and Services 

[DES] 2000). Many wildlife species may reside in or near the project areas. The alternatives will involve 

impacts to wildlife such as the removal of wildlife habitat, increased noise levels caused by construction 

activities, and increased turbidity caused by work in water. The loss or alteration of habitat has a direct 

effect on wildlife, which is often greatest when it affects their nesting/denning and foraging areas. 

Therefore, wildlife is included in this DEIS. 

Special Status Wildlife: The Federal ESA requires an examination of impacts to all federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. The NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) calls for an analysis 

of impacts to state-listed threatened or endangered species and federal candidate species. Under the ESA, 

the NPS is mandated to promote the conservation of all federally listed threatened and endangered species 

and their critical habitats within the park and Lake Chelan NRA boundary. NPS policy also requires 

examination of the impacts on federal candidate species, as well as state-listed threatened, endangered, 

candidate, rare, declining, and sensitive species. Ongoing informal consultation with the USFWS and the 

WDFW has identified several important rare, threatened, and endangered species that occur in Lake 

Chelan NRA. Therefore, special status wildlife is included in this DEIS. 

Cultural Resources 

Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Resources / Historic Structures / Cultural Landscapes: 

Consideration of the impacts to historic properties is required under provisions of Section 106 of the 

NHPA (1966), as amended, and the 2008 NPS Programmatic Agreement among the National Park 

Service, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (NPS et al. 2008). It is also required under the NPS Management Policies 2006

(NPS 2006a). Conformance with the Archeological Resources Protection Act in protecting known or 

undiscovered archeological resources is necessary. NPS Management Policies 2006 calls for ongoing 

inventory and analysis of the significance of archeological resources found within parks. Federal land 

managing agencies are required to consider the effects proposed actions may have on properties listed in, 

or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (i.e., Historic Properties), and to allow 

the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment. Agencies are required to consult with federal, 

state, local, and tribal government/organizations, identify historic properties, assess adverse effects to 

historic properties, and negate, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties while engaged 

in any federal or federally assisted undertaking (36 CFR Part 800). 

There are 33 archeological sites recorded in Lake Chelan NRA. Of these sites, 25 are prehistoric. An 

archeological survey near and within the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project area was conducted 

near in June of 2004 and no pre-contact-age archeological sites were located. Therefore, cultural 

resources is included in this DEIS 

Recreational / Social Resources 

Visitor Experience: Providing for the enjoyment of national park resources is one of the foundations of 

the NPS Organic Act. The Organic Act directs the NPS to promote and regulate the use of national parks 

to conserve resources and to provide for their enjoyment by existing and future generations. In accordance 

with this act, NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) and Director’s Order 17 (Tourism) (NPS 

1999) identify visitor use patterns and the desired visitor carrying capacity, and allow for appropriate 

recreational activities within park units. The Lake Chelan NRA LPP (NPS 1995b) calls for the protection 

of cultural and natural resources and the provision of safe visitor facilities and services. In addition, the 

enabling legislation for Lake Chelan NRA has as one of its goals to provide for public outdoor recreation 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

56 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

use and enjoyment of the Stehekin River and Lake Chelan. Depending on the selected alternative, a 

variety of impacts to visitor use may occur. The impacts considered in this section related to visitor use, 

include access and transportation, visitor use opportunities, interpretation and education, safety, and 

scenic resources. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Stehekin River, throughout its entire length, is considered eligible for Wild 

and Scenic status. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271 - 1287), ―certain selected rivers 

of the Nation, which with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in 

free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations.‖ As noted in Management Policies 2006: 

Potential national wild and scenic rivers will be considered in planning for the use and 

development of a park’s water and related land resources. The Park Service will compile 

a complete listing of all rivers and river segments in the national park system that it 

considers eligible for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. General management 

plans and other plans potentially affecting river resources will propose no actions that 

could adversely affect the values that qualify a river for the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. After a determination of eligibility is made, a decision concerning 

whether or not to seek legislation to designate a river or river segment may be made only 

through a general management plan, an amendment to a general management plan, or the 

legislative review process. (NPS 2006a:2.3.1.9) 

If the Stehekin River were designated as a National Wild and Scenic River, a 0.25-mile corridor on either 

side of the river would be designated to preserve its Wild and Scenic values. Some components of the 

alternatives under consideration could have beneficial or adverse effects on the free-flowing 

characteristics of the river and/or some of its outstandingly remarkable values. Therefore, wild and scenic 

rivers is included in this DEIS 

Park Operations: Impacts to park operations and visitor services are often considered in environmental 

documents to disclose the degree to which proposed actions would change park management strategies 

and methods and what additional costs (including staffing) are associated with the proposal. The 

alternatives would affect short- and long-term transportation and access, as well as the quality of the 

transportation infrastructure and the ability of the park to maintain the infrastructure and conduct park 

operations. The Stehekin Valley Road is the primary access to North Cascades National Park and the road 

is used by staff to conduct resource surveys, maintain park facilities, perform hazard fuel reduction 

(including prescribed fire), and to assist visitors / protect park resources. Therefore, park operations is 

included in this DEIS 

Socioeconomics: Socioeconomic impact analysis is required, as appropriate, under NEPA and 

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) pertaining to gateway communities. Because of the unique 

nature of Lake Chelan NRA, it is also appropriate to address it with respect to the Stehekin Community 

and Chelan, where most visitors embark on their Lake Chelan NRA visit. The local and regional economy 

and most business of the communities near the park are based on tourism and resource use. Agriculture, 

manufacturing, professional services, and education also contribute to regional economies. Therefore, 

socioeconomics is included in this DEIS 

Hazardous Materials: There are a variety of opportunities to encounter hazardous materials in the 

proposed project area under Alternatives 1 - 4. Therefore, this topic has been included. 
E. Impact Topics 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 57

3. IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The topics listed below either would not be affected by, or would be affected only negligibly by, the 

alternatives evaluated in this DEIS. Therefore, these topics have been dismissed from further analysis. 

Negligible effects are localized effects that would not be detectable over existing conditions. Many of 

these effects would be short term and would occur only as a result of construction activities. A detailed 

rationale for dismissing these and other impact topics is given below. 

Water Quantity: There would be no major changes in the use of water associated with the 

implementation of the alternatives. Replacement and relocation of the maintenance area has the potential 

to decrease administrative water use. Other uses of water, such as during road construction, would be 

short term and negligible. Although replacement and relocation of housing has the potential to increase 

water use at that location, the likelihood of that potential is currently unknown because housing would 

accommodate the same number of staff and would shift existing water use from one location to another. 

Impacts, if likely, would be described as part of a site-specific EA once designs are complete. 

Threatened and Endangered Plants: The ESA requires an evaluation of impacts from federal projects 

on all federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. During surveys conducted for the 

Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project, two federally listed plant species were identified by the 

USFWS as potentially being present within the project area. These species included: showy stickseed 

(Hackelia venusta) and Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva). An NPS 

plant survey conducted on May 19, 2004, revealed no sensitive plant species along the Stehekin Valley 

Road, and neither showy stickseed nor Wenatchee Mountain checker-mallow was found during this 

survey (Bivin, pers. comm., 2004) (Appendix 8: Vascular Plants Observed within Proposed Project 

Areas). During initial surveys for these species, conducted during key life stages for the plants, none were 

found either in the proposed project areas or within the lands proposed for exchange under any of the 

alternatives. Because additional site-specific surveys would be conducted for these plants prior to actual 

implementation of project actions, where warranted, and because project actions would then be modified 

to avoid any plants found, no impacts to special status species would occur. 

Traditional Cultural (Ethnographic) Resources: NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) and the 

NPS Cultural Resource Management Guideline (Director’s Order 28 and handbook) (NPS 1998a) direct 

parks to consider potential impacts of planned actions on cultural resources, including ethnographic 

resources. Lake Chelan NRA and the surrounding area have a history of habitation and resource use by 

prehistoric and contemporary American Indians. Analysis of impacts to known resources is important 

under the NHPA and other laws, including the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites. The NPS defines 

American Indian traditional cultural (ethnographic) resources as any ―site, structure, object, landscape, or 

natural resource feature assigned traditional legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally associated with it‖ (NPS 2006a). Traditional cultural properties 

are ethnographic resources listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have expressed the idea that there could be traditional 

cultural properties in the Stehekin River Watershed, but none have been specifically identified. Rock art 

sites, however, are considered traditional cultural properties. There are no rock art sites in the area of 

potential effects (APE) for the SRCIP. Although two prehistoric rock shelters are located in the lower 

valley and are 7 considered ethnographic resources, these are outside of the APE and would not be 

affected by the 8 proposed actions under the implementation of the alternatives described in this DEIS. 

It is known that several tribes traditionally used the Stehekin River valley for hunting, foraging, 

subsistence, and occupation, and that Lake Chelan NRA holds many resources important to tribes, such as 

archeological sites, wildlife, plants, and water. Thus, it is likely that some types of resources would occur 

in the project area. Based on ongoing consultation, there have been no ethnographic resources found or 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

58 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

identified in the proposed project area to date. Consultation with the Colville and Yakama tribes is 

continuing. If the tribes were to identify ethnographic resources or if ethnographic resources are 

discovered during project implementation, immediate consultation and resource significance assessments 

will be undertaken, in compliance with NHPA and NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a). 

Therefore, there would be no impacts to known ethnographic resources from the implementation of 

Alternatives 1 - 4. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act: To comply with the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, federal agencies must consider the effects of their actions on American Indian traditional religious 

practices. Based on analysis in the APE, there are no known traditional or religious use areas within the 

proposed project area. In addition, there are no known Indian sacred sites that would require compliance 

with Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, 42 USC 1996). 

Museum Collections: Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) and other cultural resources laws identify 

the need to evaluate effects on NPS collections, if applicable. Requirements for proper management of 

museum objects are defined in 36 CFR 79. The North Cascades National Park Service Complex museum 

collection is comprised of specimens and objects that document the natural and cultural resources of the 

park. Much of the collection is the result of research projects within the complex (including artifacts from 

the mines, sawmills, and other pioneering enterprises of the region) and prehistoric site surveys and 

excavations. Field notes, photographs, maps, and other resource management records are integral parts of 

the collection. The museum collection also includes materials from San Juan Island National Historical 

Park and from Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve. It is distributed among four different repository 

sites (Marblemount Curation Facility, Burke Museum, Fort Vancouver, and University of Idaho) and 

consists of over 2.3 million objects. These collections, including those from Lake Chelan NRA, would not 

be affected by the proposed project, except by the potential addition of material to the collections if any is 

found (see mitigation measures under ―12. Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources‖ in the 

―Environmental Consequences‖ section). 

Wilderness: NPS wilderness management policies are based on provisions of the 1916 NPS Organic Act, 

the Wilderness Act (1964), and legislation establishing individual units of the national park system. These 

policies establish consistent NPS-wide direction for the preservation, management, and use of wilderness 

and prohibit the construction of roads, buildings, and other man-made improvements and the use of 

mechanized transportation in wilderness. All park management activities proposed within wilderness are 

subject to review following the minimum requirement concept and decision guidelines. The public 

purpose of wilderness in national parks includes the preservation of wilderness character and wilderness 

resources in an unimpaired condition, as well as for the purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, 

education, conservation, and historical use. 

The Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-668) designated 639,840 acres, or 

93 percent, of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex as the Stephen Mather Wilderness. The 

Stephen Mather Wilderness is connected to a number of other USFS wilderness areas, including the 

Mount Baker, Pasayten, Noisy-Diosbud, Glacier Peak, Lake Chelan-Sawtooth, and Henry M. Jackson 

wilderness areas. 

Beginning at High Bridge, the Stehekin Valley Road bisects the Stephen Mather Wilderness. The 

wilderness boundary is 50 feet from the centerline of the road as it existed at the time of the Washington 

Park Wilderness Act. The wilderness boundary is generally at the 1,640-foot elevation contour. 

The wilderness, however, does not include the Stehekin Valley Road, but essentially surrounds the road 

and the area immediately adjacent to the road. Therefore there would be no direct impacts on the 

wilderness. Indirect effects on visitor experience within the wilderness, however, may result from 

construction noise or views of construction activity. Several trails, including the Rainbow Loop Trail, are 
E. Impact Topics 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 59

located within wilderness, close to the road. Use of this trail and other areas within wilderness near the 

road may be affected by construction noise or views of construction activity. The proposed Lower Valley 

Trail would be constructed outside of wilderness. Since the project does not directly affect wilderness, 

and the impacts of construction on the wilderness experience would be short term negligible and 

localized, this topic was dismissed from further discussion. 

Lightscapes: Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) states that ―the Service will preserve, to the 

greatest extent possible, the natural lightscapes of parks, which are natural resources and values that exist 

in the absence of human-caused light.‖ The stars, planets, and moon, visible during clear nights, influence 

people and many other species of animals, such as birds terrestrial predators and prey. The proposed 

actions under the alternatives described in this DEIS would not introduce or increase artificial light 

sources in the environment beyond current or historic levels and would preserve the ability to see natural 

features visible on clear nights. Lights that would be part of the relocated maintenance / housing complex 

would replace lighting now on these existing facilities. New lighting would be directed inward and 

downward and would be an improvement over existing conditions at current facilities. 

Soundscapes: Park soundscape resources encompass all the natural sounds that occur in parks, including 

the physical capacity for transmitting those natural sounds and the interrelationship among natural sounds 

of different frequencies and volumes in the park (NPS 2006a). NPS Director’s Order 47 (Sound 

Preservation and Noise Management) (NPS 2000) defines operational policies that will protect, maintain, 

or restore the natural soundscape. Natural sounds are part of the park environment and are vital to the 

functioning of ecosystems and may also be valuable indicators of their health. Soundscape is the total 

ambient acoustic environment associated with an area. It may be composed of both natural and humanmade sounds. In a high noise environment, natural ambient sounds may be masked by other noise 

sources. Natural quiet is another term for characterizing the expected natural soundscape. 

Construction activities associated with the alternatives under consideration, such as excavation, clearing 

and grading, earth hauling, gravel spreading, and operation of construction equipment and vehicles, 

would generate the primary sources of noise from the project (changes in operations are not expected to 

have an appreciable effect on existing noise levels, since the project would not result in an increase in 

traffic volumes or new uses). Construction noise impacts would largely be short term, localized, and 

minor for the public. Although there is a potential for some impacts to visitors or wildlife, mitigation 

measures would be used to minimize these impacts. Mitigation measures that would be used include 

avoiding construction during the breeding and nesting period of threatened and endangered bird species, 

and the following general construction Best Management Practices (BMPs): 

 Construction would be limited to daylight hours. 

 Construction equipment would be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors such as 

wildlife, visitors, and residents. 

 Equipment would not be left idling when not in use. 

 Mufflers would be used on all equipment. 

 Only well-maintained and properly functioning equipment would be used. 

Since impacts would be short term, localized, and mitigation would be used to further reduce or limit 

impacts, soundscape impacts were dismissed. Noise impacts, however, are addressed in the ―Wildlife, 

Threatened, and Endangered Species‖ and ―Visitor Experience‖ sections. There would be a negligible 

long-term increase in noise (intermittent) from rerouting the road under Alternatives 2 and 3 and a similar 

decrease in the area it was rerouted away from. No other long-term noise impacts would occur; therefore, 

this topic has been dismissed from additional consideration. 
Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action 

60 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Prime and Unique Farmlands: The Farmland Protection Policy Act was implemented to preserve and 

protect the dwindling supply of farmland in the nation. In 1980, the CEQ directed that federal agencies 

assess the effects of their actions on farmlands classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service as prime or unique. The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines these 

lands as having soils that are best suited for producing food, feed, forage, and fiber or oilseed crops. The 

alluvial river soils in the Stehekin River Valley are classified as prime farmland soils, but not unique 

soils. Use of land for farming and the type of farmland soils are considered in determining prime and 

unique farmland. There is not much current use of the land in the Stehekin Valley for farming, except for 

some pasture and small vegetable gardens. Historically, however, farming was associated with 

homesteads, including the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture. The alternatives would not affect the 

use of land for farming. 

The alternatives under consideration would not have an appreciable effect on prime farm soils for several 

reasons: 

 The road alignment would remain similar. Although there would be some road widening for 

pullouts in places, there would be little additional loss of farmland soils caused by this work. 

Topsoil would be removed to locate road base materials and then pulled back over the surface of 

the road. 

 Under the road reroute alternatives, the topsoil would also be preserved and would be used to 

rehabilitate the old alignments, saving farmland soils. 

 The amount of farmland soil loss compared with the total area of these soils within the valley is 

very small (less than 1 percent). 

Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from further analysis. 

Energy Consumption: Implementation of the proposed actions would not cause measurable increases in 

the overall consumption of electricity, propane, wood, fuel oil, gas, or diesel associated with visitation or 

for park operations and maintenance. A measureable decrease, however, is expected to be achieved with 

the construction of the new maintenance facility. 

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (59 FR 7629, as amended by Executive Order 12948, 

60 FR 6381, 42 USC 4321), requires all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their 

missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse levels of human health or 

environmental effects from their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and 

communities. This executive order does not apply to the subject of this document. The actions evaluated 

in this DEIS would not have an effect (either beneficial or adverse) on socially or economically 

disadvantaged populations. 
CHAPTER II:

Management Alternatives

Devils Island

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 63

CHAPTER II: MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the proposed alternatives, including the reasons for dismissing options that do not 

meet project objectives or other defined criteria. The alternative comparison chart (Table II-1) highlights 

the major differences among the alternatives. This chapter also identifies and provides analysis related to 

the selection of the environmentally preferable alternative. 

This chapter is divided into the following sections: 

 Section A: Introduction (containing a brief description of each alternative) 

 Section B: Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

 Section C: Description of Alternatives 1 - 4 

 Section D: Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed 

 Section E: Mitigation Measures (see the detailed explanation of these in Chapter IV: 

Environmental Consequences and Appendix 6: Summary of Mitigation Measures) 

 Section F: Environmentally Preferred Alternative (the alternative with the most benefits and 

fewest impacts, defined according to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) criteria). 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The alternatives were developed from collaborative interdisciplinary analysis based on the expertise of 

planning team members from the National Park Service (NPS) and Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA,) as well as from internal and external scoping with the Stehekin Community; federal, state, and 

local agencies, including Chelan County; Native American Indian Tribes; and interested organizations 

and individuals. The technical merit of alternative concepts and actions was reviewed by an interagency 

committee, comprised of state, federal, and county jurisdictions. Representatives included the Washington 

Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chelan County, Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan PUD), and 

Geomax PC. 

Four alternatives are included: 

 Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Management Practices and Existing Plan 

Implementation) 

 Alternative 2: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone Where Possible; 

More High-Priority Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone (Preferred) 

 Alternative 3: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Most Areas; 

Same Land Acquisition as in Alternative 2 

 Alternative 4: At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Some Areas; 

Less High-Priority Land Acquisition in Channel Migration Zone. 

The differences among the alternatives are primarily related to the different management strategies 

applied to them (see Table II-1: Alternative Comparison Chart). 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

64 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table II-1: Alternative Comparison Chart 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

FOCUS

Management 

concept / working 

title

Continue Current Management 

Practices and Existing Plan 

Implementation.

At Risk Public Facilities Removed 

From Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) 

Where Possible; More High Priority 

Land Acquisition in CMZ.

At Risk Public Facilities 

Removed From Channel 

Migration Zone in Most 

Areas; Same Land 

Acquisition as in 

Alternative 2.

At Risk Public Facilities 

Removed From Channel 

Migration Zone in Some 

Areas; Less High Priority 

Land Acquisition in the 

CMZ. 

Floodplain and 

land use concept

Large floods would continue to be 

constricted by development in the 

floodplain.

The Stehekin Valley Road would 

be retained in its current alignment, 

with the grade raised through 

McGregor Meadows. Because of 

the road grade raise, water from 

large floods would be restricted 

from some of the floodplain.

NPS administrative facilities would 

be moved out of the floodplain, 

causing minor changes in the 

current pattern of development.

There would continue to be a 

potential for new development to 

occur within the CMZ.

Erosion protection measures would 

be implemented at one site, but 

could eventually be needed at the 

same sites in Alternative 4.

Large floods could occupy more of 

the floodplain. 

Most development in the floodplain

would be relocated through longterm actions proposed by the 

revision of the LPP. 

A major reroute of the Stehekin 

Valley Road would occur around the 

floodplain at McGregor Meadows. 

Erosion protection measures would 

be implemented at three sites (near 

the Stehekin River mouth, Frog 

Island, and Wilson Creek). NPS 

administrative facilities would be 

moved out of the floodplain. 

Large floods could occupy 

most of the floodplain (less 

than Alternative 2).

Same as Alternative 2 

except that only the 

McGregor Meadows 

portion of the Stehekin 

Valley Road would be 

rerouted.

Erosion protection 

measures would be 

implemented at five sites 

(including the same sites 

in Alternative 2 plus Lower 

Field and Weaver Point).

NPS facilities moved.

The Stehekin River would 

be restricted from its 

floodplain at McGregor 

Meadows.

Most developments remain 

in floodplain. As in 

Alternative 1, there would 

be the potential for new 

private development in 

floodplain.

Stehekin Valley Road would 

be retained in its current 

alignment, with bank 

hardening at several sites 

and raising the road grade 

through McGregor 

Meadows. Because of the 

road grade raise, water 

from large floods would be 

restricted from some 

surrounding areas of 

floodplain.

Erosion protection 

measures would be 

implemented at seven sites, 

including those identified in 

Alternative 3, plus at 

Milepost 7.0 and 9.2.
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 65

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Land acquisition 

and exchange 

concept /LPP

The NPS would continue to 

implement existing 1995 LPP to 

remove private development from 

the floodplain and to protect 

natural, cultural and scenic 

resources.

As properties with improvements 

are acquired or exchanged, 

buildings and infrastructure would 

be removed and the sites restored 

to natural conditions.

Under the revision to the 1995 LPP, 

the NPS would acquire land through 

exchange and purchase (from willing 

sellers) to remove private 

development from the channel 

migration zone. 

The 1995 LPP has been revised to 

identify new priorities for acquisition 

and exchange based on nine criteria 

weighted more toward river 

protection than scenic qualities. 

More high priority sites have been 

identified for acquisition / exchange 

from willing sellers in the channel 

migration zone so more structures / 

infrastructure (including buildings, 

septic systems, and power lines) 

would be removed and restored than 

in Alternative 1.

Same as Alternative 2. Under the revision to the 

1995 LPP, the NPS would 

acquire land through 

exchange and purchase 

(from willing sellers) to 

remove private residential 

development from the 

channel migration zone. 

The 1995 LPP has been 

revised to identify new 

priorities for acquisition and 

exchange based on nine

criteria weighted less 

toward river protection and 

more toward retaining the 

Stehekin Valley Road in its 

current alignment than in 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

As properties with 

improvements are acquired 

or exchanged, buildings 

and infrastructure would be 

removed and the sites 

restored to natural 

conditions. 

Response to 

flooding and 

erosion

As needed, the NPS would 

continue case-by-case response to 

flood-related damage affecting 

public facilities. 

Private landowners with 

development in the channel 

migration zone would continue to 

be responsible to self-implement 

flood protection measures. No

actions would be undertaken by 

NPS to prevent private property 

from flooding.

Road through McGregor Meadows 

would be elevated, but prong to 

erosion/scour damage

Actions would be similar to 

Alternative 1; however, NPS would 

relocate roads and administrative 

facilities out of channel migration 

zone, proactively anticipating effects 

from future flooding.

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 1.

Road through McGregor 

Meadows would be 

elevated, but prone to 

erosion/scour damage.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

66 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Roads

Stehekin Valley 

Road: Reroutes 

Reroutes

None.

Road grade raise at Milepost 6.25 

to 6.53. Road grade raise of 1 - 3 

feet at Milepost 6.95 to 7.14. 

Slight realignment and slope work 

at Milepost 6.0 to 6.5. 

Lower Field Riparian Restoration

Riparian restoration would occur 

along the bank to the edge of the 

existing roadway adjacent to the 

Lower Field.

Reroutes

McGregor Meadows and Lower 

Field.

McGregor Meadows Reroute 

Actions

Remove and restore Stehekin Valley 

Road above Milepost 6.5 but 

maintain grade control structures at 

Milepost 7.0 and as long as private 

access is needed (see below). The 

reroute would be from Milepost 5.7 

to 7.5.

Lower Field Reroute Actions

Remove existing road at Lower 

Field, restore road alignment and 

implement riparian restoration, while 

retaining the agricultural area.

Reroutes

McGregor Meadows.

McGregor Meadows 

Reroute Actions

Same as Alternative 2 

except a slightly shorter 

reroute of Milepost 5.7 to 

7.3 since portion of the 

existing road that borders 

Lower Field would be 

stabilized with riparian 

vegetation and rock barbs. 

Lower Field Riparian 

Restoration

Same as Alternative 1, 

plus:

Install 2 rock barbs and 

bioengineering to protect 

road in current location 

along Lower Field.

Reroutes

Same as Alternative 1.

Lower Field Riparian 

Restoration

Same as Alternative 3.

McGregor Meadows 

Access Road

N/A Approximately 0.8 miles of road 

would be maintained until it is no 

longer needed. This access road 

could be impassable during peak 

flood events.

Retain access to maintain grade 

control structure in road to prevent 

the river from eroding a channel 

down the McGregor Meadows 

Access Road.

Approximately 0.7 miles of 

abandoned road would be 

revegetated to accommodate a trail.

Construct turnaround at Milepost 6.5.

Same as Alternative 2 

except: Approximately 0.4 

miles of abandoned road 

would be restored.

N/A
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 67

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Stehekin Valley 

Road / Road: private 

access

Private access would be via 

existing spur roads off the Stehekin 

Valley Road.

Private access would be limited 

during flooding.

Access would be maintained where 

the road grade is raised in 

McGregor Meadows.

Same as Alternative 1 plus:

Private access would be maintained in areas bypassed by the 

Stehekin Valley Road realignment.

Develop criteria to maintain reasonable private access across 

federal property as warranted.

Same as Alternative 1 plus:

Develop criteria to maintain 

reasonable private access 

across federal property as 

warranted.

Company Creek 

road protection 

strategy / erosion 

protection measures

Maintain road in its existing alignment consistent with GMP.

Maintain the existing levee and existing erosion protection measures (barbs and grade control structures).

Harlequin Bridge Continue to maintain. If replacement is needed, install a longer span bridge.

Administrative Facilities*

Maintenance Area Implement the GMP to relocate the maintenance area to the north end of the airstrip. Restore riparian and upland area at vacated site.

NPS

Housing 

Implement the GMP to construct new and replacement NPS housing at the north end of the airstrip in conjunction with the new 

maintenance area. Remove three houses located in the channel migration zone along the Company Creek Road (NPS Tracts 06-118, 

06-104, 06-121 and 06-122). Expanded housing would be for operations (fire crew and concessions staff).

Existing housing, currently subject to flooding in the channel migration zone, would be removed and sites restored by removing 

infrastructure, including buildings, septic systems and powerlines.

Recreational Facilities

Weaver Point 

Cultural Resources

Continue to maintain Weaver Point 

Campground in its existing location 

and implement GMP and Chelan 

PUD recommendations to relocate 

campsites affected by shoreline 

and bank erosion to the east of the 

docks.

Implement proposed Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) logjam.

Relocate docks to the west, away 

from the river when lake is drawn 

down. 

Same as Alternative 1 plus:

Coordinate with proposed FERC 

projects to protect Weaver Point 

cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative 1 plus: 

Extend proposed FERC logjam up-river, and install two 

rock barbs and bioengineering to prevent river shoreline 

erosion and protect Weaver Point Campground. 

Coordinate with proposed FERC projects to protect 

Weaver Point cultural resources
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

68 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Harlequin 

Campground 

Maintain Harlequin Campground, 

including group sites, in its existing 

location. Take actions as needed in 

response to flooding.

Continue to use Harlequin 

Campground except during 

flooding and unless catastrophic 

impacts occur.

Same as Alternative 1 except:

Harlequin Campground group site would be seasonally closed during anticipated flooding in 

spring and fall. 

Purple Point Horse 

Camp

Purple Point Horse Camp would 

continue to be used for horse 

parties plus as an overflow group 

campsite.

Construct additional group/individual campsites at Purple Point Horse Camp to replace seasonally 

flooded group site at Harlequin. New campsites would include corresponding infrastructure.

Rainbow Falls 

Campground 

(proposed)

N/A Construct new individual campsites near Rainbow Falls. Campsites would include corresponding 

infrastructure.

Company Creek 

Campground 

(proposed)

N/A Construct new campsites along lower Company Creek 

below Power Plant. Campsites would include 

corresponding infrastructure.

Bullion Campground Relocate Bullion Campground across the road to avoid hazard trees. Allow day use at existing site. Add vault toilet. New campsites 

would include corresponding infrastructure.

Lower Valley Trail Implement the GMP 

recommendation for a Lower Valley 

Trail (hiker/equestrian) to connect 

the High Bridge area with Stehekin 

Landing. Trail alignment would 

follow segments of the historic road 

and use 6.1 miles existing trail and 

build 6.3 miles of new trail.

Alignment for trail would be on the 

old Stehekin Valley Road where 

realignments occurred around 

McGregor Meadows and Lower Field 

and would take advantage of 7.9 

miles of existing trail and road, 

including some segments of the 

historic road. It would require 4.6 

miles of new trail. 

Same as Alternative 2 

except alignment would 

not be along Lower Field.

As in Alternative 1, trail 

alignment would follow 

more segments of the 

historic road.

Stehekin River Trail 

connector to Lower 

Valley Trail

Implement the GMP recommendation to add a bridge crossing at the former bridge site above Boulder Creek to connect the proposed 

Lower Valley Trail with the Stehekin River Trail. 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 69

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Raft launches / 

takeout / boat 

access

Retain the existing raft launch near 

Bullion Campground.

Same as Alternative 1 plus:

Construct new raft takeout / boat 

access near the Stehekin River 

Mouth and add new 300-foot long 

spur road off Stehekin Valley Road. 

Coordinate actions with private 

landowners.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 2.

Shooting Range Retain shooting range in its existing 

location.

In conjunction with the Lower Field 

Reroute, remove the shooting range, 

rehabilitate potential contamination 

and restore the abandoned site.

Same as Alternative 1

Management of Large Woody Debris

NPS Actions Continue to Implement GMP 

Guidance and to salvage floating 

logs from the head of Lake Chelan.

Limited actions could continue to 

be taken to trim or turn individual 

large pieces for the purpose of 

enabling recreational opportunities 

and to protect roads and bridges.

The NPS would seek to acquire 

through purchase or exchange 

properties that could be threatened 

by large woody debris jams so as 

to preclude manipulation of large 

woody debris in the system.

(There would continue to be no use 

of logs from logjams for erosion 

management.) 

Same as Alternative 1 plus:

Logjam manipulation could occur in 

the Lake Chelan backwater zone

from the head of Lake Chelan to 

Boulder Creek.

Manipulation of logjams would be the 

minimum needed to relieve threats 

from shoreline erosion to public 

roads, water quality, public safety, 

and regular access to private 

property.

Use of LWD from logjams for bank 

stabilization and restoration would be 

limited to single pieces on top of 

logjams above ordinary high water 

mark that would not destabilize the 

jam. 

In all actions wood remains within 

the channel migration zone, and 

would be used only for erosion 

management actions.

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2 

except:

Logjam manipulation could 

occur anywhere along the 

Stehekin River below 

Bullion Raft Launch for 

same purposes as in 

Alternatives. 1 and 2.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

70 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Private use Continue to Implement GMP 

Guidance.

Same as Alternative 1 plus:

Woody debris from the tops of 

logjams or from Lake Chelan 

salvage (according to the criteria 

above) could be made available to 

private landowners from NPS 

stockpile for bank stabilization and 

restoration provided applicable 

permits are obtained.

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2 plus:

Use of logs from the tops of 

some logjams would extend 

from Lake Chelan to 

Bullion. 

Sourcing of rock for 

erosion protection 

and road

NPS would continue to honor limitations on rock procurement within Lake Chelan NRA from GMP and Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan. 

Large angular rock would continue to be barged in for rock barbs. Material from the Company Creek Pit that has been determined to be 

excess to Lake Chelan needs (oversize and some screened material) could be used.
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 71

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Flood Protection Measures

Public facilities /

private development

NPS would continue to respond to 

periodic flooding events as they 

occurred, installing bank protection 

devices, or relocating sections of 

former roadway as needed, subject 

to individual project-by-project 

environmental analysis.

Maintain integrated grade-control 

structures in McGregor Meadows 

and upper Company Creek Road 

under existing agreements. 

Continue to maintain road surfaces 

after flood damage.

Encourage Chelan PUD to keep 

Lake Chelan level as low as 

possible during spring and fall flood 

seasons. 

Work with Chelan County to require 

raised drain fields for new 

construction and modification of 

existing drain fields that frequently 

flood. 

Provide Stehekin Valley 

landowners with technical support 

for using ACOE recommended 

Advance Protection Measures on 

private property.

Maintain Company Creek levee.

NPS maintenance and housing 

would be removed from the 

channel migration zone to avoid 

impacts from flooding.

Actions would be similar to Alternative 1, except that a revised 

LPP would allow more private land to be removed from the 

channel migration zone to avoid impacts from flooding by 

exchanging properties in the channel migration zone for properties 

outside of it.

Actions would be the same 

as Alternatives 2 and 3 

except that less private 

development would be 

removed from the channel 

migration zone because 

land exchanges would 

emphasize retaining the 

Stehekin Valley Road more 

than allowing the river to 

migrate within the channel 

migration zone.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

72 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Erosion Protection Measures

Proposed number of 

barbs

Unknown number of new rock 

barbs

6 - 8 new rock barbs 4 new rock barbs 16 - 17 new rock barbs

Logjams 0 2 new logjams 5 new logjams 3 new logjams

Company Creek 

Road and Stehekin 

Valley Road

Maintain erosion protection measures (rock barbs and grade control structures) installed by the NPS since the 1980s on Company 

Creek Road and those installed since the 1930s by the NPS along the Stehekin Valley Road.

Weaver Point See Weaver Point Campground above.

Stehekin River 

Mouth

Except under emergency 

conditions, no action would be 

taken by NPS to prevent the 

Stehekin River from eroding or 

overtopping the left (northeast) 

bank on NPS land above the 

Stehekin River mouth.

Replace approximately 100 feet of 

rip-rap on public land with 3 rock 

barbs and bioengineering and 

construct small logjam to minimize 

potential for a river channel shift.

Replace rip-rap with 

engineered logjam (no raft 

takeout) to slow bank 

erosion.

Same as Alternative 2. 

Stehekin Valley Road Erosion Protection Measures

1. SVR Milepost 2.0 

(Boulder Creek 

Area)

NPS would repair the Stehekin 

Valley Road near bakery as 

needed after flood damage.

Same as Alternative 1 plus: construct a logjam atop a grade control structure (avulsion sill) away 

from the bank of the river and back into the forest to the Boulder Creek alluvial fan to slow 

floodwater and maintain sheet flow of water over bank. 

2. Buckner 

Homestead 

Hayfield and 

Pasture

N/A Plant native vegetation in riparian area and use large woody debris to slow bank erosion. 

3. SVR Milepost 3.8 

(Frog Island)

N/A Stabilize bank with 1 - 2 barbs and 

bioengineering to stabilize the bank 

within 30 feet of the road.

Construct an engineered 

logjam and use 

bioengineering to stabilize 

the bank adjacent to the 

road.

Same as Alternative 2.
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 73

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

4. SVR Milepost 5.3 

(Wilson Creek) 

Install clusters of rip-rap near the 

toe of the slope and log cribbing in 

the mid-slope area.

Regrade slope for approximately 

400 feet, lower roadbed 10 feet, 

and move road laterally 15 feet into 

the hillside. Install two new 60-inch 

culverts and a new ditch. If the road 

becomes undermined, rebuild the 

road in place. If necessary, 

purchase land or easement to 

access site. 

If the need for additional erosion 

protection impacts private property 

at Milepost 5.5 to implement work 

at Wilson Creek, work with the 

landowner to identify mitigation 

and/or compensation for impacts.

Same as Alternative 1 except:

Instead of rip-rap clusters, construct 

2 - 3 rock barbs to stabilize the toe of 

the slope and augment natural bank 

armoring.

Same as Alternative 2 

except:

Instead of rock barbs or 

rip-rap clusters, install a 

large logjam at the toe of 

the slope.

Same as Alternative 2.

5. SVR Milepost 

6.25 - 6.53 and 

Milepost 6.95 -

7.14

As called for by the Road 

Improvement Project, raise 

roadbed 1 - 3 feet.

Road would not be raised because 

the McGregor Meadows Reroute 

would occur.

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 1.

6. SVR Milepost 6.0 

- 6.5

As called for by the Road 

Improvement Project, lay back 

slope, remove eyebrow, construct 

drystack rock wall, and implement 

minor road realignment between 

Milepost 6.0 - 6.5 to improve sight 

distance.

Action would not be taken because the road would be rerouted. Same as Alternative 1.

7. SVR Milepost 7.0 Continue to maintain grade control 

structures and reroute constructed 

as part of earlier implementation of 

the Road Improvement Project. 

Repair road following flooding.

Road abandoned above Milepost 6.5, but continue to maintain 

grade control structures at Milepost 70. 

Same as Alternative 1 plus 

construct 2 rock barbs to 

maintain road at Milepost 

7.0.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

74 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

8. SVR Milepost 7.3 

- 7.4 Lower Field

Implement riparian restoration 

along edge of Lower Field.

Same as Alternative 1 and 

revegatation of the abandoned road 

section to accommodate a trail.

Same as Alternative 2 

plus:

Add two rock barbs and 

bioengineering to protect 

Stehekin Valley Road 

alignment.

Same as Alternative 3.

9. SVR Milepost 7.8 

Thimbleberry 

Creek

Retain 72-inch and two 48-inch 

culverts.

Replace 72-inch culvert with one 72-inch culvert and two 36-inch culverts and retain the two 48-

inch culverts.

10.SVR Milepost 8.0 Continue to and maintain armored 

section of roadway monitored slope 

for stability. If the road becomes 

undermined, rebuild it in place.

Scale (remove) rocks off the steepest sections of the slope and augment rip-rap along road 

embankment. A rock wall (100 - 150 feet long and 3 - 8 feet high) would also be added at the 

base of the slope. Maintain raised section of roadway, including rock barbs and bioengineering. If 

the road becomes undermined, rebuild it in place.

11.SVR Milepost 8.5 As called for by the Road 

Improvement Project, realign 

culvert to meet creek at point of 

entry rather than forcing it parallel 

to the road and then under the 

road.

Construct low water crossing to allow water flow across road.

Elevate the road approximately two feet, install low water concrete plank crossing, and excavate 

an outlet channel between the low water crossing and the Stehekin River. 

12.SVR Milepost 9.2 

(Above Stehekin 

Valley Ranch)

As called for by the Road 

Improvement Project, construct 

vehicle turnaround and parking 

area for 10 vehicles or 5 vehicles 

and one bus.

Continue to monitor threats to 

Stehekin Valley Road and maintain 

existing grade control structures.

Construct low water crossing to allow water flow across road.

Elevate 300 feet of road, install low water concrete plank crossing, 

and excavate an outlet channel between the low water crossing 

and the Stehekin River. 

Same as Alternative 2 plus 

add three rock barbs and 

bioengineering to protect 

Stehekin Valley Road.

Interpretation and Education

Continue to conduct existing 

interpretive and educational 

programs and activities related to 

the Stehekin River.

Enhance interpretive and educational programs related to natural riverine processes, such as 

channel migration and the ecological role of large woody debris in rivers.
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 75

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 3: Alternative 4: 

Research and Monitoring

Continue existing research and 

monitoring programs, including 

LWD, main and side channel 

habitat, hydrology, fish surveys, 

cultural resources research and 

analysis, nonnative/invasive plants, 

climate change effects, special 

status species research, and other 

inventory and monitoring work. 

Enhance research programs related to the Stehekin River.

* These actions will require additional site specific environmental review and are not analyzed in detail in this document.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

76 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Overview of Alternatives 

Introduction: All action alternatives embrace the concept of floodplain utilization to varying degrees. 

Under floodplain utilization, rivers are not constrained by dikes or levees, but rather are allowed to spread 

out across the floodplain to reduce flood damage in any one area during the largest events. 

The action alternatives also attempt to develop sustainable linked public-private actions. Past integrated 

actions undertaken by the NPS include private-public partnerships to maintain floodplain utilization in 

McGregor Meadows (1998), the ―1948‖ channel (2007), and upper Company Creek Road (2007). In this 

plan, integrated solutions to erosion and floodplain utilization include the proposed actions at Boulder 

Creek and the Stehekin River Mouth, and using the Land Protection Plan (LPP) revision to focus on 

floodplain protection. 

For public land, all action alternatives attempt to avoid the channel migration zone, rather than the 100-

year floodplain. The reasons for using this more conservative approach include observed rapid changes in 

floodplain boundaries during large floods, the high cost of using computer models to determine flood 

elevations, and the inaccuracy of the models. 

The alternatives conform to recreation area policies in the Lake Chelan General Management Plan 

(GMP), which call for removing public and administrative facilities from the floodplain. Options for 

private development in the floodplain include exchange of land with the NPS, purchase of private 

property out of the floodplain, elevating cabins, or construction of a variety of physical features to reduce 

the impacts of flooding. Other alternatives, such as construction of additional levees or dikes or dredging 

were considered and dismissed because they would have unacceptable impacts on the Stehekin River 

floodplain, would have more ecological damage, or would require repeated, costly management actions 

(see ―D. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed‖ below). 

Because all alternatives involve various treatments of the Stehekin Valley Road for which the FHWA 

would provide the necessary funding, design, and construction expertise, the FHWA is participating as a 

cooperating agency in the development of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

1. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES (1 - 4)

Several actions in this plan are common to all Alternatives (1 - 4) because they were identified in the 

GMP. These actions would also protect public facilities or support the concept of floodplain utilization 

(Figure II-1: Actions Common to All Alternatives). 

Actions called for by the 1995 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA) GMP that would be 

implemented by all alternatives include replacement and relocation/construction of the NPS maintenance 

compound to the north end of the airstrip; replacement and relocation/construction of administrative 

housing in the same area; creation of a Lower Valley Trail that connects from Stehekin Landing to High 

Bridge and which is also connected to the Stehekin River Trail via a footbridge; and the ongoing use of 

willing seller-willing buyer land acquisition and exchange to remove development from the Stehekin 

River floodplain. Actions involving administrative facilities require additional site specific environmental 

review and are not analyzed in detail in this document. 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 77

Figure II-1: Actions Common to All Alternatives 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

78 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

In addition, because there is a large volume of wood now in the river system and because of the 

backwater influences of Lake Chelan, there is the potential for a large logjam to cause flooding of the 

densely developed area near the Bakery or to preclude access on the Stehekin Valley Road. Under these

emergency conditions, large logjams in this area could be manipulated to remove the threat consistent 

with the GMP. As with other use of large woody debris, the wood taken from this area could only be used 

in the channel migration zone for erosion protection and/or restoration projects. 

The Company Creek Road would be maintained in its existing alignment and existing erosion protection 

measures along the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads would be maintained, including the 400-

foot-long levee constructed in the 1980s. The levee has virtually no effect on floodplain utilization 

because of its short length and location and is necessary to maintain the Company Creek Road in place as 

called for by the GMP. 

The Stehekin Valley Road at Wilson Creek, Milepost 8.0, and Frog Island would be protected in place in 

all alternatives because these locations have severe erosion problems and no viable reroutes. Actions to 

protect these areas, however, would vary among the alternatives. Grade-control structures designed to 

maintain sheet flow in floodplains during large floods at Mileposts 7.0 and 9.2 on the Stehekin Valley 

Road and along the upper Company Creek Road would also be maintained. These structures were 

installed by private-public partnerships in 1998 and 2008, and are consistent with the concept of 

floodplain utilization they protect the road from being occupied by the river. Consistent with the current 

GMP, logjams could be manipulated on the Stehekin River to protect Harlequin Bridge and the roads. 

Recreational Facilities: Bullion Camp would be relocated downstream and across the road to mitigate 

safety concerns associated with hazard trees in the current camp. Day use, however, would be retained at 

the former Bullion Camp. 

2. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION 

Continue Current Management Practices and Existing Plan Implementation 

This alternative would continue existing management practices and improvements called for by existing 

plans (see Figure II-2: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 1). Foremost among these would be 

continuing implementation of the GMP, as described previously under ―Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4),‖ and the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b). 

Implementation of the 1995 LPP would continue using existing criteria and potential exchange lands. 

Decisions regarding land acquisition priorities would continue to be based on properties identified based 

on currently out-of-date floodplain boundaries and protecting scenic resources (areas of high visual 

sensitivity) along the Stehekin Valley Road. Both the Stehekin Valley Road and the Company Creek 

Road would be retained in their existing alignments. 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 79

Figure II-2: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 1 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

80 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The Stehekin Valley Road would be retained in its existing alignment. Stehekin Valley Road 

Improvement Project actions would be implemented and would include rehabilitation and surfacing of the 

road with an asphalt chip seal for 4.9 miles from Harlequin Bridge to the winter turnaround (Milepost 

9.2), except for areas within the floodplain. There would be a slight realignment (between Mileposts 6.0 

and 6.5) and two grade increases (from Milepost 6.25 to 6.53 and from Milepost 6.95 to 7.14) using 

nearly 5,600 cubic yards of fill through McGregor Meadows, as well as implementation of erosion 

protection measures at Wilson Creek (NPS 2005). To retain the roads, Alternative 1 would also include 

maintenance of, but not major improvements to, existing erosion protection measures along the lower 

Stehekin River. Routine maintenance actions, including snow removal; spring opening; unpaved road 

grading, shaping and repair; paved road asphalt patching; ditch clearing; culvert cleaning; vegetation 

maintenance; traffic control striping; and sign replacement, would also continue as needed. It is 

anticipated that existing pavement would be resurfaced during or shortly after road projects above 

Harlequin Bridge. 

In Alternative 1, unlike other alternatives, the NPS would continue to react to the consequences of each 

new flood event on a case-by-case basis, producing individual environmental assessments (EAs) as 

needed to implement management actions. 

Floating large woody debris could continue to be removed from the head of Lake Chelan and used for 

NPS management projects. Individual pieces could also be turned or trimmed (subject to NPS approval) 

to maintain safe rafting in the Stehekin River, while logjams could only be removed to protect Harlequin 

Bridge and public roads. 

Parts of the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road would continue to lie adjacent to and within 

the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. Over time, it is anticipated that this would 

continue to require the NPS to install additional erosion protection measures in the river (e.g., rock barbs) 

to protect roads and public facilities. There would continue to be limited improvements to visitor and 

administrative facilities within the lower Stehekin Valley to implement the GMP. In Alternative 1, 

rehabilitation of the Stehekin Valley Road would be implemented upon approval of this DEIS. 

Replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility and NPS housing (NPS Tracts 06-118, 06-104, 

06-121, and 06-122) would be implemented following site specific environmental analysis and approval 

of a tiered environmental assessment. 

In Alternative 1 as in other alternatives, private landowners could continue to implement the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ―Advanced Flood Protection Measures‖ (Appendix 7), including elevating cabins or 

constructing measures to protect private structures from the largest floods. 

Recreational opportunities associated with the Stehekin River would continue, including camping, rafting, 

and hiking. As noted above, the Lower Valley Trail would be constructed to link the Landing with High 

Bridge, including connecting it to the Stehekin River Trail with a bridge near the mouth of Boulder 

Creek. In this alternative the trail would use 6.1 miles of existing trail and would require 6.3 miles of new 

trail to be constructed. 

3. ALTERNATIVE 2 

At Risk Public Facilities Removed From the Channel Migration Zone Where 

Possible; More High Priority Land Acquisition/Exchange in the Channel Migration 

Zone (Preferred) 

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative 2 would allow the Stehekin River the most space to utilize its 

floodplain and move within its natural channel migration zone over time (see Figure II-3: Major Actions 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 81

Proposed in Alternative 2). Proposed new bank stabilization on the left bank would be installed at three 

new sites to protect the road, including the Stehekin River mouth, Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), and 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek). At Mileposts 3.8 and 5.3 the river is at the edge of the channel migration 

zone, and relocation into steep cliffs is not feasible. As in other alternatives, Alternative 2 would also 

implement GMP provisions (including maintenance facility and housing relocation and construction of 

the Lower Valley Trail); however, there would be a change in the use of large woody debris to implement 

erosion protection measures. Alternative 2 would include limited use of wood from logjams in the river 

mouth area, where it is influenced by backwater from Lake Chelan. Such use would only be from the tops 

of prescreened jams, and only if the jam would not be destabilized. 

The revised LPP would be used to encourage relocation of private property from within the floodplain / 

channel migration zone to outside the channel migration zone, using management actions such as land 

exchange or land acquisition from willing sellers. Land protection priorities would identify specific 

properties that are most threatened by the Stehekin River as it migrates across its channel migration zone. 

If development at these sites were claimed by the river, debris from cabins, wells, and septic systems, 

including effluent, would be incorporated into the river. The criteria in the LPP used to identify NPS 

lands for potential exchange has been weighted more toward removing private development from the 

floodplain in Alternatives 2 and 3 than in Alternative 4 (see Appendix 11 for the priority ranking of 

private lands in Alternatives 2 and 3). New exchange parcels outside the channel migration zone would be 

made available, while some lands available for exchange in the 1995 GMP would no longer be available 

due to new or changed conditions. 

The Stehekin Valley Road would be rerouted from Milepost 5.7 to 7.5. An access road would be 

maintained into McGregor Meadows from Milepost 5.7 to 6.5, to the last parcel of private property (07-

157), until it is no longer needed. From a turnaround at Milepost 6.5 to Milepost 6.8, administrative 

access would continue to provide administrative access to the grade-control structures. From Milepost 6.8 

to 7.5, the road would be rehabilitated as part of the Lower Valley Trail. The portions of the Stehekin 

Valley Road before and after the reroute would also be rehabilitated and surfaced with an asphalt chip 

seal. 

Under Alternative 2, there would also be a series of erosion protection measures to stabilize those sections 

of the Stehekin Valley Road that are at the edge of the channel migration zone and cannot be relocated 

without major slope removal or extensive new road construction. Rock barbs would be constructed at 

Wilson Creek (two to three barbs) and Frog Island (one to two barbs). Three more barbs and a small 

logjam would be located at a key point on the left bank above the river mouth. One or two of the barbs 

would replace 100 feet of rip-rap, and the bank would be revegetated with native shrubs. Another logjam 

would be constructed near Boulder Creek atop a grade-control structure (avulsion sill) away from the 

bank of the river and back into the forest. The raveling slope at Milepost 8.0 would be stabilized by laying 

back the uppermost part of the slope brow, which produces most of the large rocks that fall onto the road. 

A rock wall (100 - 150 feet long and 3 - 8 feet high) would also be added at the base of the slope. At 

Weaver Point, bank stabilization would be coordinated with plans under development by Chelan PUD for 

recreation, erosion, and cultural resource management. Riparian restoration and/or bioengineering would 

enhance riparian vegetation along the bank, at the Lower Field, Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, 

Wilson Creek, Frog Island, and the river mouth. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

82 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-3: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 2 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 83

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 - 4 would propose some manipulation of woody debris within 

the Lake Chelan backwater zone (extending 0.25 mile from the head of the lake up the Stehekin River). In 

this area of the lower Stehekin River and Harlequin Bridge, large logjams that threatened public roads, 

water quality, public safety, and regular access to private property could be altered to relieve threats. 

Woody debris from the tops of some logjams and from floating logs in Lake Chelan could also be made 

available to landowners (for agency-permitted erosion protection) under a permit system. The wood could 

only be used in the channel migration zone for erosion protection and/or restoration projects. This action 

would limit importation of large rock and acknowledges the large amount of wood currently on the river. 

Recreational opportunities, including camping, rafting, and hiking, associated with the Stehekin River 

would be enhanced. As in Alternative 1, the Lower Valley Trail would be constructed to link the Landing 

with High Bridge, including connecting it to the Stehekin River Trail. In this alternative (as in 

Alternative 3), fewer miles of new trail (4.6 miles) would be needed since the trail would use some former 

roadway (1.7 miles) and existing trail (6.2 miles). New group camping opportunities would be located at 

Purple Point Horse Camp to replace the group campsite at Harlequin when it is seasonally flooded. Three 

or four new individual sites would also be located near Rainbow Falls. In addition, a new raft takeout 

would be provided near the Stehekin River mouth, which would require a small new parking area and a 

300-foot-long access road off of the Stehekin Valley Road. Because the shooting range is located along 

the proposed Lower Field Reroute, it would be closed and restored. No replacement shooting range would 

be constructed. 

4. ALTERNATIVE 3

At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Most Areas; 

Same Land Acquisition/Exchange as in Alternative 2 

Alternative 3 would allow the Stehekin River slightly less room to move within its natural channel 

migration zone and requires the use of different erosion protection measures than in Alternative 2 (with 

four barbs and five logjams, instead of six to eight barbs and two logjams) (see Figure II-4: Major Actions 

Proposed in Alternative 3). As in other alternatives, Alternative 3 would implement the GMP replacement 

and relocation of the maintenance facility and housing and construction of the Lower Valley Trail. 

Different erosion protection approaches were developed since the rock barbs and logjams have different 

benefits and installation impacts. The erosion protection measures increase from Alternative 2 through 

Alternatives 3 and 4, consistent with the overall degree to which each alternative constrains the river. As 

in Alternative 2, there would be a minor change regarding the use of woody debris, and the revised LPP

would be used. 

The reroute of Stehekin Valley Road in Alternative 3 would be slightly shorter than the one proposed in 

Alternative 2. The reroute would begin at Milepost 5.7 and would end at Milepost 7.3 (see Figure II-5: 

McGregor Meadows Reroute Map). With the shortening of the reroute (compared to Alternative 2), the 

portion of the existing road that borders Lower Field would be stabilized with riparian vegetation and 

rock barbs. As in Alternative 2, an access road from Milepost 5.7 to Milepost 6.5 would be retained up to 

the last private parcel in McGregor Meadows until it is no longer needed; and administrative access 

would also be maintained to Milepost 6.8 for maintenance of grade-control structures. From Milepost 6.8 

to Milepost 7.3, the road would be rehabilitated as part of the Lower Valley Trail. 

Four rock barbs would be constructed along the bank at Weaver Point (two barbs) and Lower Field (two 

barbs), while large logjams would be constructed at Weaver Point, near the Stehekin River mouth, 

Boulder Creek (and avulsion sill), Frog Island, and at Wilson Creek. Restoration and/or bioengineering 

(layered planting using native shrubs) would also occur in the same locations as in Alternative 2. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

84 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-4: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 3 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 85

Figure II-5: McGregor Meadows Reroute Map 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

86 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Management of woody debris would be the same as in Alternative 2. Recreational improvements would 

be similar to Alternative 2; however, additional camping opportunities would also be provided at 

Company Creek at a previously disturbed site outside of the Stehekin River channel migration zone, and 

no new raft takeout would be constructed near the Stehekin River mouth. 

5. ALTERNATIVE 4

At-Risk Public Facilities Removed from Channel Migration Zone in Some Areas; 

Less High-Priority Land Acquisition/Exchange in Channel Migration Zone 

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would allow for some additional movement of the Stehekin 

River within its channel migration zone, if private property was purchased or exchanged. Unlike 

Alternatives 2 and 3, if Alternative 4 was selected, the draft LPP (Appendix 13) would be revised to rank 

high priority lands per the criteria shown later in this chapter in Table II-15. As in Alternative 1, without 

rerouting, Alternative 4 would constrain the movement of the Stehekin River from a large part of its 

floodplain through McGregor Meadows and at Lower Field (Figure II-6: Major Actions Proposed in 

Alternative 4). The LPP revision would be different than in Alternatives 2 and 3. Appendix 11 lists the 

priority ranking of private lands for Alternatives 2 and 3 while Appendix 12 lists the priority ranking of 

private lands for Alternative 4 (see Appendix 12 for the priority ranking of private lands for Alternative 

4). Exchanges would be focused less on properties along the river, and more on sustaining the current 

development pattern. Because of this, there would be fewer parcels with a high priority for acquisition 

that would allow for their removal from the channel migration zone. Some private development in floodprone areas near the river channel, however, would be considered for exchange or purchase. Actions 

associated with GMP implementation (including replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility 

and NPS housing and construction of the Lower Valley Trail) would be the same as in ―Actions Common 

to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖

As in Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be stabilization and riparian restoration of the bank along the 

Lower Field. As in Alternative 1, instead of a reroute around McGregor Meadows, Stehekin Valley Road 

would be raised in some locations to minimize flood damage, and 4.9 miles of the road would be 

rehabilitated and paved between Harlequin Bridge and the winter turnaround. 

There would be additional placement of barbs and bioengineering for erosion protection measures 

implemented along the Stehekin River, not only at the Lower Field, but also near Milepost 7.0 and 

Milepost 9.2. To maintain the Stehekin Valley Road in its existing alignment, Alternative 4 would have 

the greatest number of locations where erosion protection measures would be undertaken. Rock barbs 

would be constructed at Weaver Point (two barbs), Stehekin River mouth (three barbs), Frog Island (two 

barbs), Wilson Creek (two to three barbs), Lower Field (two barbs), Milepost 7.0 (two barbs), and 

Milepost 9.2 (three barbs), and a large logjam/avulsion sill would be constructed at Boulder Creek along 

the bank extending into the forest. Riparian restoration and/or bioengineering (layered planting associated 

with rock barbs or logjams) would also occur in the same locations as in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Use of woody debris would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3, with both NPS and private permitted 

use, except that woody debris could be used from the tops of prescreened logjams from areas below the 

Bullion raft launch, including at McGregor Meadows. (This is in contrast to Alternatives 2 and 3, which 

restrict taking logs from the river to below Boulder Creek in the Lake Chelan backwater zone). 
A. Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 87

Figure II-6: Major Actions Proposed in Alternative 4 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

88 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Recreational improvements would be the same as in Alternative 3 except there would be a raft launch in 

this alternative, as in Alternative 2. Construction of the Lower Valley Trail would be similar to that 

proposed in Alternative 1, with 6.1 miles of existing trail and 6.3 miles of new trail, but it would follow 

more sections of the historic road under this alternative. 

B. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES (1 - 

4) 

Overview: This section gives a detailed overview of project components that would be implemented 

regardless of which alternative is selected, followed by a more detailed discussion of each component. 

The alternatives are tiered off the GMP and other recent Stehekin plans, including the Road Improvement 

Project. A number of individual actions that are part of these plans would be part of all alternatives.

1. GMP Implementation: Actions would include relocating the maintenance area, NPS housing, 

and 1 - 2 campsites out of the floodplain constructing a fire cache and dorm, and constructing the 

Lower Valley Trail, including its connection with a bridge to the Stehekin River Trail.

2. Road Maintenance: Ongoing maintenance of the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek 

Road would continue, including cyclic, seasonal, and routine (day-to-day) maintenance activities.

3. Harlequin Bridge: Harlequin Bridge would be maintained in its current condition. If 

replacement was proposed, a longer span would be recommended. As called for by the GMP, 

logjams threatening the bridge would be removed.

4. Company Creek Road and Stehekin Valley Road—Private Access: There would continue to 

be no manipulation of the Stehekin River to protect private property. If access was lost, the NPS 

would work with private landowners on a case-by-case basis to evaluate alternative access across 

federal land, if needed, or to encourage land exchange, if appropriate.

5. Existing Company Creek Road Erosion Protection Measures and Strategy: As called for by 

the GMP, Company Creek Road would continue to be maintained in its existing alignment. The 

array of erosion protection measures along the Company Creek Road would continue to be 

maintained and would be replaced if necessary. 

6. Existing Stehekin Valley Road Erosion Protection Measures and Stehekin Valley Road 

Improvement Project (2005) Implementation: The array of erosion protection measures along 

the Stehekin Valley Road would continue to be maintained and would be replaced if necessary. 

Road rehabilitation (surfacing, pullouts, culverts, etc.) would occur in the sections of the Stehekin 

Valley Road that would be treated the same by all alternatives. (Road Improvement Project 

proposed grade raises and Wilson Creek actions vary by alternative.)

7. Flood Protection Measures: The NPS would continue to respond to emergency conditions as 

needed to protect NPS facilities. To allow the Company Creek Road to remain in its current 

location, the existing levee would be retained. Removal of administrative structures from the 

floodplain / channel migration zone, including the existing maintenance area and housing, would 

also occur. Near McGregor Meadows, grade-control structures designed to maintain shallow 

flood flows (sheet flow) on both sides of the river would be maintained until no longer needed. 

8. Materials Sources, Construction Staging, Restoration, and Mitigation/Monitoring: The 

success of road rehabilitation called for by the Road Improvement Project and other actions 

associated with this plan, as well as limiting its impacts on recreation area resources through 
B. Description of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 89

project actions would be ensured through a variety of measures common to construction projects 

implemented in Stehekin.

Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4) 

1. GMP IMPLEMENTATION

In accordance with the GMP, the NPS would: 

 Relocate administrative facilities (maintenance and housing) from the Stehekin River floodplain 

to a 5 - 8-acre site near the north end of the airstrip. Actions involving administrative facilities 

will require a separate environmental review and are not analyzed in detail in this document. 

 Construct a new fire cache, helispot, and dormitory near the airstrip. 

 Construct a Lower Valley Trail and its connection to the Stehekin River Trail (a footbridge 

crossing of the Stehekin River). 

Relocate Administrative Facilities/Construct New 

Maintenance Compound: The current maintenance 

compound and septic system is within the 100-year 

floodplain and is subject to routine inundation and 

flood damage during peak flows occurring every few 

years. Hazardous-material storage is elevated, but is 

currently located within the 500-year floodplain. 

Both would be relocated to near the north end of the 

airstrip out of the floodplain and channel migration 

zone. Proposed plans call for comprehensive design 

and construction of a replacement maintenance 

compound near the airstrip. Future site planning 

would identify building locations and footprints and 

would be subject to additional environmental 

analysis. Replacement and relocation of the 

maintenance area and fire cache to an area not 

subject to flooding would result in improved 

emergency access to equipment and long-term 

protection of buildings and structures and would 

minimize impacts to water quality from debris and 

hazardous materials stored in the floodplain. 

Development of the relocated maintenance area 

would include the functions and buildings in 

Table II-2: Proposed Maintenance Compound 

Structures. 

The relocated maintenance area would be designed to meet a Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) rating of silver or greater and would include associated utility systems, including new 

solar power generation. As construction of the new maintenance buildings occurred, the existing 

maintenance facilities would be dismantled and their sites restored; however, some facilities in good 

condition could be relocated and repurposed for new uses. 

Maintenance Area Problems

Susceptibility to Flooding: During floods in November 

1995, October 2003, and November 2006, the maintenance 

compound and access road were under several feet of 

water. Standing water and silt damaged stored electrical 

appliances, furniture, paper products, and other equipment.

Emergency response was delayed because equipment at 

the maintenance area is essential for evacuation of residents 

and visitors as well as for repairing roads. Heavy equipment, 

such as the backhoe and grader, are the only high-clearance 

vehicles that can get to or from the compound during 

flooding. Because of increasing flood frequency and severity, 

the cost of repairs following flooding at the maintenance 

compound is increasing. In 1995, damage cost 

approximately $30,000 to repair, and in 2003, more than 

$56,000.

Inadequate Building Construction: The maintenance 

facilities, which were constructed in the 1950s or 1960s or 

were inherited from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), have 

exceeded their useful life. The poorly designed facility 

compound includes a collection of cramped, poorly lit, underinsulated buildings, generally not constructed to function as 

maintenance facilities. These facilities are inadequately 

designed to handle snow-load. Roof-pitch and physical 

locations make it difficult to remove snow. Several roofs 

must routinely be hand-shoveled to prevent collapse.

Buildings are also inadequately insulated and are heated 

with various systems, including propane, wood pellet, and 

electric heating. Due to the distance from supply facilities, 

extra parts for each of these must be kept on hand.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

90 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table II-2: Proposed Maintenance Compound Structures 

Building Area

Equipment repair shop 4,000 sq ft

Maintenance storage (propane, hazardous materials, supplies) 4,800 sq ft

Search and rescue / fire cache 2,400 sq ft

Solid waste compaction / recycling 2,000 sq ft

Helipad 400 sq ft

Gas station 800 sq ft (two 6,000 gallon fuel-storage tanks 

and dispensing facility)

Power generation Unknown

Water distribution 100,000 gallon tank 400 sq ft foundation

10 × 10 ft well house

Wastewater treatment Unknown; likely to be individual septic systems

Total circulation space 10,890 sq ft

Total building space 14,900 sq ft

Note: Total figures do not include unknown categories.

Relocate/Construct Park Housing: Implement the GMP action to relocate housing threatened by 

flooding and construct new seasonal and permanent housing at the north end of the airstrip, in conjunction 

with the maintenance area on about 5 - 8 acres. Up to 11 housing units could be constructed; however, the 

exact location of the housing would be based on site specific design and planning beyond the scope of this 

plan. Future site planning would identify building locations and footprints and would be subject to 

additional environmental analysis. 

Construct Lower Valley Trail: Implement the GMP recommendation to create a Lower Valley Trail to 

connect High Bridge to Stehekin Landing. As noted in the GMP: 

An 11-mile pedestrian and horseback trail would be developed from the Landing to High 

Bridge... A pedestrian and horseback riding trail system that connects key lower valley 

features to the Stehekin Valley Road would also be developed. (NPS 1995a:33) 

Lower Valley Trail: The Lower Valley Trail would be maintained for horses and hikers. Bicyclists 

would continue to use the Stehekin Valley Road. The trail would begin at the Landing and climb the 

hillside either using the Purple Creek Trail or heading off from the Imus Trail to reach a relatively flat 

bedrock bench. The trail alignment would traverse the bench above Lake Chelan descending in the 

vicinity of Little Boulder Creek (approximately 1.9 miles new trail). From Little Boulder Creek, it would 

traverse the slope crossing Boulder Creek and meet with the Rainbow Loop Trail (approximately 0.6 

miles new trail). It would then follow the Rainbow Loop Trail for the rest of its length to the upvalley 

trailhead (approximately 3.8 miles, existing trail). From the upper Rainbow Loop Trailhead, it would 

travel a flat, mostly open area paralleling the road at approximately 1,300 ft elevation and through the 

Skinny Wilson property to the site of the proposed road reroute (approximately 0.9 mile new trail). 

Depending on the alternative, the trail would: 

 Alternatives 1 and 4: Connect with the Old Wagon Road alignment and generally follow it to the 

Stehekin Valley Ranch (approximately 3 miles new). 

 Alternatives 2 and 3: Follow the McGregor Meadows Access Road and abandoned sections of the 

Stehekin Valley Road (approximately 0.7 mile access road and 1.1 miles of abandoned road). The 

trail would cross the Stehekin Valley Road in the vicinity of 8-Mile and continue upvalley 
B. Description of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 91

following the Old Wagon road to the vicinity of the Stehekin Valley Ranch (approximately 1.2 

miles new trail) 

In all alternatives, the trail would connect with the Bullion Trail network then with the High Bridge and 

Coon Lake Trail (approximately 2.3 miles existing trail). 

In Alternatives 1 and 4, the Lower Valley Trail would use 6.1 miles of existing trail and would require 

approximately 6.3 miles of new trail. In Alternatives 2 and 3, the trail would use approximately 7.9 miles 

of existing trail or road and would require approximately 4.6 miles of new trail. The trail would be 

approximately 2 feet wide and 12. 5 miles long and would take 200 - 300 days to construct depending on 

the alternative and crew size. 

Lower Valley Trail and Stehekin River Trail: The trail would tie into the existing Stehekin River Trail 

via a footbridge across the Stehekin River up valley of Boulder Creek and would make use of the existing 

concrete bridge abutments if possible. At this location, the river is approximately 129 feet wide and the 

channel is relatively stable. 

Relocate Weaver Point Campsites: The NPS would 

continue to maintain Weaver Point Campground and to 

replace / relocate the boat docks. In accordance with the 

GMP, all alternatives would relocate one or two shoreline 

campsites inland. Erosion control, recreation, improvement, 

and cultural-resources projects related to the Lake Chelan 

Hydroelectric project would be integrated with NPS actions.

2. ROAD MAINTENANCE

The NPS would continue to maintain the designated 

Stehekin Valley Road within the project area. The NPS 

would also continue to maintain the Company Creek Road 

in its current alignment for public and private vehicle 

access, subject to available funds and with concurrence 

from property owners, where no easement access authority 

exists. 

The NPS would continue to perform regular maintenance of the road surface, including a variety of 

seasonal work, such as snowplowing on major roads (winter); windfall, tree, and debris removal, culvert 

cleaning, and pothole patching (spring); and grading, shoulder maintenance, and sign replacement 

(summer/fall). More substantial repairs of the road, such as culvert replacement and crack and slurry 

seals, is considered beyond the scope of routine road maintenance and would be subject to further 

planning and environmental analysis. 

3. HARLEQUIN BRIDGE

Harlequin Bridge would continue to be maintained under all alternatives. As called for by the GMP, 

removal of bridge-threatening logjams would occur as necessary. Because the span of Harlequin Bridge is 

too short, it is exposed to a higher risk of flood damage and could be damaged by erosion or a logjam 

during floods. When replacement becomes necessary, the NPS would recommend constructing a bridge 

with a longer span. A longer span bridge would be more sustainable, would have less impact to the river, 

and would be less susceptible to flood damage. 

Weaver Point

Weaver Point is the largest boat-in campground 

near the head of the lake. It contains approximately 

16 campsites (including fire rings / grates, tables, 

potable water, and both flush and pit toilets). There 

is also an administrative cabin, which is being 

rehabilitated and which has been used in the past

for park housing and may be used again.

In the 2006 flood, the mouth of the Stehekin River 

eroded away a major portion of its right bank (facing 

downstream) at Weaver Point, washing out one of 

the boat docks and destabilizing the piers of 

another. Since that time, the Stehekin River has 

continued to move against Weaver Point, and one 

of the shoreline campsites is threatened by erosion.

It is likely that the river will continue to affect the 

shoreline, causing the need for shoreline campsites 

to be relocated (as called for by the GMP).
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

92 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

4. STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD / COMPANY CREEK ROAD—PRIVATE ACCESS 

No Manipulation of the Stehekin River to Protect Private Property: As stated in the GMP: ―The Park 

Service would not manipulate the river to protect private property. No action would be taken to prevent 

private property owners from manipulating the river on their land to protect their property unless such 

actions would significantly harm recreation area resources or were in violation of local, state, or federal 

ordinances, regulations, or laws. Such actions would not be encouraged, however.‖ (NPS 1995a: 21 - 22)

Because of NPS Management Policies and the legislation that authorized the NPS to maintain the 

Company Creek Road, the NPS would continue to be prohibited from taking actions or expending funds 

solely to protect private property (see Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action); however, 

ensuring access to private property and recreation area lands would continue to be a priority, as would 

protection of public roads and facilities. 

Stehekin Valley Road / Company Creek Road Private Access: Stehekin Valley Road / Company 

Creek Road access would continue to be via existing driveways or spur roads off the public roads as 

maintained by private landowners. If major road failure occurred from a catastrophic river avulsion 

(major channel shift) and loss of major sections of either road occurred and affected private property 

access, the NPS would work with private landowners to determine whether to restore access across 

federal land, if needed, or to encourage land exchange, if appropriate. Landowners would continue to be 

responsible for maintaining access roads on their property.

Whether restoration of access would include rebuilding the access road, rerouting, or some combination 

of these would be determined as it has been, on a 

case-by-case basis, and would be designed to limit 

impacts to Lake Chelan NRA resources. 

5. EXISTING COMPANY CREEK ROAD 

EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES 

Land Use and Development (Transportation Plan 

Elements) Actions: ―Company Creek Road would be 

maintained in its current alignment and condition.‖

(NPS 1995a: 33)

Company Creek Road would be maintained in its 

existing alignment, and existing erosion protection 

structures would be maintained and replaced as 

needed. These include 10 rock barbs, three grade 

control structures, extensive bioengineering, and a 

400-foot-long levee along the Company Creek Road 

that would need ongoing maintenance (see Appendix 

5: Cumulative Impacts Project List). 

The risk of catastrophic river avulsion (major channel 

shift) would remain for all alternatives. Should this 

occur and include loss of the Company Creek Road, 

road reroutes could be considered (if road repair is not 

feasible) to continue to provide motor vehicle access 

to recreation sites and to private property in the area.

Bank barbs consist of approximately 100 cubic yards of

large rock, placed at an upstream angle (see Figure II-10). 

They affect downstream flow for approximately 100 feet, or 

four to five times their length (see Photo 12).

Because they have little downstream impact and because 

they are eventually buried in aggrading rivers, such as the 

Stehekin River, barbs have a minimal effect on the river 

compared to other erosion protection or bank-hardening 

techniques such as rip-rap or levees.

Barbs increase river bank stability and capture wood and 

sediment coming downriver to the benefit of fish. Barbs also 

allow for safe raft passage.

Bioengineering is a riverbank slope-stabilization technique 

that consists of layering soil and riparian plants into an 

excavated bank between layers of coconut fiber matting that 

decomposes over time as the plants become established

(see Figure II-11). If given a few years to grow, these 

structures increase in strength over time (see Photo 12).

Plants would include dormant cuttings from red osier

dogwoods (Cornus sp.), willows (Salix sp.), or other suitable 

species collected in the fall from nearby locations for wet 

areas, and stems of oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.) and wild 

rose (Rosa sp.) in drier areas.

Where needed, cuttings may be provided supplemental 

water through the first two summers.

Riparian restoration is a technique that allows for return of 

natural rates of bank erosion, and is proposed primarily in 

areas where native vegetation was removed for agriculture. 

Riparian restoration also can be used alone or in 

combination with the installation of bioengineering or logs.
B. Description of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 93

6. EXISTING STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES AND 

STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Stehekin Valley Road Erosion Protection Measures: Similar to the Company Creek Road, numerous 

erosion protection measures have been implemented by the NPS along the Stehekin Valley Road (see 

Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List). As with the Company Creek Road, several erosion 

protection structures and have been constructed to protect the Stehekin Valley Road. Over time, it is 

likely that some reaches of the Stehekin River would continue to fill with gravel, causing bank barbs to be 

rendered ineffective. As a result, future barb reconstruction or a road grade raise would be considered. 

Road Improvement Project General Improvements: Actions from the Road Improvement Project 

(NPS 2005a) addressed by all alternatives include a series of road and drainage improvements on 

approximately 4.58 miles of the Stehekin Valley Road. The majority of the road rehabilitation would 

occur within the existing road prism (the area affected by original construction of the road). Exceptions 

would include improving sight distance and drainage problems and constructing pullouts.

Note: Road rehabilitation does not apply to the proposed reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Road Rehabilitation / Pullout Construction: The Stehekin Valley Road would be rehabilitated as a 

single-lane road above Harlequin Bridge, with a variable top-width of approximately 12 - 14 feet 

(Alternative 1) or 14 - 16 feet (Alternatives 2 - 4) and an adequate number of pullouts to safely 

accommodate two-way traffic. 

The Road Improvement Project calls for approximately 20 new pullouts (8 feet wide by 20 feet long with 

a taper on each end) along the road. Five existing pullouts between Harlequin Bridge and the winter 

turnaround would be reconstructed or improved. In places where the road base is failing, the base and 

subgrade would be excavated and replaced with suitable material. New pullouts would improve safety by 

correcting sight distance problems caused by curves along the road. Other improvements would provide a 

uniform surface and improve driving and safety conditions for visitors, especially for large vehicles, 

including snowplows. 

Culverts would be cleaned, replaced, or extended as needed. Additional culverts would be installed to 

correct drainage deficiencies. Road ditches and other minor features would be removed, replaced, 

repaired, or added, as appropriate, to correct drainage problems. Approximately 0.4 mile of new side 

ditches would be constructed and 3.6 miles of existing side ditches would be retained. 

Vegetation clearing along the road would vary considerably, depending on location, according to whether 

or not a pullout is needed; whether or not alignment modifications are needed to improve sight distance; 

whether drainage ditches would need construction or reconstruction; and whether culverts were added, 

removed, or replaced. 

Road Surfacing: A new asphalt chip seal surface would be constructed under all alternatives. The 

existing road from the Landing to Harlequin Bridge would be repaved. The pavement would then be 

extended from the bridge to the northern terminus at the new winter bus turnaround and parking area. The 

new surface would cover the existing variable top-width. Where necessary, shoulder grades would be 

raised with compacted aggregate to the level of the new surface; and where appropriate, pavement 

markings would be applied to the surface of the road. Road signs would also be replaced and/or added as 

appropriate. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

94 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-7: Typical Road Cross Section and Cross Section with Pullout 
B. Description of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 95

All work, except for the new pullouts and for sight distance corrections, would be performed within the 

existing road prism. Surfacing would improve driving and safety conditions for vehicles, and allow for a 

designated travel speed of 25 miles per hour. 

Road Improvement Project Site-Specific Improvements 

Wilson Creek Improvements: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 5.3 

A portion of the Wilson Creek erosion protection improvements are common to Alternatives 1 - 4. At 

Wilson Creek there are drainage and/or erosion problems on both sides of the Stehekin Valley Road. On 

the north side, the Stehekin River has eroded the bank along the toe of the road slope and there is a nearvertical drop of approximately 20 feet between the river and the road. In February 2004, cracks were 

observed that had developed along the side of the road shoulder, indicating the potential for future slope 

failure. Should this occur, portions of the road shoulder or the road itself would fail. 

Wilson Creek is prone to periodic massive debris deposition on the roadbed. During high flows, the creek 

deposits large quantities of rock and gravel onto the road and into the culvert. It also tends to jump its 

bank during flooding, spreading out across the slope and causing water to flow across and erode the road 

in several places. This results in erosion of the road surface and additional destabilization of the 

riverbank. 

Riverbank improvements proposed at this location include laying back the slope (reducing it) above the 

waterline for approximately 400 feet (this would generate approximately 1,100 cubic yards of material) 

and then stabilizing the slope (the method varies among alternatives) to allow native vegetation to 

reestablish. 

After stabilization, the road would be rebuilt in place. All alternatives would regrade the slope for 

approximately 400 feet, lower the roadbed 10 feet, move the road laterally away from the river about 15 

feet into the hillside, and install two new 60-inch culverts and a new ditch (NPS 2005a:22 - 24). If the 

road becomes undermined, it would be rebuilt in place. No reroutes are possible given the location of the 

road along the edge of the bank and the steep adjacent terrain. 

The slope is sparsely vegetated, and no large trees would be removed. Moving the road farther from the 

river would allow the shoreline room to adjust naturally over time and the slope to be stabilized and 

revegetated. It is likely the proposed solution would continue to require maintenance after big floods to 

remove gravel deposited on the road by Wilson Creek. 

The new culverts would replace the current 36-inch culvert to reduce damage from heavy rains and 

flooding caused by Wilson Creek. In addition, a ditch would be constructed on the uphill side of the road 

to capture water from Wilson Creek and direct it to the culverts to minimize the potential for water 

running over the road surface.

Access across private property may be needed to implement Wilson Creek erosion protection. There is no 

access across NPS land; therefore, there is no room to work between the slope of the road and the 

Stehekin River. The NPS would work with the landowner to identify appropriate mitigation and/or 

compensation for impacts, such as an easement or purchase. 

Winter Turnaround: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 9.2 

As called for by the Road Improvement Project, a winter vehicle turnaround and parking area for up to 5 

passenger vehicles and 1 bus, or 10 passenger vehicles, would be constructed. The turnaround area would 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

96 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

be approximately 140 feet by 75 feet (0.24 acre), large enough to enable buses to turn around without 

backing up (with a turning radius of approximately 40 feet). 

The turnaround would be the end of snowplowing in winter (NPS 2005b:25).

7. FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES

Public Facilities (McGregor Meadows Private Development / Company Creek Private 

Development): The NPS would continue to respond to emergency conditions on an as-needed basis. 

Because gravel removal and additional levees have been dismissed from further analysis, the focus of 

floodplain management in this plan is on floodplain utilization, which allows floodwater to spread out and 

slow down during large events, thereby minimizing damage in any one part of the valley. Grade-control 

structures placed in the floodplain on both sides of the river near McGregor Meadows would be 

maintained. These structures allow sheet flow of floodwaters through floodplains, consistent with 

floodplain utilization. This approach is widely considered the most sustainable in the management of 

steep mountain rivers. 

The NPS would also encourage Chelan PUD to keep the level of Lake Chelan as low as possible during 

spring and fall flooding periods (while remaining in conformance with lake level management to enable 

fish access to tributaries). Lake Chelan NRA would also continue to work with Chelan County to require 

raised drain fields for new construction in the channel migration zone and to advocate for modifications to 

existing drain fields that frequently flood and other actions to avoid development impacts in the channel 

migration zone, including additional pollutant contributions. 

The NPS would not support attempts by individuals, local, state, or federal agencies to implement flood 

protection measures (e.g., dredging, dike, or levee construction) if such actions are deemed to detract 

from or otherwise impair the purpose and values for which Lake Chelan NRA was established. 

Technical Assistance to Stehekin Landowners: For development that remains within the floodplain, 

private landowners would continue to be encouraged to use ―Advanced Flood Protection Measures‖ as 

outlined by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (Appendix 7), including elevating cabins and 

constructing ring dikes. 

The NPS would provide Stehekin landowners with technical assistance for designing these recommended 

Advanced Protection Measures. The NPS would also encourage landowners to work with the county on 

implementing other measures to minimize water-quality impacts associated with flooding of wells and 

septic systems. Staff would continue to be available to consult with Stehekin Valley landowners to 

implement these measures. 

Some of the Advanced Protection Measures may require applicable landowner-obtained permits from 

Chelan County, the ACOE, and/or the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, and approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Among the measures contained 

in the packet of information include the following: flow deflector, ring dike, debris fence, grade control, 

and scour protection. Refer to Chapter VII: Glossary for explanation of each of these measures and 

Appendix 7: ACOE Advanced Flood Protection Measures for a copy of the packet. 
B. Description of Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 97

8. MATERIALS SOURCES, CONSTRUCTION, STAGING, RESTORATION, AND 

MITIGATION/MONITORING

The following construction, staging, restoration and mitigation/monitoring conditions and requirements, 

derived from previous and ongoing work within the Stehekin Valley, would be common to all 

alternatives. 

Materials Sources 

Road construction materials (gravel and rock) would be obtained from reject material within the 

Company Creek Pit in accordance with the Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan (NPS 1995e). Additional rock 

and gravel would be obtained from sources in the vicinity of Chelan and barged uplake to Stehekin 

Landing and then loaded into trucks to be hauled to project areas. Reliance on imported materials would 

be minimized by balancing cut and fill needs within the project area when reroutes are considered 

(Alternatives 2 - 3) and by using material that has been determined to be unsuitable for other park needs 

from the Company Creek Pit. 

As directed by the GMP, no sand, rock, or gravel would be removed from the Stehekin River floodplain. 

Other materials from the Company Creek Pit would be used if they meet the prescriptions in the Lake 

Chelan Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan, which specifically defines when and for what uses this material is 

available, which in general, is for emergency repairs or for ongoing maintenance needs. 

Materials barged in from outside the area would be from an approved site that has been evaluated to 

ensure that it does not contain nonnative invasive plants (noxious weeds) and/or that treatment of affected 

areas has occurred before removal and/or before importation of materials. 

Construction Staging 

To the degree possible, construction staging would occur on existing sections of roadway to be abandoned 

or within otherwise disturbed areas (Company Creek Pit, Lower Field, and within proposed surfacing 

areas before the asphalt chip seal is applied). 

Staging areas for equipment and materials would also be in previously disturbed, park-approved 

locations, such as in existing pullouts. For the proposed project under all alternatives, major staging 

would occur at Company Creek Pit and Lower Field and within wide areas in the existing roadway. 

Additional staging for the reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would occur within the reroute areas. Staging 

areas would be protected from spillover impacts by the placement of erosion- and sediment-control 

barriers as appropriate and would be returned to preconstruction conditions or restored upon completion 

of the proposed project. Construction crews would stay at the Stehekin Landing Resort or private 

accommodations in the valley or in temporary housing in a previously disturbed site near the airstrip. 

Approximately 10 - 12 temporary trailers could be used to house workers on site. 

Rehabilitation of Abandoned Structures, Sites, and Facilities 

As resources permit, the NPS would continue to remove flood-affected derelict structures from the 

floodplain and to restore NPS-managed former areas of development. As properties with improvements 

are acquired or exchanged, the NPS would continue to remove buildings and utility system infrastructure 

and restore the sites to natural conditions to minimize contamination of the Stehekin River and to enhance 

aesthetics. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

98 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Among the kinds of structures and infrastructure that would be removed would be septic, electrical, and 

water systems, including septic tanks and drain field materials such as plastic infiltrators and conduit; 

electrical infrastructure such as power poles and lines; water system elements such as plumbing, well 

casings, and pumps. Foundations on concrete slabs or piers would also be removed. Where possible, all 

these materials would be recycled or salvaged rather than removed to a landfill outside Lake Chelan 

NRA. Where existing structures but not utility systems have been previously removed, NPS would return 

to remove infrastructure. 

Disturbed Area Rehabilitation and/or Restoration 

As noted in the GMP: 

The natural character of the lake and river edge on public lands (includes areas within 

200 feet of the lake and river shoreline) would be restored. (NPS 1995a:27 - 28)

Site rehabilitation and/or restoration would occur as needed, subject to site conditions and available 

resources on lands where buildings and utility systems were removed. Restoration would also occur 

following construction of erosion protection measures, reroutes or rehabilitation of the existing roadway. 

As earthwork concludes, revegatation of disturbed areas would include topsoil replacement, planting 

and/or seeding. Topsoil and duff would be salvaged and applied to priority areas by the contractor as 

directed by Lake Chelan NRA staff. 

Restoration would generally consist of the following activities: 

 Prior to construction, site-specific and species-specific seed collection would occur along the 

length of the project area. 

 The road contractor would complete earthwork (including scarification) according to contract 

documents to ensure adequate surface preparation for restoration/revegetation. 

 Revegetation treatments would include mulching, transplanting, and hand seeding with native 

plants, as well as seed propagation and restoration treatments such as duff salvage, plant 

propagation, and planting. 

 Revegetation would begin following completion of work in affected areas. 

 The revegetation strategy would rely on natural regeneration from conserved topsoil. 

Revegetation plantings would use native species that are slower to establish naturally and would 

be from genetic stock originating in the recreation area. The principal goal is to assist natural 

regeneration in reestablishing a sustainable native plant community similar to surrounding 

undisturbed vegetation. 

 Revegetation would be monitored by park staff to ensure its successful establishment and would 

be in compliance with applicable permitting requirements. 

 The primary revegetation areas would include obliterated sections of road and clearing limits 

along the reroutes. Additional areas of riparian restoration are also proposed within the 

alternatives. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 99

Mitigation Measures and Post-Project Monitoring 

Where actions would be implemented by FHWA, FHWA would work in cooperation with the NPS to 

ensure the contractor complies with all mitigation measures identified for the proposed work to avoid or 

minimize impacts on Lake Chelan NRA resources during rehabilitation and construction activities 

throughout the duration of the project. 

Mitigation measures listed in Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences and summarized in Appendix 6:

Summary of Mitigation Measures would be implemented. To ensure that mitigation measures are 

followed, appropriate mitigation measures would be included in the appropriate Special Contract 

Requirements section, and with FHWA oversight, NPS staff would periodically conduct on-site 

inspection of construction activities and materials. 

Following completion of the project, the NPS would monitor the success of revegetation treatments and 

supplement these with additional seeding or plantings if needed. For at least three years following project 

completion, the NPS would monitor for the presence of invasive plants. Invasive species would be 

removed as they are found during monitoring and through ongoing maintenance. 

C. DESCRIPTION OF DIFFERENCES AMONG ALTERNATIVES 1 - 4 

This section describes the differences among the four alternatives. A brief overview of the project 

components that are treated differently by at least one alternative is described below. This is followed by 

a detailed discussion of how each component is treated by each alternative. 

1. Land Protection Plan Modifications: 

Implementation of the LPP varies among 

alternatives. The existing 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b) 

does not change under Alternative 1; it has been 

revised in the same way under Alternatives 2 and 3; 

and would be revised in a different way under 

Alternative 4. The priority ranking of private lands 

for Alternatives 2 and 3 is found in Appendix 11, 

and for Alternative 4 in Appendix 12. The criteria 

and scoring used to rank private lands for 

Alternatives 2 - 4 is found in Table II-5.

2. Stehekin Valley Road Modifications (Stehekin 

Valley Road Improvement Project 

Implementation): The road would be raised and 

maintained in its current alignment under 

Alternatives 1 and 4, while different road reroutes 

to remove the road from the floodplain / channel 

migration zone are proposed in Alternatives 2 and 

3. 

3. Stehekin Valley Road / Company Creek Road—

Private Access: In Alternatives 2 - 4, if major road failure occurs, a criteria-based decisionmaking process would be used to determine if the original access should be restored or a reroute 

should occur. 

Land Protection Plans (LPP)

The purposes of an LPP for a unit of the National 

Park System are to: 

(1) Determine what land or interests in land need to 

be in public ownership and what means of 

protection other than fee acquisition are available to 

achieve unit purposes as established by Congress.

(2) Inform landowners about NPS intentions for 

buying or protecting land through other means 

within the unit.

(3) Help managers identify priorities for making 

budget requests and allocating available funds to 

protect land and unit resources.

(4) Find opportunities to help protect the unit by 

cooperating with state or local governments, 

landowners, and the private sector. (NPS 1995b:1)

LPPs establish priorities for the acquisition of, or 

government interest in, private lands. Within an 

LPP, all private lands within a national park unit are 

classified regardless of actual intent or means to 

acquire them.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

100 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

4. Recreational Facilities: In Alternative 1, existing facilities would be maintained and the Lower 

Valley Trail constructed. In Alternatives 2 - 4, there would be modifications of varying degrees 

made to add or change campgrounds. Construction of the Lower Valley Trail would vary slightly 

between Alternatives 1 and 4 and Alternatives 2 and 3, as described in the preceding section. A 

new raft takeout and access road near the river mouth would also be constructed in Alternatives 2 

and 4.

5. Management of Large Woody Debris: In Alternative 1, large woody debris would be 

manipulated only to protect public roads and bridges, and individual logs would continue to be 

trimmed or turned for safer recreational use. Floating woody debris could continue to be collected 

from the head of Lake Chelan after floods. Alternatives 2 - 4 would allow for collection from the 

tops of some logjams in the lake backwater zone for use in erosion protection measures. In 

Alternative 4, the collection zone would extend farther. Woody debris could be made available to 

private landowners for streambank restoration and erosion protection projects under specific 

conditions in Alternatives 2 - 4. 

6. Flood Protection Measures: In Alternatives 2 - 4, land exchanges or acquisition to remove 

development from the floodplain would be emphasized to allow the Stehekin River to spread 

floodwater across its floodplain. A portion of the Stehekin Valley Road would be rerouted out of 

the floodplain / channel migration zone in Alternatives 2 and 3 (two different reroutes). 

7. Interpretation and Education: In Alternatives 1 - 4 existing interpretive programs would 

continue. Under Alternatives 2 - 4, enhanced interpretation emphasis on the value of large woody 

debris in the river environment, the role of flooding in river ecosystems, on the value of 

minimizing human impacts to river systems, on river processes, and the sensitive and flood-prone 

nature of the Stehekin River would occur. 

8. Research and Monitoring: Under all alternatives, the NPS would continue existing research and 

monitoring programs, focused on large woody debris, main and side channel habitat, hydrology, 

fish surveys, historical research and analysis, nonnative/invasive plants, climate change effects, 

and special status species research. In Alternatives 2 - 4 the NPS would expand research and 

monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness/consequences of erosion and flood protection 

measures, large woody debris manipulation, etc. and would add more flow gauges on the upper 

river if funding is available. 

9. Weaver Point Erosion Protection Measures: In all alternatives, actions called for under the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing Environmental Assessment 

(constructing a lake shoreline logjam and rock wall and developing cultural resources 

management plans) would occur. In Alternatives 1 and 2 some campsites would be moved away 

from the eroding riverbank east of the docks. In Alternatives 3 and 4, two rock barbs and 

bioengineering would be constructed and the FERC logjam extended to stabilize the bank and to 

protect the campground from future erosion. 

10. Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures: No actions would be taken under 

Alternative 1 to remove rip-rap on public land and restore the stream bank, or to prevent potential 

river channel changes that could ultimately threaten the Stehekin Valley Road. In Alternatives 2 

and 4, rock barbs, a small logjam, and bioengineering would replace a portion of the rip-rap (on 

NPS land). In Alternative 3, a large engineered logjam would replace the rock barbs and 

bioengineering proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 101 

11. Stehekin Valley Road Erosion Protection Measures: In Alternatives 2 - 4, a series of erosion 

protection measures (including engineered logjams and/or rock barbs and bioengineering) would 

protect the Stehekin Valley Road. Fewer of these same measures would occur in Alternatives 2 

and 3 because of the proposed road reroutes. There would be actions in four locations in 

Alternative 2, six in Alternative 3, and eight in Alternative 4. 

1. LAND PROTECTION PLAN MODIFICATIONS

Background: National parks containing private lands are 

required to have LPPs (see sidebar ―Land Protection 

Plans‖). The 1995 Lake Chelan NRA LPP (NPS 1995b) 

consists of management objectives, compatibility criteria, 

ranking criteria, and priorities that direct NPS land 

exchanges and acquisition of private parcels. The priorities 

are based on park-identified resource criteria and on legal 

authority (see sidebar ―Authority for Land Exchanges‖).

Management Objectives: Seven management objectives to 

meet the overall goal of ensuring that land uses on public 

and private lands are compatible with the purpose of the 

recreation area. Fourteen guidelines form the basis for 

implementing the plan (see Appendix 3: 1995 Land 

Protection Plan Management Goals / Objectives and 

Guidelines). 

Compatibility Criteria: Compatibility criteria assist in 

determining how uses contribute to or detract from the 

purposes of the recreation area (Appendix 3). ―The 

alteration, development, and use of all public and private 

properties within Lake Chelan NRA must comply with ... 

and must be compatible with the congressionally designated 

purposes of Lake Chelan NRA‖ (NPS1995b:13). 

Priorities: All private lands within Lake Chelan NRA were 

classified in the LPP in terms of priority for acquisition, 

regardless of actual intent or means to acquire them. These 

priorities were ranked high, moderate, and low (see Table 

II-3: 1995 Land Protection Plan Ranking of Private Lands).

This allowed the 1995 LPP to then identify the acres 

targeted for exchange based on a system of resource-based 

criteria. Changes in the floodplain boundaries from large 

floods in 1995, 2003, and 2006 have altered conditions on 

many private parcels. 

Authority for Land Exchanges

Public Law 90-544, title III, Section 301 authorized 

Lake Chelan NRA to acquire and exchange lands 

(see “C. Relationship to Other Plans” in Chapter I: 

Purpose of and Need for Management Action). The 

1995 LPP consists of priorities, management 

objectives, and ranking criteria to direct NPS land 

exchanges for private parcels.

To allow for exchange of federal lands for private 

lands, the 1995 LPP defined when exchanges could 

occur: when the private lands have a high resource 

value and the public lands have a low resource 

value (NPS 1995c:35). The four resources of 

concern identified in the 1995 LPP included 

wetlands, high flood influence areas, riparian 

communities, and high visual sensitivity areas (NPS 

1995c: 27).

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... Exchange 

properties will be limited to certain selected federal 

lands that have been acquired since the 

establishment of the Lake Chelan NRA in 1968. 

Federal lands acquired since 1968 total 1,173 

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.

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.
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

102 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table II-3: 1995 Land Protection Plan Ranking of Private Lands 

Priority Proposed Minimum Interest Number of Tracts Acres

High Fee 1 0.77

Easement 43 99.45

Combination 18 272.04

Moderate Fee 7 3.69

Easement 11 17.60

Combination 0 0

Low Fee 43 23.37

Easement 43 19.06

Combination 0 0

Existing (Alternative 1) LPP Ranking Criteria and Proposed Acquisition and 

Exchange Lands 

Nonfederal land was evaluated for the presence of certain resource values, including wetlands, high flood 

influence areas, riparian communities, and areas of high visual sensitivity. The criteria also identified 

lands in visually sensitive sites along public roads (NPS 1995b:27). 

Once these criteria were applied to all nonfederal lands, these same criteria and others were applied to 

determine whether potential exchange lands had high resource value, identified by the 100-year 

floodplain, wetland soils, geohazard areas, slopes greater than 20 percent, and/or areas of high visual 

sensitivity (NPS 1995b:16). 

After application of both sets of criteria, the following ranking based on parcel size was applied to 

determine the final ranking. 

 Low: Tracts less than 1 acre (85 total). Due to small size, the potential for significant impact on 

resource values is significantly less than for tracts greater than 1 acre. 

 Moderate: Tracts greater than 1 acre, with high-priority resources for protection over less than 50 

percent of the area (17 total). 

 High: Tracts greater than 1 acre, with high-priority resources over more than 50 percent of the 

area (64 total). (NPS 1995b:27). 

The 1995 LPP ranked 167 private tracts, comprising approximately 460 acres, as shown in Table II-3 

(NPS 1995b:iii). 

The ranking for specific private lands within Lake Chelan as classified by the 1995 LPP is found in Table 

2: Priorities for Protection and Proposed Minimum Interest in the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b:31 - 34), which 

is duplicated in the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan (SRCIP) in Appendix 10: 1995 Land 

Protection Plan Ranking of Private Lands. 

Actions Since the 1995 Land Protection Plan 

As noted earlier, the 1995 GMP and LPP called for moving private development out of the floodplain as 

the most viable solution to minimize flood damage to private property and resources. Of the more than 

62,000 acres that then comprised Lake Chelan NRA (including lands within the boundary owned by other 

entities), the 1995 LPP identified 1,173 acres of land acquired by the recreation area upon or after its 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 103 

establishment in 1968 (and owned in fee). These lands were therefore determined to be potentially 

available for exchange because they had at some point been privately owned (outside the public domain). 

Of the 1,173 acres, 1,123 acres were determined to have high resource value in the 1995 LPP and were 

identified for retention by Lake Chelan NRA because they had one or more of the development 

constraints or four resources of concern identified in the LPP (see sidebar ―Authority for Land 

Exchanges‖), because they were part of historic properties, or because they could be used for visitor 

facilities at the Landing. This left approximately 50 acres that could potentially be exchanged with 

Stehekin landowners to meet the objectives of protecting high resource value lands and/or moving critical 

residential development out of the Stehekin River floodplain. Those 50 acres that were suitable at the time 

for exchange were made available pending ―appropriate deed reservations ... to ensure compatible use 

subsequent to the exchange‖ (NPS 1995b:36). 

In the 1995 LPP, ―although private lands in the valley could be exchanged for public lands outside the 

recreation area, this possibility‖ was ―considered beyond the scope of‖ that plan. Nonetheless, the LPP 

went on to state: ―If landowners show interest on a willing seller / willing buyer basis, the National Park 

Service 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‖ (NPS 1995b:35). 

Since 1995, the NPS has completed two land exchanges (12.75 acres) from the identified 50 acres 

available for exchange, leaving approximately 37 acres still available (see Table II-4: 1995 Land 

Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels) (NPS 2005c:36). Some of this land, however, may no 

longer be suitable due to new information regarding resource significance or changes in conditions related 

to flooding. Areas that may no longer be suitable include one combined parcel (1.34 acres) mostly within 

the floodplain without enough buildable area, and the Lower Field (19.2 acres) which is known habitat for 

northern spotted owls, elk, deer, bears, and other wildlife. Because the LPP has not been updated until 

now, however, these lands remain ―currently available‖ for exchange. (They are included in the ―noaction‖ Alternative 1 to facilitate comparison with the other alternatives.) 

Table II-4: 1995 Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels 

Area Acres Available

Vicinity of Lower Field 21

Little Boulder / Boulder Creek (both sides of the road) 16

East of the Airstrip 6

Vicinity of Stehekin Valley Ranch 5

Above Rainbow Creek (west side of the road) 2

Since 1995, the NPS has also acquired six tracts (totaling roughly 30 acres); acquired easements or deed 

restrictions on several other parcels (roughly 20 acres); and completed a boundary adjustment along Lake 

Chelan based on a property survey that resulted in a deletion of approximately 23 acres from the Lake 

Chelan NRA (the original survey line had been drawn inaccurately). 

There were originally 167 tracts (totaling 460 acres) of privately owned land identified in the 1995 LPP, 

plus a mixture of Washington State, Chelan County Public Utility District #1, and Stehekin School 

District lands (totaling roughly 2,273 acres). There are now 168 privately owned tracts totaling 417 acres. 

(The number of tracts has increased due to the actions of some landowners splitting existing tracts into 

more than one tract or combining some tracts into a larger parcel, and the splitting of some tracts into two 

tracts to account for easements established with the NPS) Updated information on the mixture of state, 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

104 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Chelan PUD, private land, and Stehekin School District lands now indicate those lands total roughly 

2,613 acres. 

Treatment of the Land Protection Plan by Alternative 

Alternative 1: Land Protection Plan Implementation 

Under Alternative 1, implementation of the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b) would not change. The purposes, 

management objectives, compatibility criteria for public and private lands, land protection techniques, 

and land protection priorities as identified in that plan would remain the same (Table II-4: 1995 Land 

Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels). 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Land Protection Plan Modifications

Although LPP priorities would be different among alternatives, the key purposes of the LPP would be the 

same as in Alternative 1. Lands that would remain in public ownership and lands available for exchange 

would be the same under Alternatives 2 - 4. These potential exchange lands are located on alluvial fans 

and other landforms outside the channel migration zone. Some exchange parcels have also been identified 

where they would augment a cluster of existing development. Prioritization of private lands for 

acquisition, however, varies between Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 4, to reflect slightly different 

approaches to floodplain management, particularly in McGregor Meadows. Alternatives 2 and 3 

emphasize removal of more private parcels from the channel migration zone than Alternative 4. 

Alternative 4 gives lower priority scoring to parcels in the channel migration zone and near the river 

channel. See Appendix 11 for the priority ranking of private lands for Alternatives 2 and 3, and Appendix 

12 for the priority ranking of private lands for Alternative 4. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Land Protection Plan Implementation 

Land Protection Plan Ranking Criteria (to determine priorities): The 1995 Lake Chelan LPP criteria 

to identify lands of high resource value have been revised in Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 4 to 

reflect a new emphasis on removing development from the channel migration zone, not just the 

floodplain, as was done in the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b) . There is also increased emphasis placed on 

clustering new development in areas away from the river, despite potentially being visible to the public. 

Therefore, the focus on the Stehekin River migrating within its natural channel migration zone necessarily 

redirects some of the LPP criteria away from protecting scenic resources and more toward avoiding the 

river. Because the NPS remains concerned about the aesthetic qualities of development in the lower 

valley, appropriate Covenants, Conditions, and Deed Restrictions (CCRs) would continue to ensure that 

exchange lands remain visually compatible with the rustic vernacular characteristics of the Stehekin 

Community and the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. The NPS would also continue to apply these same 

general standards to public and administrative facilities. 

Since the passage of the three largest floods on record in the last 15 years, consideration of land 

protection priorities has changed, although many remain the same. The focus in Alternatives 2 - 4 is on 

removing development threatened by the river and on planning for future river changes. Other 

development effects, such as the unsuitable locations of septic drain fields and structures (with the 

potential to be inundated and/or incorporated into the river, with resultant adverse effects on water quality 

and scenic resources) have also been considered. 

Under Alternatives 2 - 4, new LPP criteria would be adopted to acknowledge the changing conditions 

related to recent massive flooding in the lower Stehekin Valley. This list of criteria would be applied 

differently in Alternatives 2 and 3 as compared to Alternative 4 (see descriptions of Alternatives 2, 3, and 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 105 

4 below) (Table II-5). The criteria are used to determine what lands would have the highest priority for 

protection within Lake Chelan NRA and would revise the similar list of criteria in the 1995 LPP 

identified in Alternative 1 (Table II-5: Proposed Land Protection Plan Criteria Weighting for 

Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 4). 

Table II-5: Proposed Land Protection Plan Criteria Weighting for Alternatives 2 and 3 and 

Alternative 4 

Criteria SRCIP Alternatives 2 (Preferred) and 3 SRCIP Alternative 4

1. Stehekin River 

channel 

migration zone 

(CMZ)

2 points: Structure within CMZ and/or if less 

than 1 acre of property is outside the CMZ

1 point: No structure within CMZ and greater 

than 1 acre of property is outside CMZ

0 points: Entire parcel outside CMZ

1 point: Structure within CMZ and/or less 

than 1 acre of property is outside CMZ

0 points: No structure within CMZ and 

greater than 1 acre of property outside 

CMZ

2. Alluvial fan 

migration zone 

(AFMZ) of 

Boulder, 

Company, or 

Rainbow Creek

2 points: Structure within AFMZ and/or less 

than 1 acre of property is outside AFMZ

1 point: No structure within AFMZ and 

greater than 1 acre of property is outside

AFMZ

0 points: Entire parcel outside AFMZ

1 point: Structure in AFMZ and/or less 

than 1 acre of property outside AFMZ

0 points: No structures within AFMZ

3. Wetlands or 

riparian habitat

1 point: Wetlands or riparian habitat present

0 points: No wetlands or riparian habitat

1 point: Wetlands or riparian habitat 

present

0 points: No wetlands or riparian habitat

4. Rare species or 

suitable habitat 

for those 

species

1 point: Rare species or habitat present

0 points: No rare species/habitat present

1 point: Rare species or habitat present

0 points: No rare species/habitat present

5. Potential to 

reduce habitat 

fragmentation

2 points: Parcel greater than 5 acres and 

adjacent to public land

1 point: Parcel less than 5 acres and 

adjacent to public land

0 points: Parcel not adjacent to public land

2 points: Parcel greater than 5 acres and 

adjacent to public land

1 point: Parcel less than 5 acres and 

adjacent to public land

0 points: Parcel not adjacent to public 

land

6. Potential for 

public 

use/access

1 point: Parcel adjacent to public land used 

for administrative use or has potential for 

public use

0 points: No administrative use or potential 

for public use adjacent to parcel

2 points: Parcel adjacent to public land 

used for administrative use or has 

potential for public use

0 points: No administrative use or 

potential for public use adjacent to parcel

7. Cultural 

resources or 

related concerns

1 point: Parcel has known cultural resources

0 points: No cultural resources present

1 point: Parcel has known cultural 

resources

0 points: No cultural resources present

8. Permanent 

structures

2 points: Parcel has a permanent structure

1 point: Parcel has no permanent structures

1 point: Parcel has a permanent 

structure

0 points: Parcel has no permanent 

structures

9. Urgency of 

threat to 

development

2 points: Parcel has structure less than 50 ft 

from main or major side channel of Stehekin 

River

1 point: Access road to parcel is less than 

50 ft from main or major side channel of 

Stehekin River

0 points: Entire parcel and access road 

greater than 50 ft from main or major side 

channel and/or no structures located on 

property

1 point: Parcel has structure less than 50 

ft from main or major side channel of 

Stehekin River

0 points: Parcel has access road less 

than 50 ft from main or major side 

channel of the Stehekin River and/or no 

structure located on property
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

106 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Land Use Protection Priorities: These would vary by alternative; see descriptions in Alternative 2 

(Alternative 3 would be the same) and Alternative 4 (Table II-5: Proposed Land Protection Plan Criteria 

Weighting for Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 4) below. 

Lands Available for Exchange: Approximately 24 acres would be available for exchange in 

Alternatives 2 - 4, although this could increase by a few acres if development of the NPS maintenance 

and housing in the airstrip area requires less acreage than anticipated (Table II-6: Alternatives 2 - 4 

Revised Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels). Although initial review of park-owned (fee) 

lands resulted in approximately 76 acres that were potentially suitable for exchange consideration, further 

resource analysis and field reconnaissance resulted in the reduction of this acreage to the approximately 

24 acres that are proposed as being available under Alternatives 2 - 4 for exchange. 

Table II-6: Alternatives 2 - 4 Revised Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels 

Area Acres

Above Stehekin Valley Ranch 5.2

Near airstrip (former Peterson property) 2.0*

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

Total 23.81

*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 here and in the GMP.

Parcels have been identified for potential exchange based on evaluation of the above resource criteria as 

applied to formerly private lands acquired in the recreation area. As noted earlier in the quote from the 

1995 LPP, no lands that have always been within the public domain are able to be exchanged, including 

lands transferred from other agencies of the federal government, such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

and/or that were once part of one of the surrounding historic Forest Reserves. 

As in Alternative 1, lands identified for exchange would be conveyed with Covenants, Conditions and 

Restrictions (CCRs) to ensure that subsequent private development remains compatible with Lake Chelan 

NRA and the Stehekin Community. Each parcel identified for exchange would be ground-truthed to tailor 

the CCRs to the specific conditions of the property and would be subject to future environmental analysis. 

Easements or terms and conditions for development would be identified to fit the topography, vegetation, 

visibility, and character of existing or potential developments on each tract (NPS 1995b:21). See 

Appendix 9: Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Deed Restrictions for a list of potential criteria that 

would be applied as part of land exchanges, where applicable. 

Such provisions would protect recreation area resources by specifications related to: 

 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. (NPS 1995b:21). 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 107 

The NPS envisions that some individual parcels available for exchange may be desired by multiple 

landowners seeking exchange. It is conceivable that given the heightened concerns associated with the 

increasing flood magnitude and frequency on the Stehekin River, the NPS’s 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. 

To ensure there is a fair, objective, and transparent process for determining who should be given priority 

for exchange, the NPS proposes to consider the following criteria when multiple landowners are 

interested in a particular parcel: 

Primary criteria: 

 The landowner’s current parcel is a priority in the acquisition ranking described above (high, 

medium, or low). 

 The landowner is willing to consider other ways to equalize values, including paying for costs 

associated with structure removal on their current parcel, or considering an unequal trade. 

 The landowner is willing to comply with CCRs to protect resources. 

 The landowner is willing to consider clustering development or sharing utilities as a means of 

reducing the overall development footprint. 

Secondary criteria: 

 The timing of the request for exchange (a request for a parcel made months before others may be 

considered first). 

 The landowner is willing to help defray due diligence costs, such as appraisals, surveys, and 

environmental site assessments. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 3: Criteria Weighting to Determine LPP Priorities 

The following criteria (Table II-7: Summary of Revised LPP Ranking for Private Lands in Alternatives 2 

and 3 and Figure II-8: Potential Exchange Lands in 1995 and Revised Land Protection Plan) would be 

used to determine LPP priorities if the revised LPP is adopted. For Alternatives 2 and 3, these criteria are 

weighted toward allowing the Stehekin River to migrate to the greatest extent possible in its channel 

migration zone while protecting Lake Chelan NRA resources, including key wetland, wildlife, vegetation, 

water quality, and cultural resources. 

Table II-7: Summary of Revised LPP Ranking for Private Lands in Alternatives 2 and 3 

Tentative Priority Number of Tracts Acres

High 66 271.50

Medium 98 141.22

Low 4 4.75
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

108 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-8: Potential Exchange Lands in 1995 and Revised Land Protection Plan 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 109 

Under the revised LPP the remaining 168 private tracts, comprising approximately 417 acres, would be 

ranked as shown in Table II-7.

The revised priority acquisition parcel list for the remaining 168 private parcels in Lake Chelan NRA 

(revising Table 2 in the 1995 LPP) for Alternative 2 can be found in Appendix 11: Alternatives 2 and 3 

Proposed Ranking of Private Lands for the Revised Land Protection Plan. 

Alternative 4: Criteria Weighting to Determine LPP Priorities 

The criteria in Table II-8: Summary of Revised LPP Ranking for Private Lands in Alternative 4 would be 

changed slightly from Alternatives 2 and 3 to determine LPP priorities in Alternative 4. In Alternative 4, 

the criteria are weighted toward protecting existing Lake Chelan NRA development and infrastructure in 

place, while protecting recreation area resources, including key wetland, wildlife, vegetation, and cultural 

resources. This alternative would not allow the Stehekin River to migrate within its channel migration 

zone in McGregor Meadows to the same extent as in Alternatives 2 and 3. As a result, the priorities in 

Alternative 4 are inherently different than those in Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the desire in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 to avoid conflicts between development and the river and the desire in Alternative 4 

to maintain the Stehekin Valley Road in its current location. 

Table II-8: Summary of Revised LPP Ranking for Private Lands in Alternative 4 

Tentative Priority Number of Tracts Acres

High 14 102.55

Medium 72 237.44

Low 82 77.48

Under the revised LPP, the remaining 168 private tracts, comprising approximately 417 acres, would be 

ranked as shown in Table II-8.

The revised priority acquisition parcel list for the remaining 168 private parcels in Lake Chelan NRA 

(revising Table 2 in the 1995 LPP) for Alternative 4 can be found in Appendix 12: Alternative 4 Proposed 

Ranking of Private Lands. 

2. STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD MODIFICATIONS 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Alignment

Reroutes / Protection Strategies: There would be no major reroutes of the Stehekin Valley Road. The 

road would continue to be maintained in its current location through the additional implementation of 

bank-protection strategies. Minor realignments would occur at Wilson Creek (see ―B. Actions Common 

to All Alternatives [1 - 4]‖) and within McGregor Meadows to implement the Road Improvement Project

(NPS 2005a) (see below). 

Major Road Failure: Actions would be the same as ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖

Alternative 2: Stehekin Valley Road Alignment 

Reroutes: McGregor Meadows and Lower Field. 

Under Alternative 2, the Stehekin Valley Road would be rerouted for approximately 1.9* miles beginning 

at Milepost 5.7 (see Figure II-5: McGregor Meadows Reroute Map). The reroute would be a single-lane 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

110 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

road with new pullouts appropriately spaced to provide adequate sight distance to allow two-way traffic 

to pass safely. In contrast to the relatively flat existing section of the Stehekin Valley Road, the maximum 

grade of the reroute would be as steep as 6 percent, and the road would be moderately rolling in nature, 

with fairly steep ascents and descents, as it passes through the forested area above the current Stehekin 

Valley Road. Overall, the new roadway would affect an area of up to 18* acres of previously undisturbed 

land. 

To ensure continuing access to private property, a portion of the original alignment of the Stehekin Valley 

Road would be retained as the 0.75 mile* ―McGregor Meadows Access Road‖ from the beginning of the 

realignment to approximately Milepost 6.5, at the last private driveway. 

Access to McGregor Meadows would be maintained for emergency and utility access vehicles, except 

during flooding. Access to private property would be maintained, although to a lesser standard than the 

relocated Stehekin Valley Road. Periodic maintenance, such as grading, would continue to occur; 

however, the road would be plowed in winter for approximately 0.5 miles, to Milepost 6.3, and grading 

would be less frequent. Because no plowing of this road would occur beyond this area, other residents and 

visitors could use snowmobiles to access other private property in winter or could arrange for snow 

removal. 

Between Milepost 6.5 and Milepost 7.5, the existing road surface would be removed and restored to trail 

standards to become the alignment for a portion of the Lower Valley Trail. The trail would remain 

accessible for maintenance of grade-control structures at Milepost 6.8. These structures were designed to 

minimize the potential for the river to flow down the road, inundating drain fields and other development. 

Restoration of the then abandoned section of road (after the access road) would be restored, including the 

former road alignment and the riparian area near Lower Field. Access to the Lower Field would be 

maintained from the upstream end for the existing Special Use Permit for the agricultural field. 

Road Specifications: The reroute would be 16 feet wide and would tie in to the existing alignment of the 

Stehekin Valley Road before McGregor Meadows and above the Lower Field. All of the new disturbance 

from the roadway would be outside the channel migration zone, thereby greatly reducing impacts to 

riparian areas and the likelihood of future flood damage to the road or temporary road closure during 

floods. If the material generated from proposed cuts is adequate, fill needs would be accommodated. If 

not, the balance of material needed would be acquired from other project areas or would be barged in 

from outside the park. Combined, the McGregor Meadows and Lower Field reroutes would produce 

approximately 57,000 cubic yards* of material from cuts, and 48,000 cubic yards* would be needed for 

fills. The road surface would then be overlain with compacted gravel and surfaced with asphalt chip seal. 

Clearing width for the new roadway would range from 40 to 100* feet. Vegetation disturbance would be 

limited to the minimum necessary for construction activities, including construction of cuts and fills, 

drainage features such as ditches and culverts, and use of construction equipment. Clearing limits would 

be delineated in advance of any construction activities. Soil-erosion and sediment-control devices would 

be implemented and maintained during and after construction until vegetation is established. 

Pullouts: Up to 50* pullouts would be designed as needed to provide adequate sight distance. On 

average, the pullouts would be approximately 8 feet wide and 20 feet long, but would vary in size and 

spacing depending on available terrain, encompassing a taper on both ends. They would have a 

trapezoidal shape and would be surfaced. Drainage, including roadside ditches and culverts (30 inches in 

diameter), would be provided where needed (approximately every 500 feet on the existing alignment). 

 

* This and other included estimates indicated by asterisks in the text that follows are based on 30 percent design. As a result, the 

actual quantities could change by approximately 10 percent.
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 111 

Like the current alignment, the proposed realignment would cross approximately seven intermittent 

streams. These streams have the potential to carry large amounts of water and debris during floods but 

also run dry for several months each year. To accommodate this capacity, approximately seven 60-inch 

culverts would be installed. Ditch relief culverts (generally 30 inches in diameter) are planned 

approximately every 300 to 350 feet. 

Approximately 18.0* acres would be cleared for road construction; about 17.3* acres of this would be 

within suitable and potentially occupied northern spotted owl habitat. 

Major Road Failure: In addition to the actions in Alternative 1, if loss of the roadway occurred at 

Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek), or Milepost 8.0, the NPS would reconstruct the 

road in place because the road is adjacent to a steep slope at the edge of the channel migration zone and it 

would not be feasible to relocate the road in these areas. Although the road could be moved, the impacts 

of doing this (requiring either the removal of an excessive amount of material or very long reroute) would 

be greater than retaining the road in its existing location. (See ―D. Alternatives and Actions Considered 

but Dismissed‖.) These areas would also be reconstructed following major flood damage. 

Private Access, including through McGregor Meadows: With the road reroute, access would continue 

to be maintained along the former alignment of the Stehekin Valley Road, termed here the ―McGregor 

Meadows Access Road.‖ The McGregor Meadows Access Road would be maintained as a one-lane road 

of variable width (14 - 16 feet wide). Unlike in Alternative 1, however, this portion of the road would not 

be realigned or raised, nor would it be paved. As a result, it would continue to be affected periodically by 

flooding. 

This section of the former Stehekin Valley Road would continue to provide access to approximately 12 

parcels now in private ownership as long as those parcels remained private, as well as for utility system 

infrastructure and emergency access / egress. As noted, access would also continue to be maintained 

along the Company Creek Road and Stehekin Valley Road, except in some areas during flood conditions. 

No winter plowing would occur on the McGregor Meadows Access Road after approximately 0.5 mile. If 

necessary, priority for restoring access, would be given to the public road prior to actions along the 

McGregor Meadows Access Road. 

Alternative 3: Stehekin Valley Road Alignment 

Reroutes: Only the McGregor Meadows reroute would be constructed. As a result, the existing alignment 

of the Stehekin Valley Road alongside the Lower Field would be retained (see Figure II-5). 

McGregor Meadows Reroute Actions: In Alternative 3, a smaller portion of the Stehekin Valley Road 

(1.75 miles) would be rerouted around McGregor Meadows and would connect with the existing 

alignment at approximately Milepost 7.41. The rerouted road segment would descend to reconnect with 

the existing road near the downstream end of the Lower Field. Instead of rerouting the road around the 

Lower Field (as in Alternative 2), the existing alignment would be reinforced with a series of rock barbs, 

bioengineering, and riparian restoration measures to stabilize the section of roadway in its current 

alignment. 

As in Alternative 2, the road would be designed as a single-lane road, 14 - 16 feet in width, with pullouts 

to allow two-way traffic to pass safely. With a maximum grade of 6* percent, the road would have fairly 

steep ascents and descents, including a very steep descent across a large amount of fill to the Stehekin 

Valley Road at the Lower Field. Overall, the new roadway would affect about the same amount of area as 

the reroute in Alternative 2 (approximately 18.0* acres). Approximately 64,000 cubic yards* of material 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

112 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

would be produced from cuts and 54,000 cubic yards* would be needed for fills. As in Alternative 2, the 

road surface would be overlain with compacted gravel and paved. 

Photo 11 – Stehekin Valley Road in McGregor Meadows during the 2006 Flood 

Similar to the current alignment, the proposed realignment would have about seven stream crossings with 

the same design as Alternative 2. Road restoration, grade-control maintenance, and private access to 

McGregor Meadows would be the same as in Alternative 2.

Of the approximately 18.0 acres cleared for road construction, about 17.3 acres would be within northern 

spotted owl habitat (the same as in Alternative 2); however, 1.2 acres also would remain within the 

channel migration zone (unlike Alternative 2). 

Private Access, including through McGregor Meadows: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 

2. There would continue to be access to the approximately 12 parcels of private land located along the 

McGregor Meadows Access Road. 

Alternative 4: Stehekin Valley Road Alignment 

Specific Reroutes/Protection Strategies: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 1. There would be 

no reroutes of the Stehekin Valley Road. The road would continue be maintained in its current alignment, 

the grade would be raised, and sections in the channel migration zone at McGregor Meadows would not 

be paved. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 113 

Major Road Failure: Actions would be the same as ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖

Private Access: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 1. Access would continue to be maintained 

where the road grade is raised through McGregor Meadows. 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project Implementation 

General Improvements: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 

Site-Specific Improvements: To increase survivability of the section of road through McGregor 

Meadows in future flooding, the grade would be raised in two sections to complement another section that 

was raised in response to the 2003 and 2006 flooding. Over time, additional erosion protection strategies 

and bank-hardening measures would likely be implemented as the river moved in this direction, including 

additional barbs currently proposed in Alternative 4. Minor reroutes could also be considered if necessary, 

but there would be no major reroute of the road. A small section of road near Wilson Creek would be 

realigned away from a 20-foot-tall, eroding bank. Rock and log-cribbing would be placed on the slope 

below the road to slow future erosion during floods (see ―Wilson Creek‖ Section 11. d. Stehekin Valley 

Road Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek)).

Raising the Road: Between Milepost 6.25 and 6.53 and Milepost 6.95 and 7.14, in McGregor Meadows, 

the road would be raised 1 - 3 feet, and culverts would be added as appropriate. Raising the road grade 

would elevate part of the road above floodwater that occurs during spring and fall flooding. Elevating the 

road grade could prevent the Stehekin River from occupying sections of the floodplain and channel 

migration zone in this area, with consequent effects on floodwater depth and flow velocity on neighboring 

properties. Although the road grade raise is proposed to protect the Stehekin Valley Road, it could result 

in additional flood protection for some private property, while potentially worsening flooding elsewhere. 

Raising the road above the level of flooding would require importation of approximately 5,600 cubic 

yards of fill.* Raising the road grade would also allow ditches to be recreated to help direct water away 

from the road surface. Where fill is proposed to raise the road, fill slopes would be kept as steep as 

possible to minimize the disturbance footprint. 

Milepost 6.0 - 6.5: Between Mileposts 6.0 and 6.5, the Stehekin Valley Road would be raised and 

realigned and a portion of the adjacent slope would be laid back to improve sight distance, with a drystacked rock wall constructed to retain the slope. Laying back the slope and removal of a protruding 

eyebrow of material may lessen the potential for material to slough off the slope onto the road. Actions at 

this location would partially affect private property, and therefore require an easement. 

The slope soil is very loose (unconsolidated), and revegetation of the slope may require covering the 

slope with fallen trees, duff, and litter. A dry-laid rock wall would be constructed at the toe of the slope to 

collect any material sliding off the slope and to enhance slope stability. Eyebrow removal would produce 

approximately 1,000 cubic yards* of material and the drystack rock wall would be approximately 200 feet 

long and 10 feet high.* Nearby, the road grade may need to be raised to allow access to private property 

(NPS 2005a:24). 

Alternatives 2 and 3: Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project Implementation 

General Improvements: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

114 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Site-Specific Improvements: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 

Alternative 4: Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project Implementation

General Improvements: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 

Site-Specific Improvements: Actions would be the same as described in Alternative 1. 

3. STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD / COMPANY CREEK ROAD—PRIVATE ACCESS

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road / Company Creek Road—Private Access 

Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Stehekin Valley Road / Company Creek 

Road—Private Access 

Under Alternatives 2 - 4, unless catastrophic changes prevented it and it became necessary to limit 

impacts to recreation area resources, reasonable access to private property would continue to be achieved 

via privately maintained spur roads that branch off the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads. If 

catastrophic loss occurs, a criteria-based decision-making process (including additional environmental 

analysis as warranted) would be used to determine whether reestablishment of the original access to the 

private property, or a reroute, or some combination of these would be implemented. 

4. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Alternative 1: Recreational Facilities

General 

Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ 

Compatible recreational facilities located in the floodplain would remain, subject to their persistence and 

the continued ability to use them safely. These include campgrounds, picnic areas, Bullion Raft Launch, 

and area trails. In addition, as noted under ―1. GMP Implementation,‖ construction of the Lower Valley 

Trail, including connecting it to the Stehekin River Trail, would occur. 

Campgrounds 

Actions would be taken as needed in response to flooding. Seasonal closures would continue to occur 

during the spring and fall. No new campgrounds would be established. 

Harlequin Campground: The campground would be maintained in its existing location. Harlequin 

Campground currently contains one 24-person group site and six individual sites, each with a limit of 4 

people. Harlequin Campground is located across Harlequin Bridge off the Company Creek Road. 

Seasonal flooding in fall and spring has continued to affect the campground, particularly the group site, 

which like others is close to the Stehekin River, and which is slightly lower in elevation than other sites. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 115 

Purple Point Horse Camp: There would be no changes to this camp. It would continue to be used as an 

overflow group site and horse camp. 

Bullion Campground: Bullion Campground would be relocated across the road to avoid an area of 

hazard trees that are deteriorating because of root rot. The two campsites would be moved across the road, 

near the Stehekin River, upstream from the raft launch. The current site, however, would be retained for 

day-use picnicking to accommodate longstanding Stehekin Community events that occur there. 

The proposed relocated campground would be concealed from most views along the Stehekin Valley 

Road and would have adjacent river access in a relatively open area with scattered Douglas-fir and moss 

strewn boulders and an understory of kinnickinnick, Oregon grape, serviceberry, ceanothus, spiraea, 

yarrow, and other forbs and grasses. The proposed area is approximately 100 feet by 20 feet (2,000 square 

feet, or 0.05 acre). 

Trails 

Lower Valley Trail: The Lower Valley Trail would be designed and constructed as time and funding 

allowed. Construction would eventually include a trail bridge across the Stehekin River to connect it to 

the Stehekin River Trail. A footbridge across the Stehekin River at or near the former concrete road 

bridge abutments above Boulder Creek would enhance access to the River Trail and Weaver Point 

Campground from the lower Stehekin Valley, and would make additional loop trails available. In 

Alternative 1, the Lower Valley Trail would use approximately 6.1 miles of existing trail and 6.3 miles of 

new trail. 

Raft Launches / Boat Access: The existing raft launch downstream from Bullion Campground (across 

from Bullion Loop Trail) would be retained. No new raft launches or takeouts would be constructed. 

Shooting Range: The shooting range would be maintained in its existing location.

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Recreational Facilities 

Existing Campgrounds

Purple Point Horse Camp: Under Alternatives 2 - 4, the individual sites at this campground would be 

modified to accommodate group use during seasonal flooding anticipated to occur in spring and fall at 

Harlequin Campground. 

The proposed group site additions to the Purple Point Horse Camp are located 1.4 mile from the Golden 

West Visitor Center near an existing horse corral, by the well water tank near Purple Creek. The new sites 

would be managed primarily for the ability to replace the group site at Harlequin Campground during 

seasonal flooding; however, they would also be available at other times of year for individual use. 

Approximately four sites would be established that could be used in combination as one or two group 

sites (12 people) when needed in the spring and fall. Sites would have two to three tent pads, picnic 

tables, a food-storage container, and a fire grate. Existing toilets would be improved or additional vault 

toilets would be added. 

The area that would be used is approximately 150 feet by 50 feet (7,500 square feet, or 0.17 acre) and is 

within a Douglas-fir-ponderosa pine forest with scattered bigleaf maple among cobbles and occasional 

boulders. The understory primarily consists of grasses, Oregon grape, and spiraea. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

116 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Harlequin Campground: As in Alternative 1, Harlequin Campground would be maintained in its 

existing location and would continue to be used except during periods of flooding. In Alternatives 2 - 4, 

Harlequin Campground group sites would be temporarily closed during flooding. Campsites constructed 

at Purple Point Horse Camp to replace the seasonally flooded group sites at Harlequin would compensate 

for the temporary closure of Harlequin Campground group site prior to the advent of likely flooding. 

Bullion Campground: As in Alternative 1, Bullion Campground would be relocated across the road to 

avoid an area of hazard trees that are deteriorating because of root rot. The two campsites would be 

moved across the road, near the Stehekin River, upstream from the raft launch. The current site would be 

retained for day-use picnicking to accommodate longstanding Stehekin Community events that occur 

there. 

Rainbow Falls Campground (New): In Alternatives 2 - 4, approximately three to five individual walk-in 

campsites would be constructed near Rainbow Falls. The campsites would be separated from each other 

along a former roadway just north of the existing Rainbow Falls toilets. The campsites would include 

access to improved Rainbow Falls toilets, as well as picnic tables, tent pads, food-storage containers, and 

fire pits / grates. The proposed campground at Rainbow Falls would take advantage of existing parking. 

Water would be available from nearby Rainbow Creek. The area is located in the lower Stehekin Valley, 

within easy walking distance of Stehekin Landing (approximately 3 miles) and Buckner Homestead. 

Proposed campsites would be located away from a rock fall area, and would be concealed from the 

Stehekin Valley Road. 

The proposed campground area would be about 200 feet long by 20 feet wide and would occupy 4,000 

square feet (0.10 acre) within a Douglas-fir-ponderosa pine forest with a low-growing understory of 

kinnickinnick and other forbs. Not all of this area, however, would be impacted, because the campsites 

would be separated from each other. Large gneiss boulders scattered throughout the area would partially 

conceal the sites. 

Trails 

Lower Valley Trail: In Alternatives 2 - 4, the Lower Valley Trail would be constructed in a single 

complete project to connect Stehekin Landing with High Bridge using sections of existing trail and 

construction of new trail as described in ―B. Actions Common to Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ As noted, a 

footbridge crossing of the Stehekin River would be added to connect the proposed Lower Valley Trail 

with the Stehekin River Trail. 

Alternative 2: Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds: Actions for campgrounds would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4)‖ and ―Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Recreational Facilities‖ in this section. 

Trails: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ The 

Lower Valley Trail would use 4.6 miles of new trail and 7.9 miles of existing trail. 

Stehekin River Raft Takeout / Boat Access: In Alternative 2, a new raft takeout and small parking area 

would be constructed above the mouth of the Stehekin River. This takeout would enable more direct 

egress from the river following a trip and would reduce conflict with adjacent private landowners by 

providing public egress not currently available. It would also provide for nonmotorized boat access to the 

lower Stehekin River and the head of Lake Chelan. To provide access to public land, the new raft takeout 

would be located off a small (300-foot-long, 14-foot-wide) spur road from the Stehekin Valley Road and 

would include a small parking area (see Stehekin River Mouth description below). The takeout would be 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 117 

approximately 20 feet wide and 40 feet long, similar to the existing raft launch downstream from Bullion 

Campground. Raft launches or takeouts consist of a constructed slope (usually sand and gravel with no 

surface treatment) wide enough for the raft and passengers to stage before entering the river. They are 

usually in pools to allow for safe entry into and exit from the water. 

Shooting Range: Because Alternative 2 reroutes the Stehekin Valley Road along the Lower Field, the 

direction of existing targets would be toward the road, creating a safety hazard. As a result, the shooting 

range would be removed and the existing shooting range would be restored or used for the road reroute. 

No replacement shooting range would be constructed. 

Alternative 3: Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds: Actions for campgrounds would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4)‖ and ―Elements Common to Alternatives (2 - 4): Recreational Facilities‖ under ―4. 

Recreational Facilities.‖ In addition, another campground would be constructed on NPS land downhill 

from the Company Creek Power Plant.

Trails: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)‖ and 

Alternative 2. The Lower Valley Trail would use approximately 4.6 miles of new trail and 7.9 miles of 

existing trail. 

Company Creek Campground (new): The proposed walk-in campground would be in a previously 

disturbed area downhill from the Company Creek power plant, affecting approximately 0.02 acre within 

an area that contains scattered Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and bigleaf maple and an understory of 

bracken fern, wild raspberry, Oregon grape, wild rose, and needlegrass. Access would be on foot via the 

former roadbed down to the area, which would be cleared of downed logs. There would be one large 

group site that could also be used for 26 individual sites if warranted. Picnic tables, fire grates, tent pads, 

and food storage would be provided. A vault toilet would also be constructed. 

Although there is currently no shuttle access to this site, it may be possible to provide access in the future, 

which could facilitate use. The site would provide opportunities for visitors using the Company 

Creek/Devore Trail and the Stehekin River Trail in a setting away from the noise along the main valley 

road. Camping during low water conditions could be affected by noise if the powerhouse generators were 

in use. 

Raft Takeout / Boat Access: Because of safety concerns associated with locating a large logjam adjacent 

to a takeout, no raft launch would be constructed in Alternative 3. 

Shooting Range: Because the Lower Field Reroute would not occur, as in Alternative 1, the shooting 

range could be maintained in its current location. The McGregor Meadows reroute would descend to the 

current road just before the shooting range. 

Alternative 4: Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 3. 

Trails: Actions would be the same as described in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)‖ and 

Alternative 1. The Lower Valley Trail would be able to use additional sections of the Old Wagon Road 

because the McGregor Meadows reroute would not occur. 

Raft Takeout / Boat Access: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 2. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

118 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Shooting Range: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 1. The shooting range would be 

maintained in its existing location because the Stehekin Valley Road would not be rerouted. 

5. MANAGEMENT OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS 

Alternative 1: Management of Large Woody Debris

Park Actions: The NPS would continue to implement GMP provisions related to the management of 

large woody debris. In addition NPS would continue to collect free-floating large woody debris from the 

head of Lake Chelan after flood events to prevent boating accidents and to use in erosion protection 

projects. Consistent with the GMP, limited actions would continue to be taken to trim or turn individual 

large pieces for the purpose of protecting roads and bridges. 

According to the GMP: 

The National Park Service would manipulate woody debris in the Stehekin River or its 

tributaries only to protect public roads and bridges according to the criteria above. 

Woody debris could also be trimmed or turned in the lower 9 miles of the Stehekin River 

to allow safer recreational use of the river for rafting, kayaking, and canoeing if it did not 

alter the function or stability of woody debris accumulations and was permitted by the 

appropriate regulatory agency. Woody debris would not be removed from the river 

system in any case. The Park Service would not remove or manipulate woody debris on 

public land or water to protect private property, and it would take no action to prevent 

private landowners from removing or manipulating woody debris on their land to protect 

their property, unless these actions would significantly harm recreation area resources or 

were in violation of local, state or federal ordinances, regulations or laws. Such actions 

would not be encouraged. (NPS 1995a: 21 - 22)

Lake Chelan Woody Debris Salvage: As noted in Appendix B: Draft LWD Plan of the Chelan PUD 

relicensing EIS (Chelan PUD 2002), the purpose of collecting floating large woody debris is to provide 

raw material for erosion control projects on the lake and to eliminate hazards to boats and float planes on 

Lake Chelan. These projects include use of woody debris for construction of erosion protection, as well as 

to provide mitigation for perceived impacts of construction activities. Collection is not meant to be 

comprehensive, or to wholly ensure safe boating conditions on the lake. Removal has been conducted 

since large floods in 1995 and 2003. 

Most woody debris would continue to be collected by the NPS at the head of Lake Chelan in the days 

following flood events. Some of the collected material would be stored within a log boom to be 

established west of Weaver Point, while other material could be transported directly to an erosion 

protection site or stored temporarily on the barge deck. Woody debris would be collected by NPS staff 

using a barge and hydraulic crane purchased by Chelan PUD. The Weaver Point site was agreed to by the 

NPS and permitting agencies. It is also likely that some of this material will be used at USFS sites farther 

downlake, and potentially by private parties. 

Existing criteria for woody debris suitable for collection and storage include: 

 Large pieces of wood at least 10 feet long. 

 Large pieces of wood at least 1.0 feet in diameter. 

 Large pieces of wood with root wads attached. 

 Large pieces of wood with branches. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 119 

Private Use: The NPS would continue to implement GMP guidance and to provide technical assistance to 

landowners. Per the GMP, there would be no provisions for private landowners to use large woody debris 

from the head of Lake Chelan or from the Stehekin River in Alternative 1. Private landowners, however, 

could use trees from private land for erosion control projects with a permit from appropriate agencies. To 

use logs along the river, including those in logjams or side channels, private landowners would continue 

to need permits from applicable county, state, and federal agencies. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Management of Large Woody Debris 

Park and Private Actions: Alternatives 2 - 4 would allow for minimal manipulation of woody debris to 

protect public facilities, including roads, water quality, public safety, and regular access to private 

property. In Alternatives 2 - 4 the NPS could purchase or exchange properties to minimize manipulation 

of large woody debris. As in Alternative 1, actions could also be taken to manipulate large woody debris 

that threatens public roads and bridges and to trim or turn pieces to enable recreational activities and to 

collect wood from the head of Lake Chelan. 

Unlike Alternative 1, in Alternatives 2 - 4 in select areas, and on a case-by-case basis, logs could be 

removed from the tops of logjams for use in erosion management and riparian restoration projects. In 

Alternatives 2 and 3, logs could be taken from within the Lake Chelan backwater zone, on the lower 0.25

mile of the river. In Alternative 4, the area of collection would be expanded to Bullion Camp. In all cases, 

where logs are used, they would be taken from above the ordinary high water mark and would not be 

removed if doing so would destabilize the logjam. Use of large woody debris from the tops of logjams is 

being proposed in Alternatives 2 - 4 to minimize importation of rock and fill into Stehekin and because 

the use of wood is a fish-friendly measure in barb construction and/or could be used to construct 

engineered logjams instead of barbs. 

In Alternatives 2 - 4, manipulation of logjams could occur in the mouth of the Stehekin River from Lake 

Chelan to Boulder Creek in the Lake Chelan backwater zone (from the head of the lake 0.25 mile up the 

Stehekin River), where manipulation of the lake level has been shown to influence flooding and 

deposition of gravel and wood. This area has seen major growth in the volume of woody debris since 

2000 (see Figure I-6: Stehekin River Large Wood Monitoring 1984 - 2007). A logjam in this zone could 

also be manipulated under emergency conditions if it flooded the Stehekin Valley Road or caused 

flooding of densely developed areas and threatened water quality. Manipulation would be the minimum 

needed to relieve the problem and all wood would remain within the channel migration zone. 

In Alternatives 2 - 4, landowners would also be encouraged to use large woody debris in agency permitted 

erosion protection and flood protection measures. To facilitate this, large woody debris from the tops of 

logjams or from floating Lake Chelan salvage could be made available to landowners under an NPS 

permit system. Encouraging landowners to use woody debris and use of wood from logjams would 

constitute a change to the GMP. 

Alternative 4: Management of Large Woody Debris 

Park and Private Use of Large Woody Debris: Actions would be the same as in ―Elements Common to 

Alternatives (2 - 4)‖ in this section; however, manipulation of large logjams that threaten roads or water 

quality and use of wood from the tops of logjams for erosion protection projects could occur anywhere 

along the lower Stehekin River (below the Bullion Raft Launch), instead of just up to Boulder Creek in 

the Lake Chelan backwater zone. As in ―Elements Common to All Action Alternatives (2 - 4),‖

landowners could use large woody debris in agency-permitted erosion protection and flood protection 

measures, and a limited amount of wood from floating Lake Chelan salvage or the tops of logjams would 

be made available to landowners. As in ―Elements Common to All Action Alternatives (2 - 4),‖
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

120 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

encouraging landowners to use woody debris and using wood from logjams would change existing GMP 

direction.

6. FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES

Alternative 1: Flood Protection Measures 

Actions would be the same as in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Flood Protection Measures 

Actions would be similar to Alternative 1, except for the following: 

 Land exchanges would be emphasized to avoid continuing to take actions that affect the ability of 

the Stehekin River to use its floodplain 

 The revised LPP would allow land acquisition and exchange of properties in the channel 

migration zone for properties outside of it 

 For NPS facilities that cannot be relocated out of the channel migration zone, grade-control and 

erosion protection measures, including bioengineering, would be used to protect sites 

 As in all alternatives, NPS recreational and administrative infrastructure would be removed from 

the channel migration zone to avoid impacts from flooding. 

The combined strategies of increasing floodplain utilization and removing development would increase 

the sustainability of developments in the valley more than altering the river would. Allowing water from 

large floods to spread out and occupy the floodplain would decrease the erosive potential and minimize 

the possibility for flood damage to be focused in any one area. Land exchanges would also improve water 

quality by removing structures from the floodplain and would preclude actions on private lands that 

would impede channel migration, such as the construction of additional levees. 

In Alternatives 2 - 4, actions at Boulder Creek (extension of a natural logjam over a grade-control 

structure) would also provide some protection from catastrophic river changes during floods by 

maintaining sheet flow in this low-lying floodplain. 

Alternative 4: Flood Protection Measures 

Management would be the same as in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)‖ and ―Elements 

Common to Alternatives 2 - 4‖ in this section. As in Alternative 1, raising the road grade in part of 

McGregor Meadows could increase flood protection for some private properties and worsen it for others.

7. INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

Alternative 1 

The NPS would continue to conduct existing interpretive and educational programs and activities related 

to the Stehekin River. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 121 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Interpretation and Education 

In addition to existing interpretive programming in Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 - 4 would enhance 

Stehekin River interpretive and educational programs for the general public, local residents, and media, 

with an emphasis on the value of logjams, floodplain utilization, and other key river features. 

The enhancement of interpretive and educational programming for the general public, local residents, and 

the media would include an emphasis on the value of large woody debris in the river environment, the 

role of flooding in river ecosystems, and the value of minimizing human impacts to river systems, as well 

as highlighting river processes and the sensitive and flood-prone nature of the Stehekin River. These 

programs would continue to include safety messages regarding park experiences and, where appropriate, 

related to river hazards and other visitor safety issues. 

8. RESEARCH AND MONITORING

Alternative 1 

The NPS would continue existing research and monitoring programs, focused on large woody debris, 

main and side channel habitat, hydrology, fish surveys, cultural research and analysis, nonnative/invasive 

plants, climate change effects, and special status species research. This ongoing monitoring provides a 

framework for understanding the Stehekin River including how often large floods occur (flow gauge 

monitoring). Ongoing monitoring inventories are more fully described in Chapter III: Affected 

Environment). 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Research and Monitoring 

In addition to the actions in Alternative 1, the NPS would expand research and monitoring programs in 

Alternatives 2 - 4 to determine the effectiveness/consequences of erosion protection and flood protection 

measures, document large woody debris manipulation, etc., and would add more flow gauges on the river 

pending funding (at Agnes Creek and between High Bridge and Bridge Creek). The NPS would also 

continue to conduct more comprehensive species analysis, including repeating existing wildlife 

inventories. 

Additional studies would include: 

Relative Hydrologic Influence of Agnes Creek, Upper Stehekin River, and Bridge Creek: Draining 

the drier east slope of the North Cascades, Bridge Creek is dominated mainly by spring snowmelt floods. 

In contrast, the upper Stehekin River and Agnes Creek are located much farther west on the Pacific Crest 

and have both fall-winter rain-on-snow and spring snowmelt floods. There is a need for at least one and 

possibly two gauges on the upper river to understand the contribution of each major Stehekin tributary to 

flooding in the lower valley and to provide enhanced flood forecasting and warnings. 

Up-to-date Floodplain Maps: With passage of the record floods in 1995, 2003, and 2006, the river has 

undergone several changes. Channel filling and river realignment have rendered the Federal Emergency 

Management Administration (FEMA 1981) and NPS (1993b) floodplain maps obsolete in many parts of 

the valley. As a basis for planning and future county floodplain management, the NPS and Chelan County 

are joining with Chelan PUD to create a new floodplain insurance rate map. This effort would include 

surveying of 50 or more river cross sections, development of a one-dimensional hydraulic model, and 

creation of a computer-based map. The model would also produce supporting data such as flood depth 

and velocity for the lower valley. It would also be subject to FEMA approval. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

122 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Sediment Movement: Measuring sediment discharge is difficult. Only approximate estimates for total 

sediment load exist for the Stehekin River. Areas of valley width and slope change, channel instability, 

and large wood storage zones are generally areas of rapid sediment deposition and storage in the 

floodplain. This study is proposed to refine understanding of sediment transport and storage in these 

zones, using two approaches. First, it would compare the 2007 channel topographic survey with historical

FEMA, USGS, Chelan PUD, and NPS surveys to estimate the volume of sediment deposition or erosion 

in various reaches. Chelan PUD surveys of the river mouth in 2001 (Chelan PUD 2001a) will be 

particularly useful in this comparison because they give an estimate of change induced by the big floods 

of 2003 and 2006. Second, it would identify major sources of gravel within the watershed, including 

landslides and cut banks. 

9. WEAVER POINT EROSION PROTECTION 

MEASURES 

Elements Common to Alternatives 1 and 2: 

Weaver Point

As described in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 

- 4),‖ the NPS would relocate shoreline campsites and the 

docks to minimize the need to take erosion protection 

actions along the right bank (facing downstream) of the 

Stehekin River, where erosion has recently accelerated. 

Weaver Point improvements indentified in the FERC would 

be common to all alternatives. 

No additional NPS actions would be taken on the east side 

of Weaver Point upstream of the cabled logs. River-caused 

erosion would likely proceed naturally, possibly threatening the upper end of the cabled logs. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 3 and 4: Weaver Point 

Pending completion of the FERC cultural resource site 

management plan by Chelan PUD, the proposed FERC 200-

foot-long logjam on the south-facing side of the point would be 

extended approximately another 150 feet upstream to slow 

riverbank and lake wave erosion. The engineered logjam would 

be constructed using an excavator and thumb (see sidebar 

―Bank Barb Construction‖ and Figures II-9, II-10, and II-11), 

and would include placement of about 150 logs. The design 

would include bank excavation and require the use of 10 - 20 

cubic yards of large rock and cables for anchors. The bank 

above the logjam would be revegetated with native plants. 

Once erosion protection measures were complete, the docks 

would be relocated to the west. In addition, two to three rock 

barbs and bioengineering would be used to stabilize the bank 

and to protect the nearest campsite from future erosion.

Weaver Point 

Background: Weaver Point improvements identified 

in the FERC relicensing EIS for Lake Chelan include 

erosion control, recreation, and cultural resource 

projects (Chelan PUD 2002). The erosion control plan 

includes construction of a 200-foot-long logjam to 

protect the bank and 260 feet of rock walls to protect 

dock bulkheads on the south shore of Weaver Point.

Although there are gentle slopes, wave and river 

erosion have produced an eroding bluff at the east 

end of the site and a 5-foot-tall bluff at the west end.

At the east end of the site, vegetation was historically 

removed for agricultural use.

Parts of the east end of the site are protected by a 

series of cabled logs that have worked well to slow 

erosion. This would be enhanced by construction of 

the FERC logjam. Walls made of imported rock would 

also be constructed near the docks.

Bank Barb Construction

Bank barbs would be constructed using an 

excavator with a thumb attachment, working “in 

the dry” from the bank when the river and/or lake 

are at low water in early spring or fall. Each bank 

barb includes approximately 100 cubic yards of 

rock and/or logs, a portion of which would be 

placed landward of the shoreline to allow the barb 

to “„key” into the bank and to prevent the river 

from eroding around the structure. The instream

part of the barb would have a low profile that 

tapers into the channel, which would be

completely submerged by flows over 5,000 cfs. 

The bank barbs would be approximately 20 feet 

long, and would protrude no more than 1/4 of the 

way across the low-flow channel to avoid creating 

too much turbulence (see Figure II-10: Barb 

Construction Detail).
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 123 

Figure II-9: Weaver Point Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 3 - 4 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

124 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-10: Barb Construction Detail 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 125 

Figure II-11: Bioengineering Construction Detail 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

126 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The rock barbs would be located along the left bank (looking downstream) of the mouth of the Stehekin 

River. Combined with placement of an engineered logjam (150 feet × 6 feet × 6 feet), an area 

approximately 130 feet by 6 feet (780 square feet, or 0.02 acre) would be restored with willows. In 

addition, riparian restoration would affect an area of approximately 400 feet by 20 feet (8,000 square feet, 

or 0.18 acre). Construction of the rock barbs could require that the docks be moved to the west, and 

pilings replaced with submerged anchors. 

Photo 12 – Rock Barb and Willow Layers (Bioengineering) on Upper Company Creek Road Shortly 

after Installation 

10. STEHEKIN RIVER MOUTH EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES 

Alternative 1: Stehekin River Mouth 

No action would be taken in Alternative 1 to restore the rip-rap bank or to prevent the river from cutting a 

new path on NPS land above the mouth of the Stehekin River. Along the River Resort Road, the Stehekin 

River is migrating rapidly into its northeast or left bank (facing downstream). At this location, the 

Stehekin River has the potential to cut a new channel across the access road toward the Stehekin Valley 

Road, where it could reconnect with old channels and affect a densely developed area, causing 

unacceptable water quality impacts in the low-lying Stehekin River and Lake Chelan. If this new channel 

formed, however, the river would not be expected to immediately affect the Stehekin Valley Road or 

other NPS infrastructure but would be anticipated to affect it over time. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 127 

Photo 13 – Bank Erosion at Weaver Point— Erosion at Site is Mainly Caused by the River when 

the Lake is Drawn Down, but Waves on the Lakeshore are also a Factor 

Alternative 2: Stehekin River Mouth 

In Alternatives 2 and 4, approximately 500 feet along the bank of the Stehekin River would be treated 

with several erosion protection measures, including a small logjam (100 feet × 6 feet × 6 feet) with about 

50 logs, three rock barbs, and bioengineering. These actions would enhance habitat by replacing 

approximately 100 feet of rip-rap placed after the 1982 flood on NPS land with bioengineering and large 

woody debris; would prevent potential channel avulsion; would allow for the construction of a raft 

takeout (see ―4. Recreational Facilities‖); and would restore natural vegetation to this eroding bank 

(Figure II-12: Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4). To avoid 

impacts to private land from a new public access point, a 300-foot-long access road would be built off of 

the Stehekin Valley Road. The new portion of the route to the take-out would follow an old disturbed 

road bed. 

Alternative 3: Stehekin River Mouth 

In Alternative 3, a large engineered logjam (approximately 500 feet × 15 feet × 15 feet) consisting of 

several hundred logs would be designed to slow bank erosion. The design would include features to 

minimize hazards to boaters. Final design would be approved in consultation with a consortium of river 

rafting guides in a process developed by King County. The logjam would also be used to replace the riprap on federal land. The design would include use of about 50 cubic yards of large rock for anchors and 

revegetation of areas above and between logs (Figure II-13: Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection 

Measures under Alternative 3).
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

128 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-12: Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 4 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 129 

Figure II-13: Stehekin River Mouth Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

130 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 4: Stehekin River Mouth 

Actions would be the same as in Alternative 2.

11. STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD EROSION PROTECTION MEASURES 

a. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 2.0 (Boulder Creek) 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 2.0 (Boulder Creek) 

The Stehekin Valley Road near the bakery would be repaired as needed following flood damage. During 

recent flooding in 2003 and 2006, the Stehekin River flowed overland in the vicinity of the developed 

area near the bakery, including near NPS and private housing (Figure II-14: Stehekin River Mouth / 

Milepost 2.0, Boulder Creek). Damage to the internal developed roads and Stehekin Valley Road has been 

minor, but these overland flows have the potential to consolidate into ever-deepening and faster channels. 

Unlike sheet flow, these channels can cause major damage to roads and development. In this alternative, 

no major actions would be taken to prevent the channelization of overland flow; however, if damage to 

the Stehekin Valley Road occurred, it would be repaired as needed. 

Although NPS action would only be taken if the road needed repair following flooding, area residents 

would be encouraged to protect their property from flooding by using measures advocated by the Army 

Corps of Engineers ―Advanced Flood Protection Measures‖ memo (see ―B. Actions Common to All 

Alternatives [1 - 4]‖ above and Appendix 7). 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 2.0 (Boulder 

Creek) 

In Alternatives 2 - 4, the natural logjam at this location would be extended on top of the bank and into the 

forest over a grade-control structure (avulsion sill) constructed beneath it. 

Approximately 150 yards below the confluence of Boulder Creek and the Stehekin River, the river has a 

very low left bank (Figure II-15: Boulder Creek Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4). 

When water levels are high, water flows over the bank and travels along a low-lying area across the road 

and under several cabins before returning to Silver Bay (Chelan County 2007). This results in the 

scouring and/or deposition of material along the road near the Bakery Corner in this location. Past events 

have required the removal and/or replacement of fill within the road corridor. 

A logjam (200 feet × 5 feet × 3 feet) containing approximately 50 large logs would be constructed along 

the streambank in the forest. It would extend off of an existing natural logjam and would be underlain by 

a sill of rock (grade-control structure) designed to prevent a major stream channel shift into the densely 

developed area near the bakery that would also affect the Stehekin Valley Road. The grade-control 

structure (200 feet × 6 feet × 3 feet) would extend away from the river into the forest and tie into the 

Boulder Creek alluvial fan (the total area affected would be about 600 square feet, or 0.01 acre). 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 131 

Figure II-14: Stehekin River Mouth / Milepost 2.0, Boulder Creek 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

132 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-15: Boulder Creek Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 133 

The logjam and avulsion sill are intended to slow floodwater heading to the Stehekin Valley Road and 

NPS housing, but would also steer head-cutting and floodwaters away from other densely populated areas 

nearby. The logjam would slow floodwater from where the confluence of Boulder Creek and the Stehekin 

River are combining to flow overland through the forest toward the Bakery area developments, including 

toward NPS and private housing and the Stehekin Valley Road. River processes here are unnaturally 

influenced by the Lake Chelan backwater zone, which extends 0.25 mile upstream from the lake and is 

thought to raise water levels about 6 inches during a 100 year flood (Chelan PUD 2000). 

b. Stehekin Valley Road Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture Restoration 

Alternative 1: Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture 

There would be no changes to this area, where bank erosion is occurring (see Figure II-16: River Channel 

Changes at Buckner Hayfield 1988 - 2009). Ongoing erosion would likely continue and would eventually 

need to be treated. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture 

Native vegetation would be planted to slow bank erosion along the Stehekin River near the Buckner 

Homestead hayfield and pasture. The left bank (facing downstream) of the Stehekin River is eroding 

rapidly as the river moves into its left (east) bank. Low-growing grasses and other forbs are not enough to 

protect this sandy bank in the absence of riparian trees and shrubs, which were removed long ago to 

create the pasture. In addition to the riparian revegetation, as appropriate, additional plantings would 

transition away from the river to the pasture. 

Three hundred linear feet of bank would be planted with native shrubs and trees, including cottonwood, 

alder, and red osier dogwood. Oceanspray, wild rose, and snowberry could be planted at the top. The 

plantings would extend back from the bank for about 30 feet. Small log structures and bioengineering 

would also be used to slow bank erosion. 

c. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) 

There would be no changes to this area, where the Stehekin River is undercutting a low terrace between 

the road and the river. Ongoing erosion would likely continue and would eventually need to be treated. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 3.8 (Frog 

Island)

As the Stehekin River migrates into its left bank toward the road, it is undercutting a low terrace between 

the road and the river and is currently within 20 feet of the Stehekin Valley Road. 

To slow continuing erosion of the bank, dogwood cuttings were planted, but the river has continued to 

undermine the bank. Under Alternative 2 (one to two rock barbs) and 4 (two rock barbs), and 

bioengineering, and anchored logs would be installed to slow bank erosion (Figure II-17: Milepost 3.8 

(Frog Island) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4).
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

134 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-16: River Channel Changes at Buckner Hayfield 1988 - 2009
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 135 

Figure II-17: Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

136 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Construction of the bank barbs would be the same as described above for Weaver Point. Up to an 

additional 50 cubic yards of rock and large logs (with root wads attached for stability) would be placed 

between the barbs, at the toe of the bank. About five to six large trees would be anchored with duckbilltype steel anchors and rock along approximately 100 feet of the bank and partly buried. Holes or weak 

points would be fortified with additional rock or logs. No large (greater than 8 inches in diameter) living 

trees or riparian vegetation would be disturbed during construction, although some forbs and shrubs 

would be removed to accommodate the work. 

Alternative 3: Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) 

Under Alternative 3, a moderately sized engineered logjam (200 feet × 6 feet × 5 feet) would be 

constructed to stabilize the bank adjacent to the road (rather than using rock barbs, as in Alternatives 2 

and 4) (see Figure II-18: Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3). 

As in the proposed logjam for Alternative 3 near the mouth of the Stehekin River, final design would be 

approved in consultation with a consortium of river rafting guides in a process developed by King 

County. The logjam would be keyed into the bank by burying several logs and using large rocks to fill in 

gaps and to anchor logs placed perpendicular to the banks. Construction would occur from the road 

shoulder and would require vegetation to anchor logs. Plants salvaged from the construction area would 

be used in revegetation following construction. 

d. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) 

As described in Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4), the slope along the road would be regraded 

for approximately 400 feet and the roadbed would be lowered 10 feet and moved laterally 15 feet into the 

hillside. These actions would also involve installing two new 60-inch culverts and a new ditch. If the road 

becomes undermined, the road would be rebuilt in place. 

In addition, in Alternative 1, the design from the Road Improvement Project would be installed to 

stabilize the riverbank. The design includes placement of clusters of rip-rap near the toe of the slope and 

installation of log-cribbing in the mid-slope area. The amount of rip-rap required would be about 100 

cubic yards, and 10 - 15 large logs would be used for the cribbing. Construction would be from the base 

of the slope and would likely require access across private land downstream, including an easement or 

purchase. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 5.3 (Wilson 

Creek) 

Instead of the rip-rap and log-cribbing in Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 4 would construct two to three 

rock barbs and revegetate the slope with willow layering (see Figure II-19: Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) 

Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 4). Some rock could be placed in select areas to 

supplement natural bank armoring. 

Alternative 3: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) 

Construct a moderately-sized engineered logjam (400 feet × 6 feet × 10 feet) using approximately 300 

logs (see Figure II-20: Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3). As 

in other logjam designs, final design would be approved in consultation with river rafting guides. The log 

structure would be keyed into the bank by burying several logs and using large rocks to fill in gaps and to 

anchor logs, with cables connecting logs. Construction access would be the same as in Alternative 1.
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 137 

Figure II-18: Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

138 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-19: Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 4 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 139 

Figure II-20: Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) Erosion Protection Measures under Alternative 3 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

140 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

e. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 7.0 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 7.0 

The three grade-control structures installed after 2006 flooding would continue to be maintained in this 

alternative. These structures are in place to prevent the river from following the road through McGregor 

Meadows. If the river flowed down the road into McGregor Meadows, it could cause flooding of private 

development there, contributing to adverse effects on the Stehekin River from release of contaminants 

from septic system drain fields and from other potentially harmful contaminants located within potentially 

flooded developed areas. Road flooding would also preclude vehicle access to campgrounds, trails, and 

private residences upvalley.

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 3: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 7.0 

The grade-control structures would be maintained to protect the McGregor Meadows Access Road, even 

though the Stehekin Valley Road (reroute) would bypass this area. The access road into McGregor 

Meadows up to Milepost 6.5 would continue to be used and restored following flood events. Although it 

would periodically be affected by debris from flooding and would be subject to closure during flooding, it 

would continue to be maintained to Milepost 6.5 as long as the need for private access to McGregor 

Meadows continued. 

Alternative 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 7.0 

Actions would be the same as in Alternative 1, plus two rock barbs would be constructed to protect this 

portion of the Stehekin Valley Road. 

f. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 7.3 to 7.4 (Lower Field) 

Alternative 1: Lower Field 

The Stehekin Valley Road would remain along the edge of the Lower Field. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Lower Field 

Riparian restoration would be implemented along a 30-foot-wide strip, approximately 200 feet long, 

beginning from the Stehekin River bank and continuing back toward the road. Approximately 15,840 

square feet (0.36 acre) would be restored with native vegetation, including seeding and planting. Large 

logs would be anchored to the bank to slow erosion until vegetation became established. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 3 and 4: Lower Field 

In addition to the riparian restoration described above, two rock barbs and bioengineering would be added 

to maintain the adjacent Stehekin Valley Road alignment along the Lower Field. The rock barbs and 

bioengineering would increase bank stability in this area, an action needed because the reroute would not 

continue around Lower Field (Alternative 3) and because Alternative 4 would not have a reroute. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 141 

g. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 7.8 (Thimbleberry Creek) 

Alternative 1: Thimbleberry Creek 

The road would be raised slightly and the 72-inch Thimbleberry Creek culvert and two new 48-inch 

culverts would be retained. Debris racks on the culverts would minimize their filling with sediment.

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Thimbleberry Creek 

The road would be raised slightly and the Thimbleberry Creek culverts would be replaced, with the 72-

inch culvert and the twin 48-inch culverts each being replaced with a 60-inch culvert. A ditch would then 

be excavated to connect the two new culverts. Debris racks on the culverts would minimize their filling 

with sediment. 

h. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 8.0 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 8.0

At Milepost 8.0 the Stehekin Valley Road is cut into a 50-foot-tall, steep, unstable slope along the edge of 

a glacial moraine studded with large boulders. Large rocks and debris frequently fall down this slope onto 

the road, creating a safety hazard and recurring road maintenance problem. In Alternative 1, ongoing 

monitoring of the steep, unstable slope adjacent to the road would continue. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 8.0 

In Alternatives 2 - 4, slope stabilization in this area would occur. In addition to maintaining existing barbs 

and bioengineering on the river side of the road, the raveling slope above the road would be stabilized by 

regrading portions of the steepest upper part (approximately the top one fourth to one third of the slope, in 

some places to a depth of 10 feet) to an angle of less than 40 degrees. Large rocks on the slope would be 

scaled off (removed) and the slope would be planted with native shrubs. A rock wall (100 - 150 feet long 

and 3 - 8 feet high) would also be added at the base of the slope. In addition, some rip-rap could be placed 

in the upper, finer-grained portion of the road embankment. As noted earlier, if the road is undermined 

further, it would be rebuilt in place (see ―D. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed‖). (This 

would minimize or avoid impacts to northern spotted owls and to cultural resources, including Stehekin 

Wagon Road segments potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.)

i. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 8.5 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 8.5 

As described in the Road Improvement Project, the existing culvert would be realigned to meet an 

unnamed creek where it comes down off the hillside, rather than forcing it parallel to the road (at a 90 

degree angle to the culvert) and then under the road. The unnamed creek is located near the Stehekin 

Valley Ranch and hits the road at a right angle before turning and flowing west, parallel to the road, in a 

constructed ditch, where it is forced by adjacent boulders to turn 90 degrees into a culvert. Because of the 

angle where the creek meets the road, large quantities of sand and gravel plug the culvert and cause water 

to flow over the road, depositing debris on the roadway (NPS 2005a:24). Under Alternative 1, the culvert 

would be moved downvalley so that the creek flows directly under the road without making two 90-

degree turns. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

142 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 - 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 8.5

The misaligned culvert would be replaced with a low-water crossing (approximately 34 feet long) over 

the road where the creek flows off the hillside, so that the creek would be aligned with the construction of 

the low-water crossing (Figure II-22: Low-Water Plank Crossing). This would direct flow over the road 

into the Stehekin River without impacting the road shoulder or road base or continuing to modify the 

creek channel. 

j. Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 9.2 

Alternative 1: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 9.2

Following rapid bank erosion just upstream during the 2006 flood, two grade-control structures were 

installed where the road meets the river. In summer 2009, a storm cell dropped a significant amount of 

rain over the area and caused a debris flow, which rerouted the creek onto the road. Water followed the 

road to the Stehekin Valley Ranch, depositing silt and sand on the private pastureland and the road. 

In Alternative 1, ongoing monitoring of the threats to Stehekin Valley Road would continue, and existing 

grade-control structures that limit the potential for water to create a channel in the road corridor would be 

maintained. No action would be taken to address seasonal flooding. Ponding of water on the roadway 

would continue.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 9.2 

Actions would be the same as in ―B. Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4).‖ In addition, in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, 300 - 400 feet of the Stehekin Valley Road would be elevated 3 feet above grade (it 

is now 1 foot below grade). This would require about 500 cubic yards of clean fill. Another 50 cubic 

yards of fill would be used to construct a new parking area on the east side of the road to accommodate 10 

passenger vehicles (or 5 passenger vehicles and a bus). A 2- to 3-foot-deep ditch dug along the road 

above the parking area would direct water to a culvert and new concrete plank low-water crossing 

(approximately 34 feet long) (see Figure II-23: Milepost 9.2 Erosion Protection Measures under 

Alternatives 2 and 3). 

Alternative 4: Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 9.2 

In addition to actions described in Alternatives 2 - 3, three rock barbs and bioengineering would be 

constructed just upstream of Milepost 9.2. The rock barbs and bioengineering would limit additional loss 

of land between the road and the river. 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 143 

Figure II-21: Milepost 8.5 Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 - 4 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

144 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure II-22: Low Water Plank Crossing 
C. Description of Differences among Alternatives 1 - 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 145 

Figure II-23: Milepost 9.2 Erosion Protection Measures under Alternatives 2 and 3 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

146 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

D. ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 

Under the NEPA, (40 CFR 1504.14 (a)), alternatives may be eliminated from detailed study based on the 

following reasons: 

 Technical or economic infeasibility; 

 Inability to meet project objectives or resolve need for the project; 

 Duplication of other less environmentally damaging alternatives; 

 Conflicts with an up-to-date valid plan, statement of purpose and significance, or other policy; 

and therefore, would require a major change in that plan or policy to implement; and 

 Environmental impacts too great. 

The following alternatives or variations were considered during the design phase of the project, but 

because they met one or more of the above criteria, they were rejected. 

Allow use of the Airstrip for Exchange to Relocate Private Property Outside of the 

Floodplain. 

This action conflicts with the following GMP provision: 

The airstrip would be retained and operated under a special use permit with the 

Washington State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, for 

noncommercial public use on a ―use at your own risk‖ basis. (NPS 1995a:33) 

The airstrip area was also designated in the GMP as the location for the relocated maintenance compound 

/ housing area. 

Implement Additional Flood Protection (Bank-Hardening) Measures, such as Riprap or Levees, along the Banks of the Stehekin River to Prevent Flooding. 

Additional rip-rap was considered but rejected in favor of bank barbs and engineered logjams because 

 Rip-rap is known to have substantial adverse impacts to riparian areas and stream banks. 

 Rip-rap is expensive because rock has to be imported into the Stehekin Valley. 

 Rip-rap would cause greater increases in the percent of riverbank modification (channelization of 

the river) compared to rock barbs or logjams. 

 Rip-rap can increase accelerate erosion downstream. 

 NPS and GMP management direction is to avoid hard armoring of riverbanks. NPS has 

successfully avoided use of large amounts of rip-rap in favor of using rock barbs, large wood, and 

bioengineering. 

 Rip-rap would not meet the GMP goal of maintaining the river in its natural state as much as 

possible (NPS 2005a).
D. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 147 

Implement Additional Erosion Protection Measures at Buckner Homestead Hayfield 

and Pasture. 

The proposed riparian restoration at this location is likely to slow erosion of the bank. Additional erosion 

protection measures could be considered later if warranted. 

Exchange Lands to Allow Private Landowners to Establish or Maintain Flood / 

Erosion Protection. 

This strategy was initially considered under the following scenario: Allow exchange of the affected parcel 

under specific conditions, including when (1) no development would be permitted, (2) beneficial erosion 

control measures would be implemented, and (3) the exchanged property had limited resource value and 

the acquired property had high resource value. It was rejected because it blurs the line between the NPS 

allowing actions on its own property to protect private property, as specifically prohibited by the GMP 

and generally by NPS policy. Further, NPS is prohibited from exchanging land that has always been in 

federal ownership. 

Take Action as Part of the Plan Solely to Protect Private Property. 

The NPS is prohibited from expending funds solely to protect private property. Actions that protect NPS 

administrative facilities and infrastructure may, however, have the inadvertent and indirect benefits of 

also protecting private property. Other federal agencies, such as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, 

have the authority to spend public funds to protect private interests, but the NPS does not have this 

authority.

Reroute the Stehekin Valley Road at Milepost 8.0. 

This action was considered but rejected based on the following reasons: (1) upland impacts would be 

great, (2) the area has been stabilized by recent implementation of erosion protection measures, (3) there 

would be unacceptable cultural resources impacts (affecting the integrity of what remains of a historic 

dry-laid rock wall along the Old Wagon Road [determined eligible for the National Register]), (4) the 

reroute would affect a large area of northern spotted owl habitat and would therefore have high resource 

cost, (5) to reroute at this location would conflict with decisions made in previous planning documents, 

and (6) the reroute could require a very expensive rock wall and major blasting in bedrock (NPS 2008a). 

Reestablish the Southside Stehekin Valley Road along the Company Creek Road 

Alignment, including Constructing a New Bridge. 

This action was considered but rejected for the following reasons: (1) the Company Creek Road would 

have to be widened considerably to accommodate sight distance needs, (2) the road alignment would 

continue to be subject to more flooding than the existing Stehekin Valley Road, (3) it would be very 

expensive to construct a second bridge, (4) there would be impacts to floodplain from fill needed in 

Lower Field to reach the bridge, and (5) there are no official easements in place for maintaining a road 

corridor through this area. If the road were widened, there would be no room for snow storage. Recent 

flooding has inundated much of the road at lower magnitudes than affect the Stehekin Valley Road, 

including the area between Harlequin Bridge and the current maintenance compound and after the road 

passes through the Company Creek alluvial fan (NPS 2008a). 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

148 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The Scope of the Plan should Include the Entire Stehekin River Watershed, 

Including the Area above High Bridge. 

Areas above High Bridge are primarily located in wilderness, and there are limited actions that could be 

taken without altering the wilderness character or boundary. In addition, the Agnes Creek watershed 

represents about one-third of the Stehekin Basin and is managed by the USFS. The scope of the SRCIP 

was limited to focus on the problems caused by the 2003 and 2006 floods in the lower valley and to the 

Lower Stehekin Valley below High Bridge, where private property is threatened by flooding. Since the 

floor of the lower valley below High Bridge is outside of designated wilderness, the NPS has more 

options to relocate roads and facilities, to exchange lands, and to construct erosion protection measures. 

Sediment and Large Woody Debris Sources above High Bridge and/or in the 

Whole Stehekin Watershed should Be Evaluated for Treatment. 

The NPS assessed a number of features across the watershed, including landforms, such as landslides, 

river canyons, alluvial fans, etc. The gauging station also integrates runoff from the entire watershed, and 

wood and gravel movement to, and storage within, the lower valley are a result of integrated watershed 

processes. Sources of gravel include landslides, river cut banks, alluvial fans, debris cones, and hundreds 

of other features. Most of the upper Stehekin River watershed is designated wilderness, where any largescale erosion protection treatment would not only be extremely difficult to achieve, but would employ 

management actions not permitted in wilderness. 

The Stehekin River should Be Contained within a Channel to Reduce Flooding of 

Private Property and Public Facilities. 

Containing the Stehekin River within a channel would not conform to NPS Management Policies 2006

(NPS 2006a), which advocates allowing rivers to migrate naturally within their floodplain. Trying to keep 

the river from occupying parts of its floodplain would likely only be a temporary solution given the 

massive amounts of water, gravel, and wood that this mountain river transports. As a result, this action 

would be unlikely to be funded by NPS. Such an approach would adversely affect private land, public 

facilities, and ecological values and would be of questionable benefit over the medium to long term. 

The Plan should Include Actions that Would Resolve Issues in the Whole Lower 

Valley. 

While the plan does address issues related to flooding of public and private property in the Stehekin 

corridor in many areas, it cannot solve all the flooding problems in the lower Stehekin Valley, particularly 

since flooding is getting worse. This alternative is beyond the scope of funding and NPS Management 

Policies. 

The Goal of the Plan Should Be to Allow Natural Processes to Occur Unimpeded 

so that Natural Flooding Can Continue to Occur without Regard to Its Effect on 

Facilities and Private Property. 

In establishing Lake Chelan NRA, Congress recognized the significance of the Stehekin Community, 

which plays a central role in enabling recreational use of the area. The NPS is in a unique position to 

foster sustainable management strategies for the Stehekin Valley because it manages and most of the land 

in lower valley. Because the Stehekin River flows through a mix of public and private land, it is not 

possible to allow natural processes to continue wholly unimpeded. Frequent flooding and occasional 

destruction of cabins and inundation of drain fields and septic tanks represent serious threats to water 
D. Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 149 

quality, the ecological integrity of the river, and scenic values. Further, incorporation of glass, metal, 

plastic, and other debris from development into the river system causes long-term damage to natural and 

cultural resources values. The enabling legislation for Lake Chelan NRA recognizes that people will 

continue to live and work within the recreation area. Nonetheless, NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 

2006a) directs the NPS to allow natural processes to occur to the extent possible. Allowing the Stehekin 

River to migrate naturally within its floodplain is, in fact, one of the goals of the SRCIP. While this may 

be difficult to achieve throughout the valley given the way in which public and private property 

intertwine, it is one of the constraints within which the NPS must continue to work. Focusing on the goal 

of removing development from the channel migration zone will achieve the purpose of allowing the river 

to migrate as naturally as possible within its floodplain. Ignoring the public and private facilities that do 

exist would have adverse effects on both Lake Chelan NRA and the Stehekin Community. 

Plan Alternatives Should Include Consideration of Rerouting the Company Creek 

Road.

Rerouting the Company Creek Road was considered and dismissed in the 1995 GMP. As a result, 

additional analysis of this issue was considered but dismissed as part of this planning effort. The intent of 

the SRCIP is to implement, rather than amend, the GMP. Rerouting the road would result in significant 

disturbance of previously undisturbed areas, particularly when considering the need for private access off 

the Company Creek Road. NPS actions in the past 15 years have increased bank stabilization along the 

road. Relocation of the road could also leave private landowners to seek their own solutions to bank 

erosion. 

 Excess Materials, including Large Woody Debris and Excavated Gravel, Generated by the 

Plan Should Be Used for Other Public and Private Projects in Stehekin. 

 Use Suitable Gravel for Projects in the Valley Instead of Importing Materials at High Cost. 

 Pile Burning or Consumptive Use of Large Woody Debris Generated by the Plan Should Be 

Considered. 

 The Plan Should Consider Changes to the Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan to Allow Use of 

Gravel Generated by Plan Actions. 

NPS Management Policies have very strict guidelines regarding the consumptive use of recreation area 

resources. Consumptive uses of resources in Stehekin have previously been addressed by the Sand, Rock, 

and Gravel Plan and other plans, such as the Fire Management Plan (NPS 1995e). 

No changes to the Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan are needed to allow the use of materials generated by the 

proposed alternatives. To the extent possible, the proposed road improvement projects in Stehekin would 

balance cut and fill materials to avoid the importation of large amounts of similar materials. In some 

alternative actions gravel would need to be imported because of the unsuitability of material produced by 

the Company Creek Pit and because the amount of material needed would exceed the amount specified by 

the Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan. In this plan, some material identified as excess and unsuitable for park 

needs would be used. 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

150 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The SRCIP addresses changes in the management of large woody debris; however, continuing to retain 

that large woody debris as part of the valuable aquatic resource that it is in the Stehekin River system is 

one of the basic tenets of the proposal. Removing large amounts of woody debris or rock from the 

Stehekin River for consumptive uses outside the channel migration zone would adversely affect these and 

other recreation area resources. Some materials from the Company Creek Pit now considered reject rock, 

because of size, would likely be used for proposed work in this plan. 

 Gravel Removal Should Be Used Instead of Land Exchanges. 

 Dredging Should Be Part of the Plan As Long As It Is Done in a Way that Minimizes 

Impacts. 

Removal of gravel from the floodplain of the Stehekin River would be an expensive and long-term 

undertaking. While selective gravel removal is one potential way to manage the Stehekin River over the 

short term, it generally does not conform to NPS Management Policies 2006 or represent a fiscally or 

ecologically sustainable option due to the amount of gravel. The cost of this action, in terms of dollars and 

ecological values or associated with private land and public facilities is prohibitive. For example, the 

ACOE and the NPS estimate that to remove about 50,000 cubic yards of gravel from two 1-kilometerlong stretches of the river would cost an estimated $12 million (see Appendix 18: Estimates of Gravel 

Accumulation in Two Reaches of the Stehekin River). This would then need to be periodically repeated to 

remove gravel the river would move back in. At the McGregor Meadows Reach, it is estimated that 

150,000 cubic yards of gravel have been deposited since the mid-1980s, making continued removal both 

costly and ineffective. It is also unclear how it could be undertaken based on initial analysis of the 

magnitude of gravel removal that would need to be repeated over time. At the Stehekin River mouth, 

repeated channel surveys indicate that gravel is being transported into Lake Chelan. The most effective 

flood-control action in this area would likely be to have Lake Chelan drawn down during potential 

seasonal flooding and the flooding to flush gravel into the deepest part of the lake. If NPS decided to 

remove gravel from the Stehekin River channel, and the permitting agencies approved it, removal from 

the river bed could only occur when gravel bars are exposed during late summer low-flow periods. This 

coincides with the primary visitor use season and the process would be highly disruptive to those visiting 

the Stehekin Valley. 

Reroute the Stehekin Valley Road at Milepost 9.2. 

Although a reroute was initially considered at Milepost 9.2, this idea was discarded in favor of an 

alternative that would have many fewer impacts and still solve the problem of periodic water flow across 

the road (constructing a concrete plank crossing). 

Relocate the Shooting Range in Alternative 2. 

Relocating the shooting range would not conform to current NPS management direction for removing 

these facilities from NPS units. Environmental concerns, such as lead contamination, introduced by 

shooting ranges in units of the national park system, are considered inconsistent with the purposes of the 

parks. 

E. MITIGATION MEASURES

See individual environmental impact analysis sections under Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

and Appendix 6: Summary of Mitigation Measures. 
F. Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 151 

F. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

Implementing regulations for NEPA promulgated by the CEQ require that agencies identify ―the 

alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable.‖ ―Environmentally 

preferable‖ is defined as the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed 

in Section 101 of NEPA, including: 

 Fulfilling the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

 Ensuring for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; 

 Attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of 

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 

 Preserving important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintaining, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual 

choice; 

 Achieving a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 

 Enhancing the quality of renewable resources and approaching the maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources. (NEPA Section 101(b)) 

The environmentally preferable alternative is ―the alternative that causes the least damage to the 

biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources (46 FR 18026 - 18038). According to Director’s Order 

12, through identification of the environmentally preferred alternative, the NPS and the public are faced 

with determining the relative merits of the choices before them as represented among the alternatives and 

must clearly state through the decision-making process what values and policies were used in reaching a 

decision. As shown through the analysis below, the environmentally preferable alternative is 

Alternative 2.

Fulfilling the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations: All Alternatives (1 - 4) would fulfill this CEQ criterion because the NPS is required by law 

and policy to minimize its impacts on the environment and to preserve natural, cultural, and other park 

resources without impairment of its management of National Parks, including Lake Chelan NRA. Of the 

alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest new impacts on recreation area resources, while 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the fewest impacts on the floodplain / channel migration zone of the 

Stehekin River. Alternatives 2 and 3 also represent more sustainable, long-term solutions to current 

issues. Alternatives 2 - 4 would improve existing adverse impacts to water resources by removing 

development from both the floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. Because 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would employ fewer erosion protection structures and would reroute the road away 

from the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River instead of continuing to add structures 

to harden the banks of the river, Alternatives 2 and 3 would best meet CEQ criterion 1.

Ensuring for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings: Alternatives 2 - 4 would meet this CEQ criterion by minimizing impacts through 

implementation of mitigation measures, including impact avoidance and best management practices. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would improve safety for employees, residents, and visitors to Lake Chelan NRA by 

relocating part of the road out of the floodplain / channel migration zone. Alternative 3, however, would 
Chapter II: Management Alternatives 

152 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

have a shorter reroute and would remain partially within the floodplain / channel migration zone. 

Therefore, Alternative 2 would best meet this criterion. 

Attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health 

or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences: Beneficial uses in all alternatives would 

include ongoing residential, resource preservation, and recreational uses of the lower Stehekin Valley. 

Recreational uses would be broadest in Alternative 4, while protection of the Stehekin River floodplain / 

channel migration zone would be greatest in Alternative 2. Alternatives 2 - 4 would also increase the 

diversity of recreational experiences through new campgrounds (Alternatives 2 - 4) and a new raft takeout 

(Alternatives 2 and 4). The fewest new short-term impacts to existing resources would occur in 

Alternative 1. Safety improvements associated with the Stehekin Valley Road would occur in all 

alternatives. As noted above, Alternatives 2 and 3 would also have the greatest safety improvements from 

relocation of part of the Stehekin Valley Road out of floodplain. Overall, Alternative 2 best meets this 

criterion. 

Preserving important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintaining, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual 

choice: Although all alternatives would preserve historic and cultural resources, enhancement through 

interpretation would occur in Alternatives 2 - 4, which would best meet this criterion. None of the 

alternatives would affect portions of the Old Wagon Road eligible for the National Register. 

Achieving a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities: The LPP revision implemented in Alternatives 2 - 4 would meet 

this CEQ criterion, because it would reduce the number of acres available for land exchanges and remove 

some sensitive lands still available in Alternative 1. Among Alternatives 2 - 4, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

best meet this criterion because their intent is to remove development that is adversely affecting or could 

adversely affect the Stehekin River and its floodplain, but also its channel floodplain, but also its channel 

migration zone. They also would remove a portion of the Stehekin Valley Road within the floodplain / 

channel migration zone to higher ground. Private developments now threatened by the changing flood 

regime on the Stehekin River would be identified as high priority for exchange or acquisition, thereby 

allowing affected property owners a means to avoid future flooding impacts if they so choose. 

Enhancing the quality of renewable resources and approaching the maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources: All Alternatives (1 - 4) would best meet this CEQ criterion because of the 

removal of the current maintenance facility and NPS housing from the floodplain and construction of new 

maintenance facility and housing on disturbed lands near the Stehekin Airstrip. These facilities would 

meet standards for LEED certification. Of these alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3 would offer a slight 

advantage for this criterion because they would employ the least amount of imported resources, relying 

instead on the reuse of materials from within the proposed reroute areas. 
CHAPTER III:

Affected Environment

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 155 

CHAPTER III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter provides information about the Lake Chelan NRA environment, focusing on those resources 

that could be affected by the actions in the alternatives. 

Among the resources included are land use, air quality, geologic hazards, soils, water resources (including 

hydrology and streamflow, water quality, floodplains, and wetlands), vegetation, wildlife, special status 

wildlife, archeological resources, cultural landscapes, visitor experience (including access and 

transportation, interpretation and education, visitor use opportunities, safety, and scenic resources), Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, park operations, socioeconomics, hazardous materials, and the following three topics 

required in environmental impact statements: unavoidable adverse impacts, relationship between shortterm use of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources. 

A. INTRODUCTION 

―Affected Environment‖ describes the resources of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (Lake Chelan 

NRA), including those resources that are part of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex, that 

could be affected by implementation of the alternatives. The resource descriptions below serve as a 

baseline from which to compare the environmental effects, or impacts, of the management actions 

considered in this plan. The organization of this chapter is similar to the organization of the 

―Environmental Consequences‖ chapter. 

B. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED RESOURCES 

1. LAND USE 

The Stehekin Community is characterized by dispersed, low-density development, with higher-density 

clusters located at McGregor Meadows, along the Company Creek Road, and around the head of Lake 

Chelan. Development generally does not line the Stehekin Valley Road, rather it extends back from it, 

away from most areas seen by recreation area visitors (NPS 1995c:7). Of the federal lands, 50 acres were 

identified as available for exchange based on the 1995 Land Protection Plan (LPP). 

Table III-1: Land Ownership Changes in Lake Chelan NRA 1995 - 2010 compares landownership in Lake 

Chelan NRA between 1995 (when the LPP was written) and in 2008 upon embarking on this plan: 

Table III-1: Land Ownership Changes in Lake Chelan NRA 1995 - 2010

Owner 1995 Acres 2010 Acres

Federal (NPS and BLM) 59,307.22 59,337.01

State (submerged lands) 2,020.00 1,994.43

Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan 

PUD) #1

249.43 198.94

Stehekin School District 3.20 3.20

Private 459.28 417.47

Note: The above numbers are the same as those contained in the 1995 and revised draft LPP.

Land use within the Stehekin Valley includes undeveloped federal and private land, agriculture land, rural 

residential private land, and some densely developed federal and private land. Other land uses include 

maintenance of the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, some irrigated gardens, pastures and 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

156 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

corrals, lands used for recreation (camping and hiking), and (as noted above), school district and Chelan 

PUD lands. 

Human disturbance in the Stehekin Valley has been extensive. It includes selective and clear-cut logging, 

and clearing for development and agriculture, including National Park Service (NPS) administrative and 

private residential development. Recreation facilities include trails, bridges, camps, and a visitor center. 

Sixteen gravel pits were identified in the General Management Plan (GMP), but only the Company Creek 

Pit is active today. There are two main roads, with the Stehekin Valley Road extending 12 miles from 

Lake Chelan. The Company Creek Road extends from Harlequin Bridge for 3 miles up the west side of 

the valley. Lake Chelan floods the lower mile of the valley. The Silver Bay development is built on fill 

along the Stehekin River and Lake Chelan. An estimated 283 acres of land have been affected by 

development. This represents about 11.1 percent of the 2,543 acres in the lower valley not in wilderness 

(at the 1,640-foot contour). Approximately 188 acres of the developed land (66 percent) is within the 

riparian zone (NPS 1995a:184 and 187). An additional 1,400 acres of the valley have been impacted by 

the removal of snags and downed logs for firewood, for a total of 1,683 acres directly affected by human 

activities. If areas with past logging are added to this disturbance, approximately 2,253 acres, or 88 

percent, of the Stehekin Valley has been directly or indirectly affected by human activities (NPS 

1995a:187). These areas are slowly recovering and most are now second-growth forest. 

Photo 14 – Beaver Activity in Riparian Zone near Buckner Rock 
2. Air Quality 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 157 

Stehekin River Floodplain Development 

Because development is generally limited to the relatively flat floor of the valley, much of it has occurred 

within the Stehekin River floodplain. The Stehekin Valley Road traverses the 100-year and 500-year 

floodplain in numerous locations (including at Mileposts 7.0 and 8.0 and McGregor Meadows) (see 

Figure II-5: McGregor Meadows Reroute Map). Numerous private homes and some administrative 

facilities are located within the 100-year floodplain / channel migration zone. 

Only in a few areas, where development occupies old river terraces or higher parts of alluvial fans, is it 

likely to be safe from flooding. Elsewhere, various riverine processes such as bank erosion, sediment 

deposition, periodic channel shifts, and swift water during floods will continue to cause the river to 

change shape and location as it flows toward Lake Chelan. For approximately 3 miles of its 12-mile 

length through the lower Stehekin Valley, the Stehekin Valley Road is directly adjacent to the river or 

within its 100-year floodplain. These 3 miles and other locations on the Stehekin Valley Road are also 

within the Stehekin River ―channel migration zone.‖ This is the area within which the Stehekin River has 

historically migrated during the last 1,000 years. 

Stehekin Valley locations available for development are limited due to the steep valley walls and 

relatively confined nature of the valley. Ongoing threats to development include relatively rapid bank 

erosion, sediment deposition, periodic channel shifts, and swift water velocities. Floodplain conditions are 

summarized in Appendix 17: Draft Floodplains Statement of Findings, but along the road at McGregor 

Meadows and upper Company Creek, flood events that occur every few years can make the road 

impassible (see Appendix 17). Due to the recent changes in the floodplain and river channel process, 

floods occur more frequently at lower discharges at McGregor Meadows (Riedel 2004). 

2. AIR QUALITY 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Lake Chelan NRA is in a class II area, while surrounding North Cascades 

National Park and Glacier Peak Wilderness are class I areas. Although valley air quality is generally 

good, it is affected by pollutant discharges within and outside the Stehekin Valley. The area is fewer than 

90 miles from the Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia metropolitan areas. Prevailing 

wind patterns can bring pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other 

metals as well as particulates into the area, where they are trapped by mountain valleys and concentrated 

in snowfall at high elevations. Pollution sources west of the watershed include automobiles, refineries, 

smelters, incinerators, power plants, and forest fires. These pollutants can cause impacts such as reduced 

visibility and acid rain (which may affect forest productivity, degrade surface water quality, affect 

amphibian reproduction, and cause damage to metal and painted surfaces). Recent analysis of snowpack 

indicates that pesticides from orchards in the Methow and Columbia valleys are being transported to the 

upper reaches of the Stehekin River watershed. Recent research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

has documented elevated levels of mercury and organochlorine compounds in fish tissues from the park’s 

high-elevation lakes. Additional work is planned to determine the source of these contaminants (NPS 

2009). 

Pollutants from within the Stehekin Valley include negligible to minor emissions from auto exhaust, 

moderate localized outputs from diesel-powered generators at the valley’s small hydroelectric plant, 

particulate emissions related to travel by residents and visitors on numerous unpaved roads, and emissions 

from wood and pellet heating devices. Intermittent wildfires and prescribed burns and dust from the 

exposed mudflats at the head of Lake Chelan in spring can also degrade air quality. 

The North Cascades National Park Service Complex is considered within an attainment zone for all 

ambient air quality standards. Air quality is very good, although it is periodically affected by the above-
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

158 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

named sources of pollutants. Impacts to air quality, including smoke from nearby fires, usually dissipates 

rapidly with wind from the west, but lingers if winds are from the east, if there is a temperature inversion, 

or if there is no wind. Air quality-related values include human health, visitor enjoyment, scenic vistas, 

and the preservation of natural systems and cultural resources. 

Deterioration of pristine air quality in the Complex is likely due to prevailing westerly winds that carry 

vehicle emissions and industrial and large urban area pollutants from Puget Lowland, and marine 

pollutants from the Puget Sound. Recent research also indicates that polluted air from Asia is transported 

across the Pacific Ocean and deposited in the Cascade Mountains, including the Stehekin Watershed. 

Currently, only visibility and acid rain are being monitored. Visibility cameras have recorded the presence 

of airborne particulate matter. A webcam view of the Picket Range from the North Cascades Visitor 

Center gives an hourly (real-time) perspective on visibility. 

3. GEOLOGY 

The northern portion of the Cascade Range is one of the youngest mountain ranges in the world, with 

dramatic geologic events continuing to occur, including active shaping and carving of the land by 

glaciers, water, and gravity. Approximately 316 glaciers cover about 30 square miles in the North 

Cascades NPS Complex. 

The Stehekin River Valley is a classic example of a U-shaped glacial trough, formed during multiple ice 

ages. It is deeply incised into resistant bedrock, with steep valley walls that carry snow avalanches and 

debris torrents. The valley floor is broad and flat, and reaches 1.8 miles in width at the head of Lake 

Chelan. Narrow winding river canyons characterize lower Agnes and Bridge creeks and the Stehekin 

River from High Bridge to Park Creek. The summit of McGregor Mountain, at 8,122 feet above mean sea 

level (amsl), stands nearly 7,000 feet above the lower Stehekin Valley, east of High Bridge (NPS 2005b). 

The Stehekin Valley is located in the Chelan Mountains terrane, an area bounded by faults that has a 

distinct bedrock geology and history from adjacent areas. This terrane contains rocks that originated both 

from the ocean and from volcanic activity. Through intense heat and pressure (metamorphosis) these 

former oceanic rocks have recrystallized into the metamorphic Skagit Gneiss, which is the primary 

bedrock in Lake Chelan NRA. Sedimentary and volcanic rocks were also metamorphosed into mica 

schists. In many places these older metamorphic rocks were intruded by younger granite. 

The Stehekin Valley is carved out of the Skagit Gneiss complex, known as the crystalline core of the 

North Cascades. These quartz- and feldspar-rich rock types provide abundant amounts of sand and gravel 

to the Stehekin River system. Relief within the watershed varies from 9,511 feet amsl at Bonanza Peak to 

a low of 350 feet below mean sea level in Lake Chelan, making the valley one of the deepest gorges in the 

world. Ice age glaciers created most of this relief by erosion of hard crystalline rocks. 

Although the valley walls of the lower Stehekin were over-steepened by glaciers, the competency of 

Skagit Gneiss has allowed the remarkable development of the Lake Chelan basin. Thirteen large 

landslides have been mapped by the NPS in the entire Stehekin watershed within North Cascades 

National Park and Lake Chelan NRA. Eight of these landslides have delivered sediment directly to major 

tributaries of the Stehekin River. However, the Agnes Creek watershed has not been examined for mass 

movements to date. 

The trend of the Stehekin River follows the northwest-southeast alignment of most major faults and 

valleys in the region. However, geologist do not think the Stehekin River exploited this structural grain, 

rather it is thought that the Stehekin River was superimposed on the crystalline core of the range as the 

North Cascades were uplifted. 
3. Geology 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 159 

Below High Bridge, the Stehekin River and Agnes Creek emerge from deep box canyons into the broad 

lower Stehekin Valley (Figure III-1: Stehekin River Watershed and Figure III-2: Lower Stehekin Valley 

Landforms above Harlequin Bridge). This part of the valley was glaciated by both alpine glaciers and the 

massive Cordilleran Ice Sheet. During multiple ice ages these glaciers created the valley’s characteristic 

U shape, straight profile, and flat valley floor. On the southwest side of the valley, glaciers from the last 

ice age left a long, lateral moraine feature 14,000 years ago that can be traced from the Stehekin Valley 

Ranch to the Orchard (Figure III-2). 

As they flowed down the Lake Chelan trough and encountered weaker bedrock, the glaciers eroded the 

floor of the lake valley to a depth more than 2,000 feet below mean sea level. The modern floor of Lake 

Chelan is covered in a blanket of glacial sediment 1,700 feet thick, which thins to a few hundred feet 

where the Stehekin River meets the lake. Thus, the bedrock floor of Lake Chelan is about 2,000 feet 

below mean sea level. 

The Stehekin River channel in the lower valley above the orchard is incised 10 - 15 feet within sand and 

gravel terraces. Extensive alluvial fans deposited by major tributaries Company, Boulder, and Rainbow 

Creeks define the area in which the Stehekin River has meandered. The alluvial fans themselves have 

older upper terrace surfaces that have presumably not been affected by flooding for a very long time, and 

represent appropriate sites for development to avoid flooding from the river or its tributaries. 

The fan terraces grade to elevations more than 20 feet above the modern floodplain, when the level of 

Lake Chelan was higher following the end of the last ice age. Thus, base level for the lower Stehekin 

Valley decreased until 1902, when Chelan PUD raised the level of the lake 20 feet with a hydroelectric 

dam. The backwater effect of the lake is discussed below. The base level of the river above Buckner 

Homestead hayfield and pasture may be bedrock controlled. The river channel at this site is currently 

superimposed across a bedrock valley spur known as Buckner Rock (Figure III-3: Lower Stehekin Valley 

Landforms below Harlequin Bridge).

At the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago, Lake Chelan covered the lower valley to High 

Bridge and had a surface elevation near 1,700 feet. Erosion at the south end of the lake at the outlet 

lowered the lake surface to about 1,200 feet by 9,000 years ago. Below the orchard, the lower valley is 

underlain by a thick silt and clay layer that represents the former bed of Lake Chelan. Evidence uncovered 

by the NPS indicates that the Stehekin River met Lake Chelan just below Buckner Homestead hayfield 

and pasture 9,000 years ago. NPS tract #05-107 cabins sit on a layer of thick gravel over fine sand and silt 

that was the river delta at that time. Downvalley of the delta deposit, the silt and clay from deeper parts of 

the former lake bed are exposed near the surface in low-lying areas near the river, and at depths of 25 - 30 

feet, as documented in well logs from sites on the Boulder Creek and Rainbow Creek fans. The presence 

of this layer probably limits stream gradient in the lower valley. 

There is a pronounced asymmetry in the geomorphology of the lower Stehekin Valley due to the extreme 

northeast-southwest faces of the valley walls (Figure III-3: Lower Stehekin Valley Landforms below 

Harlequin Bridge). The hot, dry north side (southwest facing) of the valley is characterized by steep 

streams that are known to carry debris flows to the valley floor. The small, steep streams are also prone to 

flooding caused by isolated summer thunderstorms. In contrast, forest cover is thicker on the northeast 

facing side of the valley, and runoff is generally less flashy. 

While the North Cascades mountains continue to rise, earthquakes in the area are infrequent. The largest 

event on record was the 1872 earthquake. Although the epicenter of this event is unknown, it is believed 

to have occurred somewhere near Chelan (Baukun et al. 2002). Smaller quakes occur on the order of one 

every few decades, with the most recent an earthquake in January 2007 in the Bridge Creek Watershed. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

160 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure III-1: Stehekin River Watershed 

(Note location of stream gauge above Lake Chelan) 
3. Geology 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 161 

Figure III-2: Lower Stehekin Valley Landforms above Harlequin Bridge 

(Note the orange colored alluvial fans built by tributary streams and purple colored terraces above the floodplain) 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

162 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure III-3: Lower Stehekin Valley Landforms below Harlequin Bridge 
4. Soils 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 163 

4. SOILS 

Uplift and metamorphism of the North Cascades and repeated, intense glaciation during ice ages have 

created the topography of the Stehekin Valley. Several very active processes continue to shape the 

landscape, including glaciation, landslides, and flooding. Major soil orders in the valley include Entisols, 

Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Andisols. Soils in the Stehekin Valley are generally fairly young, shallow, and 

coarse grained, having developed from sand and gravel deposited by streams, glaciers, and gravity. They 

also lack cohesion and, if sandy, are prone to rapid rates of erosion and resistant to compaction. Entisols 

(young, poorly developed soils) may support plant growth, but have little horizon development. 

Inceptisols have some subsoil development but are generally noncohesive (loose, with little clay), subject 

to rapid rates of erosion, and low in organic matter. Spodosols occur on older stable landforms at higher 

elevations. Andisols form in soils with high amounts of volcanic ash. They are fine grained, and prone to 

rapid erosion (NPS 2005b). 

The steep valley walls are covered with varying amounts of glacial sediment, talus, bare rock, colluvial 

(slope) deposits, and volcanic ash. Most soils are Entisols and Andisols, although some flat bedrock 

benches can have soil crusts. The Stehekin River is largely responsible for the distribution of soil types on 

the valley floor. The movement of the river and its tributaries erodes and deposits sediment, creating 

floodplains and terraces. The age, texture, and topography of these features characterize the type of soil 

development. Most soils in the floodplain are Entisols and Inceptisols, but their sensitivity to disturbance 

varies widely. 

Soils previously identified in the valley include the Stapaloop and Goddard series. These Entisols formed 

in recent Stehekin River and large tributary deposits. Stapaloop series soils are very deep, well-drained 

soils formed in old flood deposits in forests and can have a component of loess and volcanic ash in the 

surface (NPS 2005b). 

5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 

Geologic hazards present in the Stehekin Valley include those associated with flooding along the Stehekin 

River and debris torrents on tributary streams. When these streams reach the flat floor of Stehekin Valley, 

they deposit ―debris cones.‖ Alluvial fans form where larger tributaries meet the Stehekin, but these 

landforms are not as hazardous as debris cones. In general, debris cones can be distinguished by having 

slopes greater than 10 degrees, while alluvial fans have slopes less than 5 degrees. Steep slopes contribute 

to snow avalanche and rockfall hazards. Instability of unconsolidated glacial and valley wall deposits 

occurs where they are undercut by the river. 

Debris cones form over time by the rapid mass movement of boulders, mud, and trees during heavy rain, 

and especially where landslides or fire have removed vegetation in the upper portion of a steep stream 

channel. Wilson Creek is an example of an active debris torrent system, when debris has been recently 

transported down a steep, straight valley and a deep river canyon, to the valley bottom. In contrast, larger 

Boulder, Rainbow, and Company creeks have formed alluvial fan deposits where they reach the flat 

valley floor. Several factors influence the activity of debris torrents, including slope, faults, or bedrock 

weakness and vegetation disturbance. 

Similar to river channels, alluvial fans have a migration zone, in which the stream is most active. The 

unstable areas of the major alluvial fan terraces (Boulder, Company, and Rainbow Creeks) have been 

identified. Older portions of these fans are more stable than the fan migration zone and have been 

identified in the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan action alternatives and revised LPP (NPS 

1995b) as suitable for relocation of some development out of the floodplain. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

164 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Snow avalanches and rock falls are common along the steep walls of the Stehekin Valley and off the 

unstable edges of river or glacial terraces. Talus slopes, such as the one near Harlequin Bridge, are 

actively accumulating rocks from cliffs above. 

Potential geologic hazards within the Stehekin Valley exist at the following locations within the proposed 

project area: 

 Alongside steep valley slopes on the edge of the moraine at McGregor Meadows 

 Rock falls at Milepost 8.0, where the Stehekin Valley Road cuts across a glacial moraine studded 

with boulders 

 Rock fall hazards off the steep valley side walls in Alternatives 2 and 3 along the reroute, at Frog 

Island, and along the lakeshore 

 Debris cones along the reroute proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 and at Wilson Creek 

 Existing portions of the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road along the main channel 

and in the lowest parts of the floodplain. 

6. WATER RESOURCES 

Note: See also Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action, ―Background‖ section 

Overview 

The Stehekin River is the focal point of Lake Chelan NRA. The river drains 220,000 acres (344 square 

miles) of mostly public and undeveloped land in the rugged Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, Lake Chelan 

NRA, and North Cascades National Park. Most of the watershed is comprised of designated wilderness. 

Major tributaries to the Stehekin include Bridge Creek, Agnes Creek, Company Creek, Rainbow Creek, 

and Boulder Creek (Riedel 2007) (Figure III-1: Stehekin River Watershed). 

The Stehekin River’s headwaters rise from glaciers located along the Pacific Crest of the Cascade Range. 

Approximately 103 small glaciers cover about 3 percent of the watershed, but provide as much as 15 

percent of runoff during the dry summer months, or 21 billion gallons (Post et al. 1971). Most glacial 

meltwater comes from the mainstem Stehekin River and Agnes Creek, which contains the largest glacier 

in the watershed (1.8 square miles), the Chickamin Glacier (Riedel 2007). 

Because the river’s headwaters originate near Cascade Pass along the Pacific Crest, it receives the heavy 

precipitation characteristic of the west side of the Cascades. Steep slopes, a dense network of steep 

tributary streams, the location of the river’s headwaters along the Pacific Crest, and the circular shape of 

the watershed contribute to the frequent and rapid rise of floodwaters in the lower valley. 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 165 

Photo 15 – Deep pool on Stehekin River at Buckner Rock 

a. Climate 

The Stehekin watershed climate varies by elevation and distance from the Pacific Crest. The North 

Cascades create a strong rain shadow on the leeward (east) side of the range. The Stehekin Valley climate 

is generally characterized as continental, with cold, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Prevailing westerly 

winds bring a steady winter flow of storms and precipitation from the Pacific Ocean (see Table III-2: 

Stehekin Average Temperature and Precipitation). High-elevation headwater areas along the crest receive 

about 150 inches of precipitation a year, including approximately 20 - 30 feet of snowfall. At the opposite 

extreme, at the low-elevation eastern end of the watershed in Stehekin, annual rainfall is about 35 inches. 

Most of the precipitation within the watershed falls as snow between November and March, with average 

annual snowfall at Stehekin 10.3 feet. 

Table III-2: Stehekin Average Temperature and Precipitation 

Measurement Minimum Maximum

Extreme annual temperature (2 years in 10) −6°F 100°F

Average daily winter temperature range 24.6°F 35.4°F

Average daily summer temperature range 50.8°F 79.4°F

Extreme annual precipitation (2 years in 10) 24.0 in. 42.7 in.

Average annual monthly precipitation range 0.5 in. (Jul) 6.6 in. (Dec)

Source: NPS 1995a:200
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

166 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Lake Chelan is a natural lake, 50 miles long and 1,500 feet deep, with a variable width of about 1.2 miles. 

The upper 4 miles of Lake Chelan are in Lake Chelan NRA. The dam raised the water level in the lake by 

21 feet, giving it a full-pool surface elevation of approximately 1,100 feet amsl. Even without the dam 

impoundment, Lake Chelan is one of the deepest lakes in North America. Lake levels fluctuate 

seasonally, with an average drawdown of 18 feet by late winter / early spring to accommodate snowmelt 

for hydropower generation. Full pool usually occurs in late July (NPS 2008b:151). A 2001 study indicates 

that at full pool, Lake Chelan’s backwater effect extends at least 0.25 mile upstream (Chelan PUD 

2001b). 

b. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics 

Floods can occur at several times a year on the 

Stehekin River. Summer flooding occurs during 

thunderstorms and associated periods of intense 

rainfall. These floods usually affect small areas. 

Spring floods occur in May or June during peak 

snowmelt. The magnitude of these floods varies, 

depending on the depth of winter snowpack and 

spring weather (precipitation, freezing level, and 

temperature). Spring floods can persist for weeks, 

with river level fluctuating in response to daily cycles 

of snowmelt. Fall and early winter floods are larger 

than spring floods, but usually pass within a few 

days. These occur during heavy rainfall and are 

usually associated with unusually warm temperatures 

(high-elevation freezing levels) and a preexisting 

snowpack (rain-on-snow events) (NPS 2008b:152). 

The geology and shape of the Stehekin River 

watershed contributes to the valley’s frequent and 

large floods (see Figure I-7: Magnitude and Timing 

of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River). 

Resistant bedrock, steep slopes, and a well-developed 

drainage network feed rain and snowmelt water 

rapidly to trunk streams. The three main branches of 

the Stehekin River join within 5 miles, bringing 

floodwaters together in deep bedrock canyons that 

deliver the floods rapidly to the lower valley, along 

with large amounts of gravel and large woody debris. 

The floods of 1995, 2003, and 2006 were fall rain-onsnow floods. Unlike the 1995 and 2006 events, which 

took weeks to build, the 2003 event happened in 10 

days and occurred early in the flood season, on 

October 20.

Like their drier eastside counterparts, the Stehekin River and its tributaries also flood during periods of 

rapid snowmelt in May and June. The fourth-largest flood on record was a spring flood that occurred in 

1948, with a peak discharge of 18,900 cubic feet per second (cfs). The largest spring floods occur when 

an above-average snowpack persists late into the spring and is melted rapidly by high temperatures. The 

RIVER CHARACTERISTICS

Main Channel: The channel currently occupied by the main 

body of a river, with the fastest, deepest water.

Side Channel: Channels peripheral to the main channel that 

may or may not have flowing water in them at all times. Side 

channels can also be abandoned main channels.

Reach: The length of a stream channel that is uniform with 

respect to discharge, depth, area, and slope; also the length 

of a stream between two defined stations.

Gradient: Degree of inclination of the part of the earth‟s 

surface; steepness of slope. Gradient may be expressed as 

a fraction, ratio, percentage, or angle.

Sinuosity: A quantifiable value to measure the degree to 

which a river channel meanders. 

Bankfull Stage: The elevation of the water surface of a 

stream flowing at channel capacity.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES

Alluvial fan: A gently sloping deposit of sand and gravel left 

by a stream. Viewed from above, it has the shape of a fan. 

Debris Cone: A deposit with a shape like a fan, steeper 

than an alluvial fan, that is formed by active debris torrents 

and flooding. 

Lateral Moraine: A low ridge deposited along a mountain 

glacier, composed of a wide range of material from silt to 

large boulders. 

CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS

Substrate: Gravel and cobbles on the bed of a stream that 

provide habitat for some organisms. 

Riffle: Part of a stream where water flows over a gravel bar, 

with gradients usually between 1 percent and 3.5 percent. 

Pools: Deep sections of a river channel between riffles and 

near logjams or larger rocks, with gradients usually under 1 

percent. Pools are important habitat for river life during 

storm events.
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 167 

average spring flood on the Stehekin River is about 9,000 cfs. The large 1997 spring flood had several 

peaks above 10,000 cfs and persisted into July. 

Eastern Stehekin River tributaries (the sources of which are mainly east of the Pacific Crest), including 

Bridge, Rainbow, and Boulder creeks, are currently dominated by spring snowmelt floods. In fact, none 

of these tributaries underwent substantial flooding in 1995, 2003, or 2006, and the flood of record for 

these streams remains the spring 1948 event. Current weather patterns appear to have moved the Stehekin 

River’s flood hydrology toward smaller spring snowmelt floods and larger, more frequent fall rain-onsnow floods. 

Small, steep, first- and second-order tributaries in the valley are prone to flash flooding in summers as a 

result of intense convective precipitation. Those streams in southwest-facing valleys in the lower Stehekin 

Valley are particularly prone to debris torrents triggered by heavy rainfall. 

Flood Magnitude and Frequency 

The Stehekin River has been gauged almost continuously since 1911 by the USGS (#12451000). The 

flood history on the river contains both fall rain-on-snow and spring snowmelt floods. Until 1995, the 

largest flood on record was the 1948 spring event, and six of the seven largest floods occurred during the 

spring. On November 29, 1995, a flood equaling the 1948 event passed down the Stehekin River. It was 

followed by large spring floods in 1997 and 1999, and two large fall floods in October 2003 and 

November 2006. 

The 2003 event had a peak discharge of 25,600 cfs, and is estimated to have only a 1 in 500 chance of 

occurring in any given year (see Table III-3: Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Flood 

Frequency and Magnitude on the Stehekin River). It is by far the largest flood on record for the Stehekin 

River, with a discharge about 30 percent greater than any other large flood since 1911. The 2003 flood 

was not the flood of record on the adjacent Skagit, Methow, or Entiat Rivers, underscoring the floodprone nature of the Stehekin River. 

Table III-3: Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating Flood Frequency and Magnitude on the 

Stehekin River 

Recurrence Interval

(probability in given 

year)

Discharge (cfs) for

Combined Fall and Spring 

Floods (85 events)

Discharge (cfs) for

Spring Floods Alone

(70 events)

Discharge (cfs) for

Fall Floods 

Alone(16 events)

10 years (0.1) 14,950 13,740 21,360 cfs

20 years (0.04) 17,560 15,100 26,220 cfs

50 years (0.02) 19,490 16,190 29,850 cfs

100 years (0.01) 21,400 17,910 33,490 cfs

Note: This approach is used to analyze flood records with mixed fall and spring floods.

Given the narrow box canyons on lower Stehekin River and Agnes Creek, it is possible that failure of a 

temporary debris dam in the canyons led to the high peak discharge. Review of available satellite Landsat 

images and inspection of the Stehekin River canyon above High Bridge did not reveal any evidence of a 

temporary dam. However, undercutting of a 50-foot-tall bank 4 miles above High Bridge and evidence of 

very high water near Tumwater Bridge 2 miles downstream may support the inference of a debris dam. 

A research project written for the relicensing of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project has added some 

perspective to understanding Stehekin River hydrology. In 1999 Bob Jarret of the USGS estimated the 

largest possible flood on the Stehekin River at 36,000 cfs, considerately larger than the 2003 event. This 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

168 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

estimate, however, is based on geologic data and should be considered a first-order estimate. Further, it is 

possible that a flood of this magnitude occurred many thousands of years ago under different climatic 

conditions, or that it was related to a debris dam burst event. The other large floods on the Stehekin River 

since 1911 are given in Table III-4: Chronology and Features of the 10 Largest Floods on the Stehekin 

River. This table also shows the likely reoccurrence interval of these floods based on data recorded at the 

gauge between 1911 and 1917 and 1927 and 2007. 

Table III-4: Chronology and Features of the 10 Largest Floods on the Stehekin River 

Date Flood Type Discharge (cfs) Recurrence Interval 

October 20, 2003 Intense rainfall and rain on snow 25,600 (estimated) Probability 0.01

November 29, 1995 Rain on snow 20,900 100 years 

November 07, 2006 Rain on snow 19,100 100 years 

May 29, 1948 Snowmelt 18,900 100 years 

November 07, 1948 Rain on snow 18,400 Probability 0.02 - 0.04 

December 26, 1980 Rain on snow 17,300 Probability 0.02 

June 16, 1974 Snowmelt 16,600 Probability 0.04 

November 24, 1990 Rain on snow 14,700 10 years 

June 02, 1968 Snowmelt 14,400 10 years 

June 10, 1972 Snowmelt 14,400 10 years 

June 21, 1967 Snowmelt 13,900 Probability 0.1 

Passage of the large floods in 1995, 2003, and 2006 has shifted the magnitude-frequency relationship 

toward larger, more frequent floods. This coincides with a general shift in the late 1970s from a spring 

snowmelt-dominated system to one dominated by fall and early winter rain-on-snow flooding (see Figure 

I-7: Magnitude and Timing of the Annual Peak Flood on the Stehekin River). The shift to a fall rain-onsnow-dominated flood regime on the Stehekin River means that events like those in 1995 and 2006 may 

be typical for this system in the foreseeable future. Jarret (1999) noted that probable maximum floods on 

west-slope Cascade streams are larger than their eastside counterparts. How far the Stehekin River 

watershed moves toward a west-slope-type flood system remains to be seen. Considering the flood-prone 

nature of the Stehekin system, a shift toward larger, more frequent fall flooding, and channel changes 

caused by the three large recent fall floods underscores the need for careful land use planning. 

Stehekin River Floodplain and Channel Migration Zone 

Floodplains are a very important component of a river. They slow and disperse the energy of floodwaters, 

providing diverse habitat for wildlife and plants that thrive on flood disturbance. Large woody debris and 

variably textured river sediment collects in floodplains, increasing biodiversity. As described in the Lake 

Chelan NRA GMP/EIS (NPS 1995a), the floodplain performs several important functions, including (1) 

conveying and storing floodwater, (2) storing river sediment, (3) supporting a variety of plants that 

provide food and habitat to a rich diversity of wildlife species (large floods may scour out an area 

exposing spawning gravels for fish, or conversely may pile up logs and woody debris and form a logjam 

that becomes cover for fish and other wildlife), and (4) groundwater recharge. 

The Stehekin River’s floodplain and existing and former flood channels comprise much of the valley 

floor. The 100-year floodplain of the Stehekin Valley has been mapped by FEMA and later by the NPS 

based on a one-dimensional hydraulic model (Riedel 1993 Stehekin Floodplain Mapping Project NPS 

1993b) (Figure III-4: Channel Migration Zone in the Lower Stehekin Valley). Over time, the river has 

occupied most of the valley floor, defining the channel migration zone, although tributary alluvial fans 

and terraces stand above the modern floodplain. 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 169 

Figure III-4: Channel Migration Zone in the Lower Stehekin Valley 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

170 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Movement of the Stehekin River across its floodplain will continue to occur, with the passage of floods 

and the temporary storage of gravel and large wood causes the river to change course. The pattern of 

depositional (unstable) and transport (stable) zones is clear in the landforms maps, and is confined in the 

gravel and large wood surveys described below. It is a natural occurrence for the river to produce flows 

that cannot be contained within its stream channel. During flood events, the river jumps out of its channel 

and flows relatively slowly at shallow depths through the floodplain. Large floods, sediment movement, 

and the presence of semi-stable large woody debris make the channel and floodplain ever-changing. 

River channel patterns in the lower Stehekin Valley are variable. The Stehekin River is generally a single 

channel with stable side channels and islands. In some places it becomes wider and can have multiple 

braided channels, or wide meanders. Areas of sediment storage in the lower valley are marked by channel 

instability and wide floodplains. These deposition zones occur at McGregor Meadows where the valley 

width increases threefold, where the river meets the lake, and between the alluvial fans. Between 

deposition zones, the floodplain and river channel are relatively narrowed on the upstream edge of the 

three alluvial fans. Within these areas the channel is stable, and there is relatively little storage of wood, 

gravel, or water within these transport zones. 

For the period of record, mean monthly low flows (i.e., base flow) ranged from approximately 400 to 

600 cfs. During summer, glacial melt buffers what would otherwise be lower flows for the Stehekin 

River. 

The estimated discharge of flooding has been calculated for the Stehekin River for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 

500-year floods. Frequency estimates are based on the log-Pearson Type III analysis by the USGS Water 

Resources Division (NPS 2005). Recent flooding on the Stehekin River has caused major changes in the 

river channel and its floodplain. Flooding of some areas is now occurring during lower flow conditions 

because of where the river is located in the floodplain and because of gravel accumulation in the channel. 

Ongoing bank erosion, as the river occupies new or former parts of its floodplain, as well as periodic mass 

wasting events (landslides) and loss of portions of the Stehekin Valley Road have contributed to this 

naturally high sediment load. 

Sediment Movement and Storage 

The annual total sediment load that the Stehekin River has been estimated to carry is approximately 

25,000 cubic yards per year. The amount and size of material carried by the Stehekin River varies 

considerably. Massive quantities of small boulders are carried in some river reaches during floods, while 

the river transports little sediment during low-flow periods. During floods, the river moves large 

quantities of gravel in waves. 

While modern glaciers cover but a small fraction of the Stehekin watershed, extensive deposits were left 

by ice age glaciers between 30,000 and 12,000 years ago. These deposits are as much as several hundred 

feet deep in the wide, upper parts of the watershed. Some of these deposits are perched adjacent to the 

channel and active floodplain. Together with gravel produced by steep tributary streams and landslides, 

the glacial gravels introduced by bank erosion during modern floods contribute to the gravel load of the 

Stehekin River and river channel instability in the lower valley. Identified large glacial gravel sources 

include the Shady Slide 1 mile below the mouth of Bridge Creek and the Cottonwood Terrace 8 miles 

above Bridge Creek. With the exception of numerous river-cut banks in the lower valley below High 

Bridge, all of the major gravel sources are in designated wilderness. The load of the Stehekin River 

undergoes a dramatic transition in the lower valley, changing from cobbles and boulders near McGregor 

Meadows to pebbles, gravel, and sand within 8 miles, at its margin with Lake Chelan. 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 171 

Sediment transported through the bedrock-walled Stehekin and Agnes gorges above High Bridge is stored 

at various points in the lower valley. Major points of deposition include areas where valley width 

increases, such as McGregor Meadows, and between the large alluvial fans of Company, Boulder, and 

Rainbow Creeks. In the McGregor Meadows area above the logjam, it is estimated at about 44,000 cubic 

yards of gravel were deposited by floods between 1986 and 2007 (see Appendix 18: Estimates of Gravel 

Accumulation in Two Reaches of the Stehekin River). Another major sediment deposition / storage point 

is where the river enters the slack-waters of the lake. 

Changes in the size of the gravel mirror changes in the gradient of the channel profile. At its confluence 

with Agnes Creek, the Stehekin River gradient is about 80 feet per mile. Above McGregor Meadows, the 

river moves cobbles and small boulders along its bed, and its gradient is approximately 50 feet per mile 

(1 percent). By the time it reaches Lake Chelan, 7 miles downriver, the gradient decreases to about 25 feet 

per mile (0.5 percent) and the bed load is sand and pebble gravel. Within straight, narrow reaches in the 

lower valley, including between river kilometers 2 - 3, 6 - 7, and 11 - 12, the Stehekin transports clasts 

with median diameters of 38 - 64 inches. These areas correspond with the more stable channel zones 

described above and the wood transportation zones discussed below, while areas of smaller-diameter 

gravels correspond with areas of increased floodplain and channel width and wood storage zones. At finer 

scales of resolution, pockets of sand are found in pools and near logjams. 

Large bed load, rapid sediment movement during floods, and rapid changes in stream capacity to move 

material of different sizes create instability in the deposition zones of the lower Stehekin River channel. 

Often, coarse material deposited during a large flood is abandoned by the river as it erodes into finergrained material. Coarse gravel deposits often form the core of a building river terrace. This often leads to 

bank erosion in reaches that are characterized primarily by channel deposition. 

Several studies have attempted to estimate the amount of sediment that the Stehekin River moves 

annually. In a survey of sites in the upper Columbia River basin of Washington State, Nelson (1974) 

estimated annual suspended sediment load on the Stehekin River (silt, clay, and fine sand) at 19,400 cubic 

yards per year, which was comparable to the Methow River near Pateros. Nelson measured suspended 

load concentration as high as 22 milligrams/liter during a 7,000 cfs flow event on the Stehekin River in 

June of 1970; however, he did not attempt to measure the total load of the river (bed load and suspended 

load). 

In 1999, the NPS used growth of the delta from Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture to the Landing 

over a 9,000-year period to estimate mean annual total sediment yield at 25,000 cubic yards. This 

estimate does not include silt and clay carried deeper into Lake Chelan and not deposited on the prograding delta. Considering the indirect method of measurement used by the NPS, the 25,000 cubic yard 

per year estimate should be viewed as a first-order approximation. Whether the actual value is 

significantly lower or higher, the amount of sediment the Stehekin River moves is impressive, and 

comparable to other large rivers in the Pacific Northwest (Table III-5: Comparison of Stehekin River 

Sediment Yield). 

The bedload (gravel) component of steep rivers such as the Stehekin is typically greater than 11 percent 

(Schumm 1963, 1977). Use of the total and suspended load estimates given above indicate that the bed 

load of the Stehekin River comprises about 17 percent of the total load, or 5,600 cubic yards per year. 

Annual bed load volume probably varies by 50 percent or more, with larger quantities of sediment moved 

during large flood events. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

172 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table III-5: Comparison of Stehekin River Sediment Yield 

(With estimates on other rivers in the Pacific Northwest, in the U.S. and the world) 

River System Load Typea

Sediment Load 

(yd3/mi2/yr)

Stehekin Total 28

Skagitb

Bed 12

Columbia - North Pacificc

Total 340

Rocky Mountain regiond

Total 84

Sierra Nevadad

Total 410

Coast Range, Oregond

Total 207

Amazone

Total 58

Mississippie

Total 207

a

Load types include dissolved, suspended, bed, and total. 

b

Stewart and Bodhaine 1961. 

cU.S. Water Resources Council 1968; average sediment yield for drainage areas <100 miles2.

dGeiger 1958; sediment yield from studies of reservoir deposits in small watersheds.

e

Sundborg 1983.

Considering a relative lack of change in the position of the channel at the river mouth and other important 

locations, it appears that much of the gravel was being transported through the lower Stehekin Valley 

prior to deposition of the massive 2003 flood gravels. Comparisons of channel surveys in 1978, 2000, and 

2009 show that channel changes at the river mouth were relatively small. Gravel bars have grown, 

increasing river meandering and bank erosion, but the elevation of the river bed has not increased. 

Large Woody Debris Accumulation 

Due to its relatively wet climate, the Stehekin carries an unusually large amount of large woody debris for 

an eastside watershed. Logjams form in several locations along the Stehekin River, including at the 

entrances to side channels, on mid-channel gravel bars, and on gravel bars adjacent to side channels and 

points of overbank flow. Historically, large logjams were removed. Below Harlequin Bridge, the Army 

Corps of Engineers removed most large wood piles as recently as 1972. 

Large woody debris has a valuable place in the ecological processes of the Stehekin River system. It 

provides habitat and shelter for fish, insect, bird, and mammal species using the river corridor. Large 

woody debris provides nutrients by depositing and collecting organic matter in the river, and also serves 

to spread floodwater and slow velocity during flood events. Logjams provide erosion protection and catch 

other debris in the river system. Standing trees in the floodplain catch large woody debris as it floats 

through inundated areas (NPS 2005). 

Three comprehensive inventories of large wood accumulations in 1984, 2000, and 2007 have documented 

rapid accumulation of wood on the lower Stehekin River (Figure III-5: Large Woody Debris 

Accumulation on the Stehekin River 1984 - 2007). Large woody debris has increased dramatically on the 

Stehekin River. In 2000, total volume below Bullion Raft Launch was estimated at 130,000 cubic yards; 

in 2007, at 370,000 cubic yards. 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 173 

Figure III-5: Large Woody Debris Accumulation on the Stehekin River 1984 - 2007

Following the large recent floods, massive new accumulations of wood now occur below High Bridge, at 

the mouth of the canyon, at McGregor Meadows, and at the river mouth. Two particularly large logjams 

have formed in the past 15 years in the McGregor Meadows area. Combined, the McGregor Meadows 

area logjams alone cover an area of almost 5 acres and contain more than 3,000 large logs stacked as high 

as 20 feet (Figure III-6: Large Woody Debris Storage and Transport Zones and Figure III-7: 2007 Large 

Logjam Locations. 

Several dozen logjams in the lower valley have become stable features of the floodplain. Many of the 

logjams have grown progressively with passage of the 1995, 2003, and 2006 floods. While the number of 

logjams has remained constant in some locations, at others logjams have formed, been removed, and 

reformed. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

174 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure III-6: Large Woody Debris Storage and Transport Zones 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 175 

Figure III-7: 2007 Large Logjam Locations 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

176 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 16 – Logjam at McGregor Meadows—Combined with Another Logjam on the Other Side of 

the River, this Feature Covers Nearly 5 Acres, Contains More than 3000 Logs, and is 20 feet Deep 

in Places

The effect of the large woody debris accumulations is generally to increase hydraulic roughness 

(resistance to flow) and width-to-depth ratio, while reducing sinuosity and flood flow velocity. The 

presence of large wood makes the Stehekin more like a west-slope stream than its neighbors on the east 

slope of the Cascades. Thus, the Stehekin is a shallower stream than is typically found on the east slope of 

the North Cascades (Southerland 2003). It has been suggested that large woody debris deposited in sites 

with dense streambank vegetation can facilitate bed load transport (Riedel 2007). 

Application of Hydrology, Flooding, Channel Migration Zone, Sediment Deposition, and 

Large Woody Debris Studies 

Two sites in the lower Stehekin Valley with persistent flooding and erosion problems stand out when 

examining the information summarized above. These sites are both areas of sediment and large wood 

storage that have extensive development in the floodplain and along the river. However, there are 

different reasons why these sites have unstable channels and persistent flood issues. 

McGregor Meadows 

At McGregor Meadows, the width of the Stehekin Valley increases threefold, and as a result the gradient 

drops and sediment and logs are deposited in this location. Through the process of river migration away 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 177 

from the coarse gravel left by the big floods, the channel has become particularly unstable. The position 

of the Stehekin River channel have been plotted at various times since 1905. In the McGregor Meadows 

reach, channel sinuosity has increased as floods of the past half-century have filled the main channel with 

gravel, which causes erosion of streambanks and deposition of large woody debris (Figure III-8: Stehekin 

River Channel Migrations 1953 - 2009). 

The NPS has observed a 3- to 4-foot increase in the elevation of the bed of the Stehekin River in upper 

McGregor Meadows in the past 21 years. This represents about 44,000 cubic yards of material. Following 

the 1995 flood, a private consultant and NPS river managers agreed that the loss of channel conveyance 

due to gravel accumulation on the river bed would ultimately result in a channel shift to the left bank, 

through McGregor Meadows along No Name Creek. However, growth of a log jam has blocked the 

entrance to this route, and the river appears to be seeking a new path a few hundred feet upstream. It is 

also possible that continued deposition of wood and gravel in the channel will result in the river breaking 

out of its channel farther upstream and following the Stehekin Valley Road through McGregor Meadows. 

In response to the formation of pilot channels in McGregor Meadows, about 10 grade-control structures 

were installed on private land along the left (north) bank floodplain in the late 1990s. Grade-control 

structures are essentially trenches filled with large rocks and gravel that are built perpendicular to flow. 

They are designed to spread water out across a floodplain and to prevent flood channels from enlarging. 

Since the tops of these structures are at grade, they are not visible and do not raise the water surface 

elevation of floods. In response to overbank flooding and scour of roads upstream and on the opposite 

bank, five additional grade-control structures were installed at two sites by the NPS in 2007. 

Along the opposite bank, filling of the channel with gravel has led to rapid bank erosion of the right bank 

and an increase in width-to-depth ratio. The NPS has installed 10 rock barbs in a half-mile-long reach to 

slow erosion, while private landowners have placed another three barbs on the other side of the channel. 

Plugging of the channel with gravel and wood is forcing a large amount of water overbank on both sides 

of the river. 

Stehekin River Mouth and Lake Chelan 

Deposition of gravel and large wood, and channel instability, also occur where the Stehekin River enters 

Lake Chelan. In a 2001 study, Chelan PUD used a hydraulic model to analyze the effects of manipulating 

the level of Lake Chelan on the Stehekin River (Chelan PUD 2001b). They showed that the backwater 

effect of Lake Chelan at full pool when river discharge is 20,000 cfs (i.e., a 100-year flood) extends 

nearly 0.25 mile upstream of the river mouth, raising the 100-year flood elevation 0.5 foot. The backwater 

effect extends several hundred feet farther upstream for smaller floods that occur at full pool. No effect 

from Lake Chelan was observed when lake level is below 1,094 feet. When the lake is lower than this 

level, more gravel is transported deep into the lake. 

The effect of the lake backwater on slowing river velocity is to cause sediment deposition and 

accumulation of large woody debris. Further Chelan PUD modeling of the effect of large wood on 

floodwater surface elevations near the river mouth indicated that logjams blocking side channels on the 

right bank raise the water surface elevation another 0.5 - 1.0 foot. In summer 2007, one of these logjams 

was removed from the head of a side channel near river kilometer 1 on the right bank. This channel was 

occupied by the river prior to the 1948 flood, and is known as the 1948 flood channel. A large spring 

flood in 2008 blocked this side channel with logs again, but they were removed the following fall. 

Comparison of channel surveys indicates that some gravel is transported through the river into Lake 

Chelan. At the same time, growth of point bars represents temporary storage of gravel. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

178 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure III-8: Stehekin River Channel Migrations 1953 – 2009, above Harlequin Bridge 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 179 

Response to Flooding on Stehekin River

Stehekin River Modifications: The earliest channel modifications to the Stehekin River were made in 

the 1930s by Chelan PUD, although removal of logs has been a continuing historic practice. By 1995, 

approximately 3.9 percent, or 4,861 feet, of the banks of the Stehekin River below High Bridge were 

affected by engineered erosion protection or flood-control structures (NPS 1997:13). By September 2001, 

approximately 6,965 feet, or 5.6 percent, of the Stehekin River banks were affected similarly (NPS 

2007a). Today, approximately 8,211 feet, or 6.5 percent, of the Stehekin River is affected similarly (Table 

III-6: Lower Stehekin River Shoreline Affected by Erosion or Flood Control Structures).

Table III-6: Lower Stehekin River Shoreline Affected by Erosion or Flood Control Structures 

Erosion Protection Structures 1993 2001 - 2001 2009

Number of Sites 28 35 (with 80 structures) 46a

Length 4,861 ft 6,965 ft 8,211 ftb

Number of Barbs 0 10 30c

Percentage of Bank 3.9 5.6 6.5

Note: Total shoreline length (estimated left and right banks) is 124,847 feet.

a

Sites added since 2001 - 02 are upper Company Creek Road (2007), Courtney Ranch (2007), Scutt (2007), and Leader 

Levee (2008).

b

Added 427 feet to upper Company Creek Road, 427 feet to Milepost 8.0, and 328 feet to Leader.

cNPS added 6 barbs at Milepost 8.0 (1993, 2008), 10 barbs at Company Creek Road (1997, 2007), and 4 barbs near the 

orchard (1999). Private owners added 2 barbs on Leader (1997), 4 barbs at Stehekin Valley Ranch (2007), 1 barb at 

Company Creek Road (1997), and 3 barbs near the River Resort Road (1997).

The USGS studied the effects of rock groins and rip-rap on stream velocity (Nelson 1986) at several sites. 

The NPS examined the hydraulic effect of rock barbs using two-dimensional models at upper Company 

Creek Road and at Stehekin Valley Road Milepost 2.2. Based on the models and direct observations, 

barbs decrease bank erosion, but cause increased scour of the channel bed within a few hundred feet 

downstream of the lowest barb on same side of the river. Rip-rap tends to draw and hold the fastest and 

deepest water against itself and can cause bank erosion downstream. 

Erosion protection structures have proliferated on the lower Stehekin River in the past 15 years in 

response to flooding and river changes. During this period rock barbs became the preferred measure of 

bank-erosion management, although rip-rap and cabled logs are also common. In 1993 the first two rock 

barbs were installed by NPS at Milepost 8.0 after the 1990 flood. Ten barbs were installed on public land 

at two sites and five on private land at three sites following the 1995 and 1997 floods. In response to bank 

erosion from the 2003 flood, eight more rock barbs were added by the NPS on upper Company Creek 

Road and Milepost 8.0 and four barbs were added on private property at the Stehekin Valley Ranch. In 

total there are now 30 rock barbs on the river, with 13 in the McGregor Meadows area (Figure III-9: 

Erosion Protection Structures on the Stehekin River 2009).

Only two extensive flood-control projects are in place in the lower Stehekin Valley: A 400-foot-long, 4- 

to 5-foot-tall levee was constructed by the NPS in the early 1980s along the upper Company Creek Road 

at Milepost 5.5, and a 300-foot-long, 3-foot-tall levee was constructed on private land in McGregor 

Meadows in 2008. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

180 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure III-9: Erosion Protection Structures on the Stehekin River 2009 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 181 

Models comparing existing conditions to the proposed alternatives were constructed to assess the impacts 

of barbs and rip-rap on channel hydraulics in the immediate vicinity of the proposed barbs and 

downstream. Thus two models were developed to evaluate (1) local-scale effects and (2) reach-scale 

effects of the alternatives. The two-dimensional local-scale models were quite detailed and examined the 

maximum flows contained within the channel for the rock barb and rip-rap alternatives at upper Company 

Creek Road (1997) and Stehekin Valley Road Mile 2.8 (1998). The reach-scale model covered 1.06 miles 

of the Stehekin River through the study site. It was a less detailed study, but included overbank and floodprone areas within the study reach for low and high flows. The local-scale model was more useful for 

site-specific impact analysis, while the reach-scale model was useful for more general analyses. The 

reach-scale model analyzed the combined effects of 10 rock barbs (three existing and seven proposed 

additional) for the 100-year flood and for average spring high flows. Because this model included areas of 

the channel with poorly defined topography and large, flat, flood-prone overbank areas, the model 

resolution was quite coarse. Therefore, the reach-scale model results for each alternative are less reliable 

than necessary to make local-scale interpretations. However, flow modeling at both scales seemed to 

agree with the hydraulic conditions predicted based on prior experience with rock barbs. These included 

no major displacement of energy or bank-erosion problems with rock barbs, but accelerated flow 

downstream with use of rip-rap. The downstream effect of barbs is approximately 3 - 5 times their length, 

or 80 - 100 feet. 

c. Water Quality 

Water quality is determined by a measure of the characteristics of water, including temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, suspended sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants. Water quality parameters include levels 

of dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, pH level, temperature, and other characteristics (such as 

mineral concentrations). The concentrations and interactions of these elements affect the ability of fish 

and other aquatic organisms to survive. Generally, water quality parameters exhibit a great degree of 

natural variation among different water resources (rivers, streams, lakes, hot springs, etc.). Water quality 

also refers to the suitability of surface water for recreational use and wildlife habitat. 

The water quality in the Stehekin River is generally excellent. There are relatively few potential sources 

of water pollution within the valley because of the limited development in the area. Some potential 

sources of pollution include nutrients and pathogens from septic systems, pesticides from farming or 

orchards (in particular, DDT has been a problem in Lake Chelan, but this pesticide was not extensively 

used in the Stehekin Valley), or pollutants in stormwater runoff, such as sediment. There may also be 

chemicals from various activities, such as small spills of oil or fuel from vehicles, or use of other toxic 

materials that can be taken up in stormwater runoff, such as fertilizers. 

The Stehekin River is a Category I waterway under the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of 

the State of Washington (NPS 2006c). Category I waterways meet testing standards for clean water and 

are given maximum protection under state water quality regulations (Washington Administrative Code 

173-201A). In addition, the surface water in Lake Chelan NRA has been determined to be Class AA 

(extraordinary). Class AA waters are also designated under state administration of the Clean Water Act 

and are characterized by exceptional water quality. Class AA waters are given maximum protection under 

state water quality regulations (Washington Administrative Code 173-201A). 

Although the Stehekin River is listed as Category 1, it does have higher levels of arsenic than the listed 

standard. When investigated, these were determined to be from a naturally high background concentration 

of that element (Johnson and Cassidy 1997; Patmont et al. 1989). Although these natural background 

concentrations exceeded the arsenic standard, they are natural conditions; therefore, they do not violate 

water quality standards. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

182 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Both flooding and human activities can affect a variety of water quality parameters, including 

sedimentation. Although flooding and sedimentation are natural processes, sustained high levels of 

sedimentation, or sedimentation which occurs during sensitive life stages, as well as changes in water 

quality that occur over longer periods can affect fish and other aquatic organisms and cause stress or 

mortality. Given the frequent nature of flooding on rivers, organisms are somewhat adapted to 

disturbances. Pools and tributaries represent important refuge for aquatic organisms during disturbance 

events. 

Among the most prevalent water quality problems in the Stehekin River is sediment loading. Sediment 

inputs occur from bank erosion during flood events. The erosion and resulting sediment cause increased 

turbidity in the water, which can adversely affect fish and other aquatic organisms in several ways. 

Sediment can fill the spaces within spawning gravels, which adversely affects spawning success and can 

also destroy other fish habitat areas such as pools used by fry and juveniles. Sediment can also clog the 

gills of fish, impairing respiration or causing mortality. 

Sediment can also change the chemical components of water quality, including dissolved oxygen, pH 

levels, or biological oxygen demand. This in turn may adversely affect aquatic species. According to the 

GMP/EIS (NPS 1995a), the Stehekin River contributes approximately 4,120 metric tons of suspended 

sediment to Lake Chelan each year. This is evidenced by the large mudflat located at the mouth of the 

river at the north end of Lake Chelan. The GMP estimated that during a 12-year period, over 25,000 cubic 

yards of sand, rock, and gravel were used to maintain roads in the Stehekin Valley, and stated that the 

largest human-caused input of sediments to the Stehekin River and Lake Chelan is probably attributable 

to erosion from roads (NPS 1995a:199). 

Despite the impacts of sedimentation, erosion of riverbanks is a natural process, and the introduction of 

sediment and large woody debris also remains an important element that provides a number of beneficial 

effects for aquatic species, including the creation of aquatic habitat such as gravel bars and logjams. 

Other effects on water quality come from the contribution of nutrients and pathogens from septic drain 

fields, fertilizers, and other wastewater sources (such as from camping) within the Stehekin Valley. Of the 

inputs to the Lucerne and Wapato basins within Lake Chelan, those from the Wapato or downriver basin 

are primarily from human sources. According to the GMP (NPS 1995a:198), approximately 25 percent of 

the phosphorus inputs in the Stehekin Valley are from agricultural runoff (23 percent) and septic systems 

(3 percent). Pathogens from septic systems normally is low, based on water quality testing by the 

Washington Department of Health at seven sites within the Stehekin Valley, which met safe drinking 

water standards, however, during flooding, inputs may be higher. Analysis of 23 pesticide residue 

compounds in 1986 found only DDT and its associated metabolites in quantifiable levels; however, those 

near Stehekin were very low (Patmont et al. 1989 in NPS 1995a:198). 

d. Wetlands 

Wetlands are a critical resource that supports a high diversity of species. Wetlands and deepwater habitats 

(excluding Lake Chelan) cover approximately 584 acres within Lake Chelan NRA, including low-lying 

areas near the Stehekin River, along its tributaries and portions of the drawdown in Lake Chelan (NPS 

1993b) (Figure III-10: Wetlands in the Lower Stehekin Valley). Of the 283 acres of development in the 

Stehekin Valley, there are an estimated 188 acres within the riparian zone. This development includes 

roads, houses, and administrative facilities. Some of this developed land includes wetlands. 
6. Water Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 183 

Figure III-10: Wetlands in the Lower Stehekin Valley 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

184 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Wetlands perform key ecological functions, including moderating surface and groundwater flow; 

controlling sediment transport, erosion, and deposition; mediating physical and chemical processes 

affecting water quality and nutrient cycling; and generating plants and providing food and habitat for 

animals (Strickland 1986; Kusler 1983 in NPS 1995a:178). 

Wetlands were mapped within the Stehekin Valley in 1990. Mapping included field observations and 

existing mapped information, including National Wetlands Inventory maps, soil surveys, topographic 

maps, orthorectified aerial photography(1988), and the Stehekin Valley Habitat Types map (NPS 1993b 

in NPS 1995a:178). Among the largest wetlands are a matrix of about 65 acres of forested and shrubby 

wetlands between Harlequin and Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture and about 101 acres just above 

Harlequin. 

According to the NPS, wetlands are identified by hydrophytic soil types, hydrophytic vegetation, and 

hydrology (wet soil characteristics, wetland-dependent vegetation, and the presence of water). Wetlands 

within Lake Chelan NRA were classified according to the system developed by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979). These wetlands are first characterized by what kind of 

water they are associated with and then by the type of vegetation or substrate. Recreation area wetlands 

fall into one of three categories: palustrine (wet vegetated areas), riverine (river or stream channels), or 

lacustrine (associated with a lake). 

Palustrine wetlands are those freshwater areas not associated with lakes, but rather with persistent 

groundwater. Palustrine wetlands include all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and some saltwater wetlands. Palustrine wetlands include those 

areas called marshes, bogs, fens, and prairies as well as shallow permanent or intermittent ponds. 

Palustrine wetlands are further classified as forested, emergent wetland persistent, and scrub-shrub 

wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Based on the GMP (NPS 1995a:178), within the Stehekin Valley, palustrine wetlands cover 

approximately 159 acres, most (139 acres) of which is forested wetland, and the rest (50 acres), scrubshrub wetland. These areas may shift rapidly during flooding, depending on the erosive forces of the 

Stehekin River as the river changes course within its channel migration zone. 

Riverine wetlands include all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, except for 

wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, emergent mosses, or lichens and those 

near saltwater. Water is usually, but not always, flowing in the channel and these wetlands may also be 

surrounded on their floodplain by other kinds of palustrine wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Based on the GMP (NPS 1995a:178), within the Stehekin Valley, riverine wetlands are comprised of 

unconsolidated shore (88 acres) and open-water riverine habitat (167 acres). Similar to the palustrine 

wetlands, riverine wetlands change depending on the location of the Stehekin River and its associated side 

channels and tributaries. 

Of the Weaver Point palustrine forested wetlands mapped in 1988 (8.7 acres), approximately half an acre 

have been destroyed by the river (in 2006). 

Major wetlands within the project area include shoreline areas along the Stehekin River and the openwater channel of the Stehekin River, where some proposed actions, such as the installation of rock barbs, 

may occur. Most wetlands within Lake Chelan NRA remain undisturbed; however, according to the 

GMP, about 11 acres are affected by development (excluding roads). At the time of the GMP, there were 

eight private and two NPS buildings located within wetlands. A portion of the Stehekin Valley Road is 
7. Vegetation 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 185 

also within wetlands (near McGregor Meadows) and a portion of the Company Creek Road (near the NPS 

Maintenance Area) is also located within a wetland. 

The following wetlands are located in or near the proposed project area: 

 Company Creek 

 McGregor Meadows 

 Coon Run (outside the project area). 

Company Creek: The Company Creek wetlands extend up valley from where Battalion Creek meets the 

valley floor to the confluence with Company Creek. The entire area is a matrix of beaver ponds damming 

side channels from both Battalion Creek and the Stehekin River. Using aerial photography from both 

February 2004 (leaf-off) and July 2006 (leaf-on), the palustrine-forested wetlands in this area are 

estimated to be approximately 101 acres. 

McGregor Meadows: McGregor Meadows is a former agriculture site located between the road and the 

river. A 5.5-acre clearing is surrounded by a mixed conifer-deciduous stand. The meadow and its 

surrounding forest lie within the channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. Changes in the channel 

caused by the recent large floods have caused channel instability in the area, increasing the rate of 

conversion from upland to wetland and riverine habitats. For example, in 1993, just over 3 acres of 

palustrine forested wetlands were mapped within McGregor Meadows. An additional 3/4 acres were 

classified as scrub-shrub palustrine wetlands and approximately 7 acres as riverine, unconsolidated 

shoreline. Much has changed in the intervening years. Flooding in 2003 and 2006 has left substantial 

accretions of rock over the forested upper part of the greater McGregor Meadows, and has scoured much 

of the meadows themselves, as well as the Stehekin Valley Road and portions of the low-lying areas 

inland of the road. A large logjam has formed at the head of No Name Creek (actually a side channel of 

the river). The GMP did not include the length of No Name Creek in its palustrine-forested habitat. July 

2007 (leaf-on) and February 2004 (leaf-off) imagery shows that there is approximately 8.7 acres of this 

habitat along the creek. The logjam has contributed another 1.9 acres to the wetlands. The scrub-shrub 

wetland habitat has been washed away, and the river occupies what was unconsolidated shoreline in 1988 

(NPS 1995f). 

Coon Run: The 11-acre Coon Run wetland follows Coon Creek down an ancient river channel of the 

Stehekin River. The wetland is fed by Coon Creek, surface and groundwater drainage from the lower 

slopes of McGregor Mountain, and by flood backwater at its lower end. A lack of drainage under the 

Stehekin Valley Road has increased water levels in the wetland. Deposition of gravel in the main channel 

of the river during the 2003 flood has also raised water levels in the lower part of the wetland throughout 

the year. 

7. VEGETATION 

North Cascades vegetation is diverse, with over 1,627 plant species identified. Differences in vegetation 

types are attributed to rock and soil types, exposure (aspect), slope, elevation, and rainfall/precipitation. 

Approximately 2,543 acres within the Stehekin Valley (below the 1,640-foot wilderness boundary 

elevation contour) was classified by Tanimoto (1991, with revisions by NPS in 1992) into 36 different 

vegetation cover types associated with five different soil moisture / nutrient condition categories (NPS 

1995a:183) (Figure III-11: Lower Stehekin Valley Vegetation).
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

186 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Figure III-11: Lower Stehekin Valley Vegetation 
7. Vegetation 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 187 

The five soil moisture / nutrient condition categories are: 

 Riparian—Nutrient Poor 

 Riparian—Nutrient Rich, 

 Upland Mesic (moderate moisture) 

 Upland Xeric (dry) 

 Miscellaneous. 

The 36 vegetation cover types are listed below according to these moisture/nutrient categories. 

Overall, the riparian zone comprises 936 acres, or 36 percent, of the Stehekin Valley. 

Riparian—Nutrient Poor is characterized by red alder/black cottonwood cover types, including those 

dominated by the following species: 

 Red alder (Alnus rubra) 

 Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) 

 Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) 

 Alder / cottonwood mixed stands. 

These vegetation types are comprised of invading woody species on recent river deposits, mostly along 

the margins and floodplain of the Stehekin River and its tributaries. 

Riparian—Nutrient Rich is characterized by the following dominant species: grand fir (Abies grandis), 

western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum), black cottonwood, red alder, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), Scouler’s willow 

(Salix scouleriana), and wetland emergent areas dominated by sedges. It contains the following: 

 Mixed deciduous forest 

 Mixed coniferous forest 

 Mixed deciduous coniferous forest. 

Mixed deciduous forest stands contain bigleaf maple in addition to alder and cottonwood and are found 

on older river terraces. These and other riparian-nutrient rich communities are found where soils have 

become enriched from silt deposits and accumulation of leaf litter from earlier successional trees. Mixed 

coniferous forest is found on well-developed soils on old point river bars. Mixed deciduous/coniferous 

forest is widespread throughout the valley and comprises the third most common vegetation cover type in 

the Stehekin Valley. 

Relatively small, mostly pure stands of the following vegetation cover types are also part of the ripariannutrient rich community: 

 Grand fir (found near the mouth of the Stehekin River in moist sites with rich soil) 

 Western red cedar (rare, comprising only 9 acres, but found on wet sites associated with the river 

and its tributaries) 

 Douglas-fir (occurs as a climax species on the oldest parts of point bars) 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

188 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Bigleaf maple (occurs throughout the riparian zone in a wide variety of site conditions) 

 Cottonwood (in the nutrient-rich version of this habitat, cottonwood is mixed with bigleaf maple, 

grand fir, Douglas-fir, or red cedar-cottonwood stands comprise a common sight, with 114 acres) 

 Cottonwood/alder (in the nutrient-rich version of this cover type, these stands often contain 

bigleaf maple) 

 Alder (in the nutrient-rich version of this cover type, alder forms distinct stands within old river 

channels and oxbows, especially near Company Creek Road) 

 Aspen (uncommon; found only near Margerum Creek, possibly because of fire) 

 Scouler’s willow (Salix scouleriana) (pure stands occur near the mouth of the river on welldeveloped soils) 

 Emergent vegetation (primarily grass or sedge-dominated stands at the head of the lake associated 

with the drawdown of the reservoir). 

Upland Mesic cover is characterized by nonriparian communities on soils of moderate moisture content. 

Dominant species include grand fir, Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, bigleaf maple, and ponderosa pine 

(Pinus ponderosa). Upland mesic includes the following vegetation cover types: 

 Mixed deciduous forest (an uncommon class comprised of bigleaf maple mixed with cottonwood, 

vine maple, Scouler’s willow, or Pacific dogwood) 

 Mixed coniferous forest (the most common vegetation cover type, comprising 501 acres; 

dominated by Douglas-fir but also containing ponderosa pine or grand fir) 

 Mixed deciduous coniferous forest (the fourth largest vegetation cover type comprised of a wide 

variety of already named deciduous and coniferous species) 

 Grand fir (pure stands of nonriparian grand fir are very rare) 

 Douglas-fir (pure stands, comprising 236 acres, comprise the second most common vegetation 

cover type) 

 Ponderosa pine (tolerates drier sites on both sides of the valley) 

 Bigleaf maple (common on well-developed, well-drained slopes, with an understory of Scouler’s 

willow and Pacific dogwood) 

 Cottonwood (rare on river deposits associated with tributaries) 

 Ravine (steep-sided tributary canyons with flowing streams and shallow soil, dominated by red 

cedar and other species). 

Upland Xeric is relatively common and is found on the valley’s steepest slopes and driest sites on either 

north- or south-facing slopes, including the following: 

 Xeric uplands (largely unvegetated due to severe microclimates, characterized by exposed 

bedrock with little tree cover and little or no soil development) 

 Active erosion/talus (largely unvegetated except for lichens, where present, due to severe 

microclimates) 

 Slope or talus drainage area (found at the base of active erosion and talus areas, supporting some 

sparse herbaceous plants and trees). 
7. Vegetation 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 189 

Miscellaneous cover types include the active river channel and areas of human disturbance, including the 

following: 

 Sand/gravel/cobble (common in areas adjacent to the river) 

 Water (Stehekin River wet channel and Lake Chelan) 

 Lawn/pasture 

 Orchard/large garden (Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture and large private gardens) 

 Development/structures (residential, commercial, and public development, including buildings 

and other structures) 

 Disturbed areas (tree cover of less than 10 percent and lawn or other clearing or ample evidence 

of human disturbance) 

 Roads (estimated at 56 acres below High Bridge within the project area). 

Dominant tree species within the Stehekin Valley are noted above. In native cover types, understory 

species consist of a variety of shrubs and small trees, including vine maple (Acer circinatum), 

serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), dogbane (Apocynum ansrosaemifolium), snowberry 

(Symphoricarpus albus), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), snowbush (Ceanothus velutinus), mahonia or 

Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium), red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), wild roses (Rosa spp.), 

Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttalli), boxwood (Paxistima myrsinites), and bearberry or pinemat 

(Arctostaphylos nevadadensis or A. uva-ursi). Common forbs include big leaf sandwort (Moehringia 

macrophylla) and Watson’s willow-herb (Epilobium watsonii). Grasses include pine grass (Calamagrostis 

rubescens), Ross’s sedge (Carex rossii), western fescue (Festuca occidentalis), onion grass (Melica 

subulata), and Lemmon’s needle grass (Achnatherum lemmonii). Sword fern (Polystichum imbricans) is 

also a common understory plant. 

The most diverse vegetation is found within the riparian zone, an area characterized by its proximity to 

active river or stream channels where vegetation communities are influenced by high water tables, 

flooding, and the ability of the soil to hold water (Naiman et al. 1993 in NPS 1995a:181). This zone of 

influence between the abundant moisture and the higher, drier terraces above it is important to both plants 

and wildlife and, in fact, is characterized by species from wide geographical, altitudinal, and ecological 

ranges (Mason and Koon 1985). Studies have found that nearly 70 percent of vertebrates in a region use 

riparian corridors during their life cycle (Naiman et al. 1993 in NPS 1995a:181). Riparian areas provide a 

means of transfer for water, nutrients, sediment, organic matter, and aquatic and terrestrial organisms 

between this area and the drier montane or forested areas above it (Gregory et al. 1991 in NPS 

1995a:181). 

Other vegetation classes that were identified as being the most important / sensitive to the Stehekin 

ecosystem are the open water, upland xeric, and active erosion/talus areas (NPS 1995a:184). These areas 

provide unique habitats for waterfowl, major vertebrates, and reptiles and amphibians, respectively. 

Fungi

The Stehekin watershed is unique for its numerous fungi species. Between April 2005 and 2006, fungi 

inventories led by emeritus professor James Trappe of the University of Oregon have yielded 480 

collections of macrofungi in the Stehekin watershed, of which three species are new to science and two 

are extremely rare (NPS 2007a:3).
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

190 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Changes to Native Plant Community Cover 

Among the human activities which have affected the vegetation composition within the Stehekin Valley 

include logging, wildfire management (Forest Fuel Reduction Areas) and suppression, and farming. Some 

areas, including McGregor Meadows (Mileposts 6.5 - 7.0) and the Stehekin Valley Ranch (Milepost 9.0), 

where concentrated development, farming, and/or ranching activities altered vegetation, have not 

recovered their native plant community composition, even where that activity is no longer occurring. 

Others are dominated by nonnative, ornamental, or weedy species. 

Nonnative Plants and Noxious Weeds 

Nonnative plants and noxious weeds are found within disturbed areas of the Stehekin Valley. These areas 

primarily include road edges, areas near NPS and private development, borrow areas such as the gravel 

pit, the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, and the airstrip. 

Among the plants found include: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), oxeye daisy 

(Leucanthemum vulgare), Dalmatian toadflax (Linearia genistifolia dalmatic), rush skeletonweed 

(Chondrilla juncea), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata), 

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobea), yellow salsify (Tragopogon 

dubius), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), sweet pea (Lathyrus odoratus),

vinca (vinca minor), white clover (Trifolium repens), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), sow thistle 

(Sonchus asper), and foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), as well as a variety of nonnative grasses, including 

bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata). 

An unknown number of acres within the Stehekin Valley are affected by nonnative plants or noxious 

weeds. Control is focused on containing, reducing, and eliminating populations. Most actions in recent 

years have been undertaken in the following areas: the Stehekin airstrip, the edges of the Stehekin Valley 

Road, and spot locations throughout the lower valley that had previously been heavily infested with 

knapweed. 

Vegetation Characteristics of Areas Potentially Affected by the Alternatives 

Vascular plant surveys of potential properties, road alignments, and campsite locations in conjunction 

with activities associated with the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan were conducted June 19 

and July 8 - 9, 2008. The surveys were conducted by North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 

Mignonne Bivin, Botanist, and William Clark, seasonal vegetation biological technician. 

Exchange Properties within the Project Area (Alternative 1) 

 Vicinity of Lower Field 

 Little Boulder / Boulder Creek (both sides of the road) 

 East of the airstrip 

 Vicinity of Stehekin Valley Ranch 

 Above Rainbow Creek (west side of the road). 
7. Vegetation 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 191 

Potential Exchange Property Characteristics within the Project Area 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) 

As shown in Table III-7, 12 formerly privately owned parcels now owned by NPS have been identified 

for potential land exchange. Each of the parcels was surveyed by (1) walking the parcel in such a manner 

so as to ensure that all habitats were surveyed and (2) completely surveying any potential sensitive plant 

species habitat (intuitive sampling). 

Table III-7: Potential Exchange Property Characteristics 

Area Former Private Owner 

/ Parcel Number(s)

Vegetation Composition Notes

Boulder Fan area Griffin (05-115, 05-116, 

05-118)

Dominated by ponderosa 

pine / Douglas-fir. Sparse to 

moderate understory of xeric 

to mesic species.

Boulder Fan area Getty (05-156)

Keller‟s Park / Boulder 

Fan area

Dineen (05-114)

School area Rice (05-106) Dominated by dense 

Douglas-fir with very little 

understory.

One large parcel shown as 

two separate ones of 1.68 

ac res and 2.73 acres

Castle / Keller Park Brownfield (part of 05-

122)

Douglas fir with occasional 

ponderosa pines with 

moderate cover of shrubs 

and herbaceous plants.

Airstrip area Peterson (06-110) Cleared of most trees. 

Dominated by introduced 

grasses with a few 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir,

and bigleaf maple.

Orchard Webb (06-107, 06-108) Outside wetland. Consists of 

widely spaced ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir with 

sparse understory (treated 

for fuel reduction).

1.33 acres

Lower Field / Stehekin 

Valley Ranch

Courtney (08-104) Xeric Douglas-fir / 

ponderosa pine. Riparian 

edge along Stehekin River, 

dominated by bigleaf maple, 

dogwood, cottonwood, 

western red cedar, and red 

alder. Diverse understory, 

occasionally dense.

Within the proposed project area, there are five areas identified for location or relocation of recreational 

development. These include: Company Creek potential group site, Purple Point Horse Camp 

group/individual sites, Rainbow Falls, Bullion, and an area near the mouth of the Stehekin River (Table 

III-8: Potential Recreational Development Sites). 

In addition to these potential land exchange parcels and potential recreational development sites, proposed 

road realignment within the project area would primarily occur within the upland mesic vegetation type 

and include areas dominated by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, bigleaf maple, and western red cedar; 

however, a portion of it would also occur in the pasture vegetation type and in talus. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

192 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table III-8: Potential Recreational Development Sites 

Area Vegetation Composition Notes

Company Creek Area Open Douglas-fir forest. Disturbed understory 

with many nonnative, invasive species.

Potential campsite(s).

Purple Point Horse Camp 

Area

Comprised of FMP manipulated Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine. Sparse understory.

Fire Management Plan (FMP) 

identified wildland-urban 

interface. Potential campsite(s).

Rainbow Falls Area Douglas-fir / ponderosa pine overstory and 

sparse understory of herbaceous shrubs and 

plants.

Potential campsite(s).

Bullion Camp Area Douglas-fir / ponderosa pine forest with sparse 

understory of herbs and drought-tolerant shrubs.

Across Stehekin Valley Road 

south of current camp (near the 

Stehekin River). Potential 

campsite(s).

River Resort Road Dense cover of grand fir (Abies grandis) and 

Western red cedar across the road from this site.

The understory cover was very sparse 

throughout most of the site. Wetland 

depressions with standing water and obligate 

wetland plant species occur throughout the 

parcel but not within the area of the raft takeout.

Potential raft takeout.

8. WILDLIFE 

Wildlife species inhabiting the Stehekin Valley include approximately 40 species of mammals, over 100 

bird species, seven reptile species, and five species of amphibians. From summer 1988 through late winter 

1992, as part of the Stehekin Valley vertebrate inventory, the following numbers of species were detected: 

5 amphibians, 8 reptiles, 25 mammals, and 104 birds (Kuntz and Glesne 1993). 

Terrestrial Mammals 

Mammals found within the Stehekin Valley include black bear (Ursus americanus), elk (Cervus elaphus), 

mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). 

Small mammal species detected during the vertebrate inventory in live or pitfall traps included two kinds 

of mice (Peromyscus maniculatus, P. oreas); Trowbridge’s, montane, and vagrant shrews (Sorex 

trowbridgei, S. monticolus, and S. vagrans); shrew-mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii); creeping vole (Microtus 

oregoni); Gapper’s red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi); bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea); 

Douglas’s squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii); Townsend’s chipmunk (Eutamias townsendii); yellow-pine 

chipmunk (Eutamias amoenus); western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus); and Cascades golden-mantled 

ground squirrel (Spermophilus saturatus). Of these, the shrews were most abundant and were captured in 

all habitat classes (Kuntz and Glesne 1993:17 - 20). 

In addition, the following large and medium-sized mammals were detected during the inventory: black 

bear, raccoon, beaver (Castor canadensis), marten (Martes americana), mountain lion (Felis concolor), 

elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (Kuntz and Glesne 

1993:35). 
8. Wildlife 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 193 

Photo 17 – Black Bear Fishing for Spawning Kokanee Salmon (Dick Bingham) 

Bats 

Little is known about bat populations in the Stehekin Valley. Riparian areas and open meadows are 

important foraging areas for bats. Area bats may use former mines, caves, and tree or rock crevices for 

roosting and rearing. 

Park biologists conducted a systematic baseline inventory during the summers from 1998 to 2001 to 

identify species composition, distribution, and relative abundance of bats inhabiting the park complex. 

Sampling sites included riparian, forest, and subalpine areas, both east and west of the North Cascades 

crest. Five species were identified from capture techniques: Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), little 

brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), western long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), California myotis (Myotis 

californicus), and long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), all of which showed evidence of breeding 

(Christopherson and Kuntz 2003). An additional three species were documented from acoustic 

recordings: big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus) (Christopherson and Kuntz 2003). Both acoustic and capture data suggest the Yuma 

myotis and little brown myotis are the most abundant species in the study area, while the hoary bat and 

long-legged myotis appear to be the most uncommon or elusive of the documented bat species in the park 

complex (Christopherson and Kuntz 2003). From other sampling sites, all of the above capture- and 

acoustic-detected species were documented except the hoary bat (Christopherson, pers. comm., 2009). 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

194 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Other bats expected but not found during this survey include the following species: western small-footed 

myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), and 

western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). 

Birds 

Among the more than 100 species of birds that can be found in the Stehekin Valley are the pileated 

woodpecker, gray jay, dark-eyed junco, black-capped chickadee, sooty grouse, common raven, red-tailed 

hawk, and American kestrel. The predominant bird species detected during the Stehekin Valley vertebrate 

inventory (Kuntz and Glesne 1993) were Hammond’s flycatcher, Swainson’s thrush, American robin, 

red-eyed vireo, yellow-rumped warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, western tanager, and dark-eyed junco. 

These species accounted for 50 percent of the detections and were present across all habitat classes 

sampled (Kuntz and Glesne 1993:11). In winter counts, 25 species were detected, with wintering 

waterfowl predominating (nine species comprising nearly half the detections), followed by pine siskin, 

evening grosbeak, chestnut-backed chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, and golden-crowned kinglet. 

Wintering waterfowl included horned grebe, Canada goose, mallard, American widgeon, ring-necked 

duck, common goldeneye, Barrow’s goldeneye, bufflehead, and common merganser. 

Brown-headed cowbirds are found in the Stehekin Valley and appear to be increasing in abundance 

(Kuntz, pers. comm., 2009). Brown-headed cowbirds are brood parasites, laying their eggs in other 

songbird nests. The cowbird young outcompete their host species young for food brought to the nest by 

the host species parents. Cowbird young survive to fledging, while most or all of the host species young 

die of starvation or are pushed out of the nest by the bigger cowbird young. Cowbirds have increased in 

the Pacific Northwest due to logging of forests and land conversion to agricultural uses. In Stehekin, 

Community land development and the presence of livestock (horses) have enabled cowbirds to increase in 

number. Cowbirds in the valley have been documented parasitizing yellow-rumped warbler nests (Kuntz, 

pers. comm., 2009). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Common reptiles include the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), western terrestrial garter snake 

(T.hamnophis elegans), and the northern alligator lizard (Gerhonotus coeruleus). Amphibians include the 

northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), rough-skinned newt (Taricha ganulose), Columbia 

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), and western toad (Bufo boreas). 

In the vertebrate inventory the following reptiles were detected: western terrestrial garter snake, racer 

(Coluber constrictor), rubber boa (Charina bottae), northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coeruleus), western 

fence lizard (Sceloporous occidentalis), western terrestrial garter snake, common garter snake, and 

western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis); and the following amphibians were detected: long-toed salamander, 

western toad, Pacific tree frog, Cascades frog, and spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) (Kuntz and Glesne 

1993:10). Most reptiles in pitfall traps were captured in the upland mesic habitat type. Of these, western 

fence lizards were the most common species. Talus areas, though they comprised only 2.6 percent of the 

area studied, were important for their reptilian species diversity (Kuntz and Glesne 1993:10). 

Fish 

Note: For more information on the status of both native and nonnative fish, see the North Cascades 

National Park Service Complete Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan EIS (NPS 2008b).

Large woody debris in the form of individual pieces and log jams is an important component of the 

Stehekin River for fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates. The abundance of fish in streams and 
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 195 

rivers is strongly related to the abundance of coarse woody debris. Woody debris within the river channel 

provides cover for fish, and creates pools and backwater areas, storing sediment and capturing gravel for 

spawning (NPS 1995a:175; Sedell et al. 1984 in NPS 1995a). 

Lake Chelan, the Stehekin River, and its tributaries provide valuable spawning, incubation, rearing, and 

feeding habitat for a variety of fish species, including 6 native and 12 nonnative trout and salmon species. 

Nonnative species known to occur in the Stehekin River or its tributaries include kokanee salmon 

(nonnative, landlocked sockeye salmon) (Oncorhynchus nerka), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha); and 

brown (Salmo trutta), brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), lake (S. namaycush), golden (O. mykiss aguabonita), 

and rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Nonnative species compete with and prey on native species. 

Most nonnative fish were introduced by the Washington Department of Wildlife and Washington 

Department of Fisheries (later the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)). Kokanee were 

stocked beginning in 1917 and became the dominant sport fish until the mid-1970s. They can be found in 

the fall, spawning in tributaries of the Stehekin River, such as Company and Blackberry creeks. Chinook 

were introduced to Lake Chelan to provide a trophy fishery. Rainbow, brook, and golden trout were 

introduced to previously fishless high mountain lakes. Lake trout were introduced to Lake Chelan 

between 1980 and 1982. 

Native species include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), dolly varden (Salvelinus malma), and westslope 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). Although there have been numerous surveys for bull trout, 

none have been found in the Stehekin or its tributaries for the last 50 years (see also ―Special Status 

Species‖ section below for more information on bull trout, dolly varden, and westslope cutthroat trout). 

Bull trout are considered extirpated from the Stehekin River since none have been found since the early 

1960s. The USFWS, however, is considering their reintroduction (NPS 2008:173). Dolly varden have not 

been documented in the Stehekin River. Nonhybridized cutthroat trout occur above High Bridge, outside 

the project area. Below that area, they mix with nonnative rainbow trout. 

It is unlikely that there were ever many anadromous fish (fish that spend most of their life cycle in 

saltwater but breed in freshwater) in the Chelan Subbasin (USDC draft 2004 in NPS 2006c). Studies in 

the late 1800s and archeological documentation of fish use by prehistoric people have uncovered very 

little evidence of anadromous fish. In addition, a series of chutes, cascades, and falls in the Chelan River 

on its way to the Columbia River are barriers to anadromous fish migration (USDC draft 2004 in NPS 

2006c). 

Invertebrates 

Recent surveys of butterflies in Stehekin have documented 30 species (David Droppers pers. comm. with 

R. Kuntz 4-18-08). The most common species include woodland skipper (Ochlodes sylvanoides), western 

tiger swallowtail (Papilio rutulus), pale swallowtail (Papilio eurymedon), cabbage white (Pieris rapae), 

California tortoiseshell (Nymphalis californica), echo azure (Celastrina echo), and Lorquin’s admiral 

(Limenitis lorquini).

9. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

This section includes information on federally listed threatened and endangered species, state-listed or 

identified rare, threatened, and endangered species, and park-identified rare or sensitive species. Although 

sensitive species are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, NPS policy states that they will be 

managed similarly to federally listed species to the greatest extent possible. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

196 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

a. Special Status Plants 

Each area potentially affected by the proposed alternatives was surveyed for sensitive plant species as 

identified by Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the USFWS. Ten species were 

identified as potentially occurring within the Stehekin area (Table III-9: Special Status Plants). No 

species listed by the USFWS as federally listed are known to occur in North Cascades National Park 

Complex. No sensitive plant species were observed in these surveys. All vascular plant species observed 

and their relative abundance for each site were recorded (Appendix 8: Vascular Plants Observed within 

Proposed Project Areas). 

Table III-9: Special Status Plants 

Potential Washington State Sensitive Plants from Stehekin Valley Surveys 

Species Common name Habitat State Status

Astragalus arrectus Palouse milk vetch Sagebrush flats, grassy hillsides, 

openings in Ponderosa Pine or 

Douglas fir forest gravelly or sandy 

flats.

Threatened

Botrychium lunaria Common moonwort Moist open areas in meadows and 

forests.

Watch

Botrychium minganense moonwort Moist sites in deciduous and 

coniferous forest, subalpine sites. A 

fern-like plant known from two places 

in the lower Stehekin Valley.

Watch

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

Stalked moonwort Moist wooded sites. Sensitive

Cicuta bulbifera Bulb-bearing hemlock Edges of marshes, lakes, bogs, 

meadows, and shallow standing or 

slow-moving water.

Sensitive

Epipactis gigantea Giant hellebore Streambanks, lake shores, seeps, 

springs. A nonshowy orchid found 

along streambanks, seeps, and lake 

margins known from undisturbed 

sites south of the Landing.

Watch

Githopsis specularioides Common blue-cup Dry, open places in foothill areas of 

thin soils, talus slopes.

Sensitive

Pellaea brachyptera Sierra cliff brake Dry, Rocky slopes, talus, outcrops in 

Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine 

forest.

Sensitive

Penstemon eriantherus

var. whitedii

Fuzzy-tongued 

penstemon

Open sagebrush shrub, open areas 

in valleys and foothills.

Sensitive

Spiranthes porrifolia Western ladies tresses Meadows, seeps, streams. An orchid 

that blooms in July and August, found 

in moist to wet areas, known from a 

disturbed site south of the Landing.

Sensitive

Definitions:

State status is described as follows: Factors considered include abundance, occurrence patterns, vulnerability, threats, existing 

protection, and taxonomic distinctness. Values include:

Extinct or Extirpated: Possibly extinct or Extirpated from Washington.

Endangered: In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington.

Threatened: Likely to become Endangered in Washington.

Sensitive: Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state.

P1 = Priority 1. Rare nonvascular plant but with insufficient information to assign another rank.

P2 = Priority 2. Nonvascular plant of concern but with insufficient information to assign another rank.

R1 = Review group 1. Of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank.

R2 = Review group 2. Of potential concern but with unresolved taxonomic questions.

Watch: More abundant and/or less threatened than previously thought.
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 197 

The small number of rare plants located in previous surveys is found outside of the project area. Rare 

plant surveys were conducted in spring 2008 on parcels that could be affected by actions associated with 

this planning effort (see ―Vegetation‖ section). 

b. Special Status Wildlife 

Table III-10: Special Status Wildlife 

Species Federal 

Status*

State 

Status*

Park Status / Notes

See also information 

below this table.

Mammals

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) FE SE

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) FT ST Lynx critical habitat in 

Chelan County east of the 

Cascade Crest and above 

the 4,000 ft contour interval 

(outside the proposed 

project area)

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) FT** SE All of the project area is 

within the North Cascades 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) FSC SC

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) FC SE

Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) FSC ST

Pacific Townsend‟s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii townsendii)

FSC SC

*Small-footed (Yuma) myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) FSC

Western long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) FSC SM

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) FSC SM

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) FSC SM

Keen‟s myotis (Myotis keenii) (coastal species that does 

not occur in Lake Chelan NRA)

SC

Birds

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) FSC (M) SS A pair has nested near the 

mouth of the Stehekin since 

2001

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) FT SE

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) FSC (M) SS

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) SC

Merlin (Falco columbarius) SC

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) FSC SC

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) FSC

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) SC

Black swift (Cypseloides niger) FSC

Vaux‟s swift (Chaetura vauxi) SC

Lewis‟s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) SC

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) SC

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) SC

Common loon (Gavia immer) SS

Western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis) SC
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

198 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Species Federal 

Status*

State 

Status*

Park Status / Notes

See also information 

below this table.

Reptiles

(none)

Amphibians

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) FC SC

Western toad (Bufo boreas) FSC SC

Spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) FSC SC

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) FSC

Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) FSC

Fish

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) FT SC

Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) FP, SC

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) FT SC

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) FSC

Invertebrates

(none)

*Definitions

Federal (USFWS/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service [NOAA Fisheries])

FE = Federally Endangered: Listed by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

FT = Federally Threatened: Listed by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries as a species that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

FP = Federally Proposed: Species for which the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries has determined are warranted for listing and are 

proposed in the Federal Register listing as threatened or endangered but for which rules have not yet been promulgated.

FC = Federal Candidate: Species that are under consideration for listing by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries but which do not yet 

have conclusive information to warrant listing as threatened or endangered.

FSC = Federal Species of Concern: Species whose conservation standing is of concern to the USFWS, but for which status 

information is still needed. These are generally species from the former Category I, II, or III lists.

(M) = Species that have been delisted but whose status is still monitored.

State (WDFW)

SE = Washington State Endangered: A species native to the state of Washington that is seriously threatened with extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state as listed by the WDFW.

ST = Washington State Threatened: A species native to the state of Washington that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative 

management or removal of threats as listed by WDFW.

SC = Washington State Candidate: Includes species that the WDFW is considering for possible listing as endangered, 

threatened, or sensitive. According to the WDFW, a species will be considered for designation as a state candidate if sufficient 

evidence suggests that its status may meet the state listing criteria defined for endangered, threatened, or sensitive.

SS = Washington State Sensitive: A species native to the state of Washington that is vulnerable or declining and is likely to 

become endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management 

or removal of threats, as identified by WDFW.

SM = Washington State Monitor: A species native to the State of Washington that is of special interest because (1) at one time 

it was classified as endangered, threatened, or sensitive; (2) it requires habitat that has limited availability during some portion of 

its lifecycle; (3) it is an indicator of environmental quality, (4) further field investigations are required to determine population 

status; (5) there are unresolved taxonomic problems that may affect its classification status; (6) it is competing with or affecting 

other species of concern; or (7) it has significant popular appeal.** The USFWS has determined that grizzly bears in the North 

Cascades Ecosystem are warranted for listing as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but that change in status has 

not yet been acted upon.

** The USFWS has determined that grizzly bears in the North Cascades Ecosystem are warranted for listing as Endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act, but that change in status remains precluded by other priorities.
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 199 

Gray Wolf 

Range: Wolves formerly ranged throughout the North Cascades, but were extirpated from many areas by 

1910. In the last 20 years, wolves have been seen near Ross Lake, in the Pasayten Wilderness, in 

Okanogan National Forest, and in Glacier Peak Wilderness. Recolonization of wolves from Canada into 

Washington State is occurring. Wolf packs require territories ranging from 40 to 1,000 square miles. 

Although essentially all of the Stehekin area is considered suitable habitat, winter deer range in the 

riparian zone and south-facing slopes of the lake may be particularly important. 

Recent studies conducted by the North Cascades resource management biologist and biologists from the 

WDFW documented wolf presence in Lake Chelan NRA wilderness. Collared animals were tracked in 

the upper elevations of the wilderness area. The last sightings of gray wolves in the Stehekin Valley 

below High Bridge, however, were more than 10 years ago. 

Habitat: Gray wolves are highly social animals with large home ranges comprising a variety of terrain. 

Key habitat components include a sufficient year-round ungulate prey base coupled with the availability 

of other prey species (mid-sized mammals); suitable, fairly secluded denning and rendezvous sites; and 

minimal exposure to human activity (USFWS 1987 in NPS 2006c). 

Recovery: There is currently no USFWS recovery plan for gray wolves in the North Cascades. 

Photo 18 – Gray Wolf Pups (Conservation Northwest) 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

200 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Grizzly Bear 

Range: According to the USFWS, the North Cascades contain habitat capable of supporting a selfsustaining population of grizzly bears (USFWS 2005 in NPS 2006c). Only a remnant population exists, 

which is unlikely to persist without recovery efforts. Although suitable habitat exists within the Stehekin 

Valley below High Bridge, grizzly bears have not been documented in the last 10 years. In general, 

grizzlies are considered extremely rare in the North Cascades (NPS 2007). 

Habitat: Key habitat requirements for grizzly bears include the availability of a reliable food source and 

isolation from humans (USFWS 1989 in NPS 2006c). Grizzlies may use low-elevation riparian areas and 

wet meadows during spring, and higher-elevation meadows, ridges, and open shrublands during summer. 

Avalanche chutes are likely an important habitat component from spring through fall (McLellan and 

Hovey 2001; Ramcharita 2000). 

Recovery: The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for North Cascades Ecosystem was approved in 1997 

(USFWS 1997), but major portions of it have not been funded. In the interim, the NPS and USFS have 

agreed to no net loss of core areas in the North Cascades ecosystem. Under this agreement, construction 

of roads or high-use trails in a core area (more than 1,640 feet from roads or high-use trails) requires 

closure of a road and/or a trail of similar size, use level, and habitat within the affected Grizzly Bear 

Management Unit. The upper Stehekin River Grizzly Bear Management Unit is 95,000 acres. 

Photo 19 – Bear Paw Prints (Roger Christophersen) 

California Wolverine 

Range: Wolverines are an uncommon resident of a wide variety of vegetation types in remote 

mountainous areas. They occupy high-elevation coniferous forests and subalpine areas. 

Habitat: In Washington, they are associated with subalpine and alpine areas, moving down to forested 

valleys in winter. They feed on ungulates and small mammals (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). Most 

evidence of wolverines from the North Cascades has been within the Bridge Creek drainage, including the 

observance of tracks on the Bridge Creek Bridge. Two unconfirmed wolverine sightings from January 

1974 and June 1983 in the Stehekin Valley are in the wildlife observation database (NPS 2006c). 

Wolverines were not detected in the Vertebrate Inventory (Kuntz and Glesne 1993:24). Wolverines were 

also not detected in the Forest Carnivore Surveys (Happe et al. 2006). 

The activity areas of three wolverines fitted with radio collars during 2006 - 2009 include all of the lower 

Stehekin Valley. How much time these individuals spent within the lower valley is not known (USFS 

2009). 

Recovery: Since wolverines are not yet federally listed, no recovery plan has been established for this 

species. 
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 201 

Photo 20 – California Wolverine (U.S. Forest Service) 

Canada Lynx 

Range: Although lynx are documented as occurring in the North Cascades, it is likely that lynx were 

uncommon visitors to the Stehekin River valley due to its lower elevation and a lack of available primary 

habitat (spruce-fir forest). Four unconfirmed sightings of lynx in the lower Stehekin Valley (below High 

Bridge) were documented between 1975 and 2000. A small number of lynx live in the Pasayten 

Wilderness east of Ross Lake (NPS 2007). 

Habitat: Lynx are associated with subalpine and boreal forests throughout their range (Witmer et al.

1998; Aubry et al. 1999). The species requires a mosaic of forest seral stages connected by stands suitable 

for travel cover. Lynx use late-seral forests for denning and rearing young and use early seral forests for 

foraging (Aubry et al. 1999). Primary prey is snowshoe hare, although lynx will take other prey, 

particularly when hare density declines. 

A vertebrate inventory conducted in 1990 and 1991 documented snowshoe hare presence in the Stehekin 

Valley (Kuntz and Glesne 1993). Lynx tend to use higher-elevation habitat (3,000 - 4,000 feet) than the 

Stehekin Valley. In addition, that habitat is often comprised of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), subalpine 

fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), species generally absent from the 

lower Stehekin Valley. Lynx have not been reported from the Stehekin Valley since 1980. Lynx were not 

detected in the Forest Carnivore Surveys (Happe et al. 2006). 

Pacific Fisher 

Range: Fishers formerly occurred throughout densely forested areas of Washington State. Records of 

fishers in the eastern North Cascades are associated with forests above 1,800 feet containing Douglas-fir 

and grand fir. Extensive surveys have been unable to confirm the existence of a population in the state 

(NPS 2007). However, a reintroduction effort to restore fishers to Olympic National Park is currently 

underway as part of an effort to reestablish self-sustaining fisher populations in the state. 

Habitat: Fishers are associated with riparian areas in late successional coniferous forests (Ruggiero et al. 

1994 in NPS 2006a). Large snags and logs provide denning and nesting sites. Fishers also use a wide 

variety of forested areas for foraging. Riparian areas, lakeshores, and ridgelines are used as movement 

corridors. Although the North Cascades area around Stehekin at one time had the highest density of recent 

fisher records in the state (10 records between 1980 and 1991) (NPS 1995a:194), fishers have not been 

documented in the Stehekin Valley since 1980 (Christopherson and Kuntz 2004; DES 2000 in NPS 

2006a; Kuntz and Glesne 1993:24). Fishers were also not detected in the Forest Carnivore Surveys 

(Happe et al. 2006). 

Recovery: Since fishers are not yet federally listed, no recovery plan has been established for this species. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

202 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Western Gray Squirrel 

Range: Although western gray squirrels are common in California and Oregon, where oak trees are 

common, park researchers are uncertain how the population persists in Stehekin Valley, where there are 

no oaks. The western gray squirrel population in Washington is believed to be declining. There are only 

three isolated populations in the state, including a very small population in the Stehekin Valley. The 

state’s review of the Stehekin population concluded that the Stehekin population is highly vulnerable and 

may not survive without active management based on limited availability of analysis of populations and 

trends. 

Habitat: Western gray squirrels prefer mixed oak and conifer forests. In areas without oaks, such as the 

Stehekin Valley, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are used. Stehekin Valley forests provide squirrels with 

conifer seeds, mushrooms, insects, berries, and canopies for nesting. Trees provide either seasonal or 

year-round cover, nest sites, travel corridors, and food. A small population of western gray squirrels 

occurs in the Stehekin Valley, where they were documented in the nutrient-rich conifer and upland mesic 

conifer habitat classes (Kuntz and Glesne 1993:24). Park researchers know little about the gray squirrels’ 

habitat requirements in the Stehekin Valley and it is unknown whether, over the long term, they can 

continue to persist. 

Recovery: Their small, isolated populations, sensitivity to habitat change, and low reproductive rates (one 

litter per year) make them susceptible to extinction. In partnership with the University of Washington and 

USGS, park biologists hope to learn more about the squirrels through a three year study (which began in 

fall 2007). Researchers intend to capture and attach radio-collars to approximately 30 squirrels to assess 

vital demographic rates and habitat requirements on western gray squirrel populations in Stehekin. The 

study will also try to determine how current recreation area management and private landowners’ actions 

impact the western gray squirrel population in the Stehekin Valley. Ideally, management actions to 

maintain a viable population of western gray squirrels in Stehekin Valley will be identified (NPS 2007:4). 

Photo 21 – Western Gray Squirrel 
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 203 

Bats 

The Stehekin Valley contains habitat or potential habitat for four bat species that are considered federal 

species of concern: the long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, small-footed (Yuma) myotis, and 

Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

According to Christophersen and Kuntz (2003), 12 species of bats are thought to inhabit North Cascades 

NPS Complex. Nine of the 12 species assumed to occur in the park appear on the Washington State 

Priority-Habitats and Species List, including eight species of the genus Myotis (M. yumanensis, M. 

lucifugus, M. californicus, M. evotis, M. thysanodes, M. volans, M. ciliolabrum, M. keenii) as well as the 

big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2002 in Christophersen 

and Kuntz 2003). In addition, both Keen’s myotis (M. keenii) and Townsend's big-eared bat 

(Coryhorninus townsendii) are listed as Washington State candidate species (Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife 2002 in Christophersen and Kuntz 2003). Keen’s myotis, however, is a coastal species 

expected to occur on the west side of the Cascade Crest and not expected from Lake Chelan NRA 

(Christophersen, pers. comm., 2009). Currently, six forest bat species of the Pacific Northwest are listed 

as federal species of concern: M. volans, M. thysanodes, M. evotis, M. yumanensis, M. ciliolabrum and 

C. townsendii (USFWS 2001a in Christophersen and Kuntz 2003). 

Range: Each of these species is known to occur in coniferous forests, and the availability of roosting 

areas (for resting and for maternal sites) is an important habitat component for the bats. Roost sites range 

from cavities and loose bark in large trees and snags to abandoned buildings, caves, and crevices in rock 

cliffs (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Older forests generally provide higher-quality roost sites than 

younger forests (Christy and West 1993). Most roosting bats are extremely sensitive to human 

disturbance. 

Habitat 

Pacific Townsend’s Big-eared Bat: Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bats prefer coniferous forested habitat 

and hibernate in caves. They use loose bark in large trees, caves, crevices, and abandoned buildings for 

roosting. Nursery colonies are extremely sensitive to human activity, and sites are readily abandoned if 

disturbed. This species has not been detected in the Stehekin Valley. 

Western Long-eared Myotis: This species is found in a wide range of habitats, including arid grasslands 

and ponderosa pine forests to humid coastal and montane forests, and at high elevations. It has been 

documented from the Stehekin Valley. Buildings or tree bark serve as day roosts. Caves and mines are 

used as night roosts, while maternity colonies are usually found in buildings. They eat moths, beetles, 

flies, and spiders and catch insects on the wing as well as glean from vegetation or off the ground 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). 

Long-legged Myotis: This bat occurs in arid range lands and interior and coastal montane forests. It uses 

buildings, crevices in rock cliffs, fissures in the ground, and tree bark for summer day roosts. It forages 

over ponds, streams, open meadows, and forest clearings and has been documented from the Stehekin 

Valley. Night roosts are usually in caves or mines. It eats mostly moths, but also termites, spiders, flies, 

beetles, leafhoppers, and lacewings (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). 

Western Small-footed (Yuma) Myotis: This bat lives near cliffs and rock outcrops in arid valleys and 

badlands. In summer it roosts in cavities in cliffs, boulders, vertical banks, ground and talus slopes, and 

under rocks. Night roosts include small caves, abandoned mines, and buildings. It feeds primarily on 

caddis flies, but eats other flies, beetles, and moths. They usually hibernate alone in tight crevices 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

204 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Fringed Myotis: This bat ranges from Mexico to Canada, inhabiting desert, arid grasslands, and arid 

and/or coniferous forest habitat. It is associated with ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forest in British 

Columbia. It roosts in tight clusters. It eats moths, flies, beetles, leafhoppers, lacewings, crickets, and 

harvestmen. Some prey is gleaned from foliage. Nursery colonies have been found in caves and buildings 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). 

Bald Eagle 

Habitat: Bald eagles prefer riparian and open water habitats with tall trees and adequate fish and 

waterfowl prey species. Bald eagles have been observed occasionally perched in trees along the lower 

Stehekin River, where they occasionally forage for fish and roost in fall, winter, and spring. In the fall, 

eagles are likely using older trees in the valley for night roosting. There is an active bald eagle nest 

located at the mouth of the Stehekin River near the head of Lake Chelan. It has been active since it was 

identified in 2001. Bald eagles are also seen in the fall and winter in this area. In 1995, the USFWS 

estimate of the lake’s wintering population was five birds (NPS 1995a:193). Bald eagles also use portions 

of the river adjacent to the Stehekin Valley Road. The nearby Skagit River watershed supports one of the 

largest wintering populations of bald eagles within the contiguous United States (NPS 2007). 

Peregrine Falcon 

Peregrine falcons usually nest on high cliffs and buttes, near water where avian prey species are most 

common (Johnsgard 1990). The species forages on a large variety of birds, and birds that regularly fly 

high in a way that exposes them to the peregrine’s typical diving attack; namely, highly mobile, flocking, 

and colonially nesting species such as waterfowl and shorebirds. These species are particularly valuable 

prey (Johnsgard 1990). 

Peregrine falcons have been sighted in the valley, but there are no records of nests. The steep, rocky cliffs 

along the Stehekin River provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat, particularly on the northeast side 

of the valley on the southwest-facing slopes of Rainbow Mountain between 2,800 and 5,600 feet in 

elevation, however, this habitat is not within the proposed project area. 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Range: Northern spotted owls occupy structurally complex forested habitat in mature or old growth 

forests, where trees are of variable species, sizes, and ages, and snags and multi-storied canopies are 

present. They are found from British Columbia throughout the Pacific Northwest and into California. 

Photo 22 – Northern Spotted Owl 
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 205 

Habitat: In 1993, park surveys located three nesting pairs and two additional single owls, all between the 

mouth of Bridge Creek and the southern boundary of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Since 1993, 

known pair sites in the Stehekin Valley and its tributaries up to the mouth of Bridge Creek have been 

surveyed three times each year. Sites where single owls have been observed have been surveyed most 

years at least once. Most of the pair sites are outside the proposed project area vicinity. 

One pair, however, has been active within the project area for many years. Located approximately 500 

feet from the Stehekin Valley Road on the south side of the Stehekin Valley, the pair was discovered in 

July 1998 during a cavity-nesting bird survey. Later, this discovery was confirmed when an adult pair and 

three juveniles were observed. Three birds were banded in August 1998 (Table III-11: Summary Status 

for the McGregor Meadows Northern Spotted Owl Activity Site).

Table III-11: Summary Status for the McGregor Meadows Northern Spotted Owl Activity Site 

Year Occupancy (Presence of 

Northern Spotted Owls)

Reproduction? Notes

1998 Pair occupancy confirmed. Reproduction confirmed. 2 young banded.

1999 Pair occupancy confirmed. Reproduction unknown.

2000 Single occupancy confirmed

(male). Pair occupancy unknown.

Reproduction unknown.

2001 Occupancy unknown. Reproduction unknown.

2002 Occupancy unknown. Reproduction unknown.

2003 No surveys.

2004 Single occupancy confirmed 

(male). Pair occupancy unknown.

Reproduction unknown.

2005 Pair occupancy confirmed. Reproduction confirmed. 2 juveniles fledged.

2006 Pair occupancy confirmed. Reproduction confirmed. 1 juvenile observed.

2007 Pair occupancy confirmed. Productivity failed or 

nonnesting.

2008 Site unoccupied. No northern 

spotted owls detected.

Pair of barred owls found.

2009 Site Unoccupied. No spotted owls 

detected.

Nonnesting. Pair of barred owls found.

2010 Site occupancy confirmed (male). 

Pair occupancy unknown. 

Reproduction unknown.

Nonnesting.

Note: Several owls have been identified in the Stehekin Valley since 1993. Of those, a number of pairs have 

produced young.

The USFWS Action Area for this former northern spotted owl nest site in the Stehekin Valley (USFWS 

2005) has a radius of 0.7 miles, which extends out from the nest tree in all directions. No construction 

work can occur within this area during the nesting season (March 1 to September 6, depending on 

fledging of young).

Recovery: The Stehekin River watershed is a Designated Conservation Area (DCA) for the northern 

spotted owl. The Recovery Plan for the species identifies most of the Stehekin Valley as a DCA. Based 

on the USFWS 1992 Draft Recovery Plan, there are four DCAs (WD-31, WD-33, WD-34, and WD-35)

partially or wholly within lands managed by North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Within the 

four DCAs there are 35,730 acres of suitable habitat for northern spotted owls. There are 21 DCAs in the 

eastern Washington Cascades province. DCA WD-33 is within the proposed project vicinity. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

206 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

In 1995 it was estimated that 2,500 acres of suitable habitat were available for owls from the Lower Field 

down valley to Lake Chelan (see USFWS 1995). NPS fuel management actions in the lower valley, as 

defined in the Forest Fuel Reduction/Firewood Management Plan (NPS 1995g), will reduce suitable 

habitat by 299 acres. For this reason, implementation of the NPS Forest Fuel Reduction/Firewood 

Management Plan required issuance of an ―incidental take‖ permit from the USFWS for the fuel 

reduction actions in the valley below the Lower Field. 

Golden Eagle 

The 1995 GMP reports only 80 breeding pairs of golden eagles in Washington State (NPS 1995a:194). 

Golden eagles are associated with open areas containing low-lying shrubs, grasslands, open areas, or open 

ponderosa pine forests (Watson and Whalen 2003 in NPS 2006a). Golden eagles nest on cliffs or in large 

trees and prey on mid-sized mammals, including rabbits, ground squirrels, and marmots. Golden eagles 

have been observed foraging along the lower Stehekin River near the head of Lake Chelan in winter (NPS 

2006c).

Merlin 

Merlins are associated with habitats similar to the golden eagle, and are generally not found in the 

Stehekin Valley. Merlins eat small, open-country birds such as larks, swallows, and finches as well as 

small mammals and insects. Three wildlife observation database records for merlins have been identified 

from the Stehekin Valley (in June 1986, May 1993, and September 1995) (NPS 2006c). These records 

probably represent birds migrating through the valley, since the dense forests characteristic of the valley 

do not provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. 

Northern Goshawk 

Northern goshawks are present in upland mesic coniferous forests and deciduous riparian forests in the 

Stehekin Valley. Northern goshawks fly below the canopy in mature or old-growth forests to forage for 

ground-dwelling birds, ducks and mammals and nest in large trees. Goshawk nests have been documented 

on the shore of Lake Chelan south of the Landing and above High Bridge. 

Harlequin Duck 

Harlequin ducks occur in mountain stream environments during the breeding season. Their breeding 

habitat consists of clear, clean, fast-flowing, low-gradient (less than 3 percent) mountain streams (second 

order or larger) with rocky substrates and riparian bank vegetation (USFS 1992). Nests may be located on 

top of stable cut banks, on side slopes of streams, on steep slopes, in undercut stream banks, in cliff 

cavities above the stream, and in piles of woody debris (MacCallum 2001), as well as in hollow trees and 

snags (Cassirer et al. 1993). 

Surveys completed in the early 1990s concluded that 7 to 11 pairs nest along the Stehekin River between 

High Bridge and the head of Lake Chelan, among the highest nesting density recorded on any North 

American river. Most were found between Rainbow Creek and Harlequin Bridge, with the greatest 

concentration near the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture. Harlequins arrive in April and start 

nesting by the beginning of May. Young are usually first seen on the Stehekin River and its tributaries by 

late June - early July. Males leave the river by early July, migrating back to the Pacific Coast. Females 

and juveniles return to the coast in August to early September. 
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 207 

Lewis’s Woodpecker 

Lewis’s woodpeckers inhabit recently burned areas in open woodlands and forests. There is one 1971 

record of this species at the head of Lake Chelan from the wildlife observation database (NPS 2006c).

Black-backed Woodpecker

The black-backed woodpecker occurs in montane and pine forests, where it is confined mostly to burned 

areas with abundant snags (USFS 1992; Dixon and Saab 2000). Recent burns provide outbreaks of bark 

beetles, which are the main prey for this woodpecker (Dixon and Saab 2000). In the absence of burns, this 

woodpecker will forage in areas with diseased trees. Most studies indicate that the species prefers to 

forage on dead trees rather than live trees (Dixon and Saab 2000). 

There are three records of these birds observed in the lower Stehekin Valley from the Wildlife 

Observation Database (1984 - 2001) (NPS 2006c). All three records occurred between July 25 and August 

13. According to staff biologists, they probably represent post-breeding movement. In the project area, 

black-backed woodpeckers would be uncommon, due to the lack of high-intensity burned areas and/or 

diseased areas with abundant snags. 

Pileated Woodpecker 

Pileated woodpeckers are known to be present and nest in lowland forests in the Stehekin Valley. They 

are found within Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests as well as in mature riparian forests. They 

excavate large rectangular holes in search of carpenter ants. These cavities are later used by saw-whet and 

screech owls, Vaux’s swifts, flickers, chickadees, bluebirds, flying and tree squirrels, woodrats, and bats. 

Black Swift 

According to the Seattle Audubon Society’s Bird Web (www.birdweb.org), the Black Swift is an 

uncommon breeder in forested habitats at moderate elevations in the northern Cascades (both east and 

west sides north of Snoqualmie Pass). Black Swifts require a specialized habitat for nesting, in forested 

areas near rivers, where their nests are often located behind waterfalls or on damp cliffs where the 

environment is dark, wet, steep, and inaccessible to predators. This provides the birds with an 

unobstructed way to approach the nest. Black Swifts may nest singly or in small colonies. Nests may be 

reused from year to year, with more material added each year. Black Swifts are patchily distributed, with 

apparently stable numbers. Because of the difficulty in locating and observing nests, however, this 

species’ ecology is not well known. 

Vaux’s Swift 

Vaux’s swifts are common in April or May through September in the Stehekin Valley. They require large, 

hollow snags or cavities in the broken tops of live trees for nesting and roosting. Nesting occurs from 

June through August. Based on studies in Oregon, Vaux’s swifts prefer grand firs for nesting and roosting 

(NPS 2006c). Swifts forage over open water. At least two pairs have been identified in the valley (NPS 

1995a:196). 

Bull Trout 

Range: The Stehekin River is within the range of Columbia River bull trout. Historically, bull trout 

inhabited the Stehekin River and Lake Chelan; however, the last confirmed report of bull trout in Lake 

Chelan was in 1957 (Brown 1984 in NPS 1995a:189) and they are now considered to be extirpated from 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

208 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the lower Stehekin River (NPS 2007). A large number of sick and dying bull trout had been observed in 

the fall of 1951 and there were few reports of the fish after that. In 1993, there were several unconfirmed 

reports of bull trout being captured in the Stehekin River (FERC 2002 in NPS 2006a; NOAA Fisheries 

2004). Little is known about the historical status of bull trout in Lake Chelan. Some remnant bull trout 

may reside in tributaries to Lake Chelan, however verified captures from the lake have not occurred in 

two decades (FERC 2002 in NPS 2006a). 

Although their fall spawning run in the Stehekin River was once a major angler and tourist attraction, 

based on the results from numerous creel and habitat surveys, bull trout are presumed to be extirpated 

from the Stehekin River. The project area does not contain designated or proposed bull trout critical 

habitat. Nonetheless, in the recreation area, bull trout habitat is managed to (1) avoid further degradation, 

(2) protect any potential remaining individuals or populations, and (3) preserve the option of species 

restoration. 

Life History: Like rainbow trout/steelhead, bull trout exhibit two distinct life history strategies: resident 

and migratory. Resident bull trout spend their entire lives in headwater streams. Migratory populations 

spawn in headwaters, where rearing takes place. Juveniles then migrate downstream to larger rivers, 

lakes, or the ocean, where they mature before returning to the headwaters to spawn. Spawning occurs in 

the fall, with emergence in spring. Bull trout primarily feed on bottom-dwelling and drifting aquatic 

insects; however, larger fish mostly eat smaller fish. 

Habitat: Bull trout juveniles feed on invertebrates and other fish, but primarily eat fish as adults. Optimal 

habitat is characterized by clear, cold water and gravel-cobble substrates free of fine sediments, abundant 

instream cover, and deep pools (Rieman and McIntyre 1993 in NPS 2006a). Bull trout populations are 

associated with high channel complexity and cold stream reaches within a basin (Rieman and McIntyre 

1993 in NPS 2006a). 

Threats: Bull trout are rapidly declining throughout their range. Identified risks to bull trout include dams 

and diversions, overharvest, habitat degradation, competition from and hybridization with competing 

species such as brook trout, and population fragmentation (Bader et al. 1993 in NPS 1995a:190; Lee et 

al. 1997 in NPS 2006a). 

Dolly Varden 

Dolly Varden were proposed as threatened under the similarity of appearance provision of the 

Endangered Species Act. They occupy the same habitats and have nearly indistinguishable characteristics 

from bull trout. 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

Westslope cutthroat trout were once the dominant sport fish in Lake Chelan. A combination of factors, 

including hatchery egg harvesting, introduction of competitive sport fish such as rainbow and brook trout 

and kokanee salmon, hybridization with rainbow trout, construction of the Chelan dam, and overfishing, 

led to a much-reduced population after 1910. Hatchery-reared fish began to be planted in Lake Chelan, its 

tributaries, and high mountain lakes in the mid-1920s. 

Range: Native westslope cutthroat trout occur in the Stehekin River and its tributaries, including Bridge, 

Park, Canim, Buzzard, and McGregor creeks. Population densities in the upper Stehekin River and in 

Bridge and Park creeks are some of the highest recorded in the continental United States (FERC 2002 in 

NPS 2006a). Below Bridge Creek, the cutthroats hybridize with rainbow trout. 
9. Special Status Species 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 209 

Life History: Similar to bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout also exhibit both resident and migratory life 

history strategies. Cutthroat trout spawn in the spring to mid-summer (between March and July) in lowgradient stream reaches that have clean gravel substrate in close proximity to cover (overhanging rocks, 

stream banks, or vegetation) (Behnke 1992; McIntyre and Rieman 1995 in NPS 2006a). 

Habitat: Westslope cutthroat trout fry generally occupy shallow waters near stream banks and other lowvelocity stream areas (backwaters or side channels); juveniles are most often found in pools and riffles 

(McIntyre and Rieman 1995 in NPS 2006a). Adult westslope cutthroat are associated with cold, highgradient reaches that have pools and cover (Shepard et al. 1984; McIntyre and Rieman 1995 in NPS 

2006a). Among the characteristics that identify westslope cutthroat trout habitat are clear, cold water; siltfree substrate in riffles; equal areas of pools and riffles; areas of slow, deep water; well-vegetated stream 

banks; abundant instream cover; relatively stable flow regimes and stream banks; and productive insect 

populations (Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989 in NPS 1995a:189). 

Threats: Risks to westslope cutthroat trout are the same as those affecting bull trout (Lee et al. 1997 in 

NPS 2006a). 

Chinook Salmon 

The largest of the Pacific salmon, the Chinook salmon (king salmon) weigh between 12 and 40 pounds 

and have a silvery olive-brown and purple coloring. They prefer freshwater streams and deep pools, 

though they eventually migrate to the ocean. Wild Chinook persist in the Skagit River watershed, along 

with all five Pacific salmon species (NPS 2007). Chinook salmon were stocked in the Chelan Subbasin. 

Landlocked Chinook have established resident lake populations and currently spawn in the Stehekin 

River, Company Creek, and Blackberry Creek (FERC 2002 in NPS 2006a). 

Western Toad 

Western Toads range in elevation from sea level to 2,250 meters amsl. Oviposit sites and aquatic habitat 

include lakes, springs, ponds, wetlands, stock ponds, and slow-moving parts of streams. Terrestrial 

habitats are forests, grasslands, and along streams. Western toads are most common near marshes and 

small lakes, but they may wander great distances through dry forests or shrubby thickets. Outside of the 

breeding season, western toads are nocturnal, spending the day buried in the soil, concealed under woody 

debris, or in the burrows of other animals. The western toad has been documented in the Stehekin Valley 

(Kuntz and Glesne 1993). They are the most frequently encountered amphibian in the Stehekin Valley 

(Kuntz and Glesne 1993). Adults live underground and can be found near breeding habitats in upland 

areas, particularly near seeps. 

Columbia Spotted Frog 

Columbia spotted frog is nearly always found in or near a perennial water body (required for breeding) 

such as a spring, pond, lake, or stream backwater. It is most often associated with nonwoody wetland 

plant communities (sedges, rushes, and grasses). Breeding occurs in February or March at lower 

elevations of eastern and western Washington but does not occur until late May or early June at higher 

elevations. Kuntz and Glesne (1993) and others (e.g., Nussbaum et al. 1983 in NPS 1995a:195) have 

documented this species in the Stehekin Valley. 

Cascades Frog 

The Cascades frog is found in quiet, sometimes ephemeral, ponds for breeding. Eggs are deposited in 

shallow water near the shoreline. Egg development through metamorphosis requires between 40 and 60 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

210 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

days, depending on water temperature. Aquatic and terrestrial insects comprise their diet. Cascades frogs 

are active from early spring through late fall. They estivate in mud over the winter. A 1991 survey found 

Cascades frogs in a variety of habitats in the Stehekin Valley (Kuntz and Glesne 1993), including on the 

south side of the Stehekin River, on Battalion Creek, in riparian areas south of the airstrip, and in 

overflow channels along the river. 

Tailed Frog

Tailed frogs are stream-breeding amphibians that occupy cold, rocky, mountain streams (Leonard et al.

1993). Adult tailed frogs occupy streamside and forest habitats adjacent to streams. Tailed frogs are not 

expected to occur in the Stehekin River adjacent to the project road alignment, due to the relatively large 

size and low gradient of the river in this area. The frogs may occur in higher-gradient streams above the 

Stehekin River and road alignment. 

10. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Overview 

Most of the proposed project area has been surveyed for the presence of cultural resources, including 

archeological and ethnographic resources and historic buildings and structures. Accordingly, a review has 

been conducted of relevant literature and cultural resources inventory lists. 

Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan Project Area Summary: The project area includes the 

lower Stehekin Valley, from High Bridge to the head of Lake Chelan, including Weaver Point. 

Area of Potential Effects: As defined under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), the area of potential effects (APE) of each undertaking would be specified following a concise 

description of the project’s associated NHPA undertakings. 

The following cultural resources are within or adjacent to the project area: 

Historic Archeological Resources 

 Stehekin Wagon Road (45CH429), a linear historic archeological feature. 

Cultural Landscapes 

 Buckner Homestead Historic District (National Register Number [NR] 88003445) 

These resources are currently listed on or have been formally determined eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. A number of other cultural resources are near the project area and would not 

be directly affected by the proposed actions contained within the alternatives described herein. 

The following cultural resources are within or near the project area but would not be affected by proposed 

actions: 

Archeological Resources 

 55 total archeological sites in the Stehekin Watershed (historic and pre-contact periods) 

 12 pre-contact period archeological sites in the project area 
10. Cultural Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 211 

 7 historic-period archeological sites in the project area. 

Historic Buildings and Structures 

 Stehekin School (NR 74000913) 

 George Miller House (NR 88003464) 

 Purple Point—Stehekin Ranger Station House (NR 88003460) 

 Harlequin Bridge 

 Buckner Cabin (NR 74000912). 

Cultural Landscapes 

 Golden West Lodge Historic District (NR 88003442) 

 High Bridge Ranger Station Historic District (NR 88003443). 

a. Archeological Resources 

Overview 

The following studies document lower Stehekin Valley and Lake Chelan archeological resources: 

 Archeological Overview (Mierendorf 1986) 

 National Register Nomination (1989) 

 Archeological Basemap (1990). 

Prior to 1986, archeological surveys in the lower Stehekin Valley and head of Lake Chelan area were 

conducted sporadically by university-based consulting archeologists. In the early 1970s, using 

information provided by local residents, Rice conducted a survey of the Stehekin Valley Road prior to 

proposed road improvements and collected information on five pre-contact-age sites and other 

information linked to indigenous uses of the Stehekin area (Rice nd). In the summer of 1977 (Grabert and 

Pint 1978) a team of graduate students from Western Washington University surveyed in the upper and 

lower valley, where they recorded three sites and conducted test excavations at High Bridge (45CH69). 

From 1984 to 1986 Bob Mierendorf, employee of Washington State University and contracted by NPS, 

performed reconnaissance-level cultural resource surveys and visited and documented previously 

recorded archeological sites to gather background data for the preparation of the park’s archeological 

overview and research design (Mierendorf 1986). Nine previously unrecorded pre-contact-age sites were 

documented in the Stehekin-Chelan watershed, thus increasing the total site inventory in the Stehekin 

watershed to 17 sites and to 28 sites in the park complex. Today the park complex-wide inventory of all 

archeological sites is 305. 

Beginning in the summer of 1986, cultural resources surveys in the Stehekin watershed (as elsewhere in 

the park complex) were conducted by NPS archeologist Bob Mierendorf or by survey teams under his 

direction. The survey strategies consisted of two types: nonintensive reconnaissance-level surveys and 

intensive inventory-level surveys. The reconnaissance-level surveys provide an overview of the 

watershed’s pre-contact- and historic-period archeological resources, while the compliance surveys cover 

smaller areas in great detail. Results from both survey strategies have revealed the widespread presence of 

a variety of site types in all elevation zones of the Stehekin watershed. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

212 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Although archeological surveys provide useful data regarding the types and geographic distribution of 

pre-contact sites, only controlled excavations of intact site deposits and analysis of the resulting 

collections yield chronological and functional information. To date in the Stehekin watershed, four precontact period archeological sites (45CH411, -412, -69, and -221) have been assessed for National 

Register eligibility through limited test excavations. Two of these sites are within the project area 

(45CH412 and -69): one at Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture and one at the High Bridge Guard 

Station. 

The first, the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture Site (45CH412), was found to contain intact 

deposits nearly 1 meter in depth with artifacts and prepared cooking features radiocarbon-dated at 

between 500 and 3,000 years old (park complex unpublished site excavation records); this site has been 

informally assessed as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is protected within the 

boundary of the Buckner Homestead Historic District. 

The second, 45CH69, is located at the High Bridge Guard Station and was first test-excavated in 1977, 

but with poor results (Grabert and Pint 1978). In 2000 an intact pit feature was found buried under the 

floor of the historic garage; a large chipped stone tool assemblage excavated from inside and around the 

edges of the feature dated from several hundred years old at the top to 6,500 years old at the bottom, 

nearly 1 meter below the garage floor (unpublished park complex site excavation records). This site has 

been informally assessed as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and it is protected within 

the boundary of the High Bridge Ranger Station Historic District. 

The overall results of these investigations reveal a long and complex history of indigenous involvement 

with the Stehekin watershed. For at least 9,500 years, indigenous groups have been crossing the northern 

Cascade Range at Cascade Pass, located at the head of the Stehekin watershed, and using it as a 

temporary camp for hunting and gathering forays in the surrounding mountains. Presently, Cascade Pass 

is the oldest radiocarbon-dated site in the Stehekin watershed, in the park complex, and in the Cascade 

Range of Washington and British Columbia. At the time of European contact, about A.D. 1800, Lake 

Chelan and the Stehekin River valley were the traditional homeland of the Chelan Indians, who used the 

valley for hunting and gathering and as one of several travel corridors across the rugged northern Cascade 

Range. Today, descendents of these original inhabitants are associated with two eastern Washington 

federally recognized tribal governments, the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Yakama Nation. 

Numerous cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the proposed APE over nearly two 

decades. The surveys were conducted pursuant to several types of proposed NPS undertakings, including 

road storm damage repair, road realignment, road resurfacing, trail construction, and fire management 

activities. The most recent survey for the proposed road modifications was conducted in July 2008 by 

Bob Mierendorf, park complex archeologist, and Ray DePuydt, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area 

archeologist. 

Archeological surveys have been conducted in areas associated with proposed actions in all alternatives 

and/or would be conducted and/or monitored during soil-disturbance activities. These areas include the 

existing roadway; proposed relocated maintenance facility and housing near the airstrip; turnout locations 

along the existing Stehekin Valley Road (including areas of paving, culvert installation and replacement, 

and side ditch construction / reconstruction); the proposed winter turnaround / parking area; and areas 

along the Stehekin River previously disturbed by road improvements (including near Milepost 5.3 

[Wilson Creek], Milepost 8.5, and the McGregor Meadows area; to construct the proposed Lower Valley 

Trail) and by ongoing implementation of land acquisition and exchange priorities from the 1995 LPP 

(NPS 1995b). 
10. Cultural Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 213 

i. Pre-contact Period Archeological Resources 

None of the 12 pre-contact period sites within the project area are located in areas that are proposed for 

undertakings (APE). As additional detailed plans are completed and APEs for each undertaking are 

detailed, however, the park will comply with Section 106 of the NHPA to determine effects to cultural 

resources. Pre-contact archeological site types represented in the project area include lithic scatters 

(concentrations of chipped stone tools and fire-modified rocks, sometime buried up to 1 meter deep), 

rockshelters, pits in the ground, rock walls and cairns, and pictograph sites. Any of these site categories 

are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Two sites in the project area have been informally recommended for National Register eligibility, the 

Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture Site (45CH412) and the High Bridge Site (45CH69), and each is 

inside the boundaries of a listed National Register historic district. Neither of these sites is within an APE. 

Two other sites, although not fully assessed for significance, appear to be eligible and should be treated as 

significant until they can be more completely documented. Both of these are rockshelter sites with 

associated pictographs (45CH427 and 45CH450) and are considered to have traditional cultural 

significance. Although both are also within the project area, neither of these is within the APE of any of 

the potential undertakings. 

Table III-12: Overview of Pre-contact and Historic Period Archeological Sites in the Lower 

Stehekin Valley 

Pre-contact Period Archeological Sites

Courtney Ranch (45CH68) Bullion Boulder (45CH427)

High Bridge Guard Station (45CH69) Bullion Fan (45CH428)

Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture (45CH412) Rainbow Creek 1 (45CH431)

Bullion Bar (45 CH416) Little Boulder Creek 1 (45CH432)

Boulder Creek 1 (45CH407) McGregor Rockshelter (45CH450)

Boulder Creek 2 (45CH408) Harlequin Rockshelter (45CH454)

Historic Period Archeological Sites

Stehekin Wagon Road (45CH429) Harlequin Bridge Abutment (45CH459)

Weaver Point Historic Site (45CH452) Lower Buckner Field Can Dump (45CH455)

Buckner Lane Historic Site (45CH451) Lower Field Irrigation Ditch (45CH468)

Stehekin Community Can Dump (45CH499)

ii. Historic Archeological Resources 

Historic archeological sites in the project area include a bridge abutment (45CH459), irrigation ditch 

(45CH468), historic artifact debris scatters (45CH455 and 45CH499), historic debris and structure 

depressions (45CH452), and road and trail segments (45CH429 and 45CH451). Two of these sites have 

the potential to be affected by project implementation, the Weaver Point Historic Site (45CH452) and the 

Stehekin Wagon Road (45CH429). 

The first, the Weaver Point Historic Site, was test-excavated and assessed as eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. The assessment was performed by a consulting firm under contract 

to Chelan PUD and working on NPS lands under authority of an ARPA permit issued by NPS to perform 

archeological studies in advance of the Chelan PUD’s application for a license to continue operation of 

the Lake Chelan reservoir. It is likely that at least one of the two building remains, a dugout cabin 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

214 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

foundation, is the Devore/Pershall cabin; historic artifacts recovered in the assessment point to an early 

historic-period residential occupation dating between 1886 and 1900 (Ozbun et al. 2005:51 - 59). 

The second site, the Stehekin Wagon Road (45CH429), is a linear feature consisting of many 

discontinuous segments of now-abandoned roadbeds. Some of these segments may be the remains of the 

first Stehekin Wagon Road. Beginning in the early 1890s, plans were made for construction of roads 

linking mines in the upper valley with the head of Lake Chelan. The Stehekin Wagon Road was built 

between 1894 and the early 1900’s to transport people and supplies to the mining communities at Bridge 

Creek and Horseshoe Basin. The original wagon road was constructed from the head of the lake along the 

south side of the valley up to the end of present day Company Creek Road. At that point, it crossed the 

river to the north side of the valley (where the bridge abutments can still be seen and where the proposed 

Lower Valley Trail would cross the Stehekin River) and then continued upvalley. 

The wagon road on the south side of the Stehekin River was declared a public highway in 1892 and 

designated the Stehekin River County Road. After this initial road was roughed out it was used for a few 

years, but fell into disuse following the building of a new dock on the north side of the Stehekin River 

(Mierendorf 2009). At that point, most travel up the valley was, as it is today, on the current Stehekin 

Valley Road side as far as Bullion. Here the old road left the current road and began the approximately 

400-foot ascent that brought the road almost to the elevation of Coon Lake. An unknown time later, a 

bridge was built over the Stehekin River at High Bridge in order to avoid the climb to Coon Lake. At 

today’s High Bridge one can see an earlier roadbed immediately west of and below the current bridge. 

Early historic-period roads in the lower Stehekin River Valley are potentially of local historic significance 

because they represent a critical aspect of late-19th-century mining development and settlement and 

recreational activities in the valley. Although the important roles that roads served in the Stehekin 

Valley’s economic and settlement history is generally acknowledged, historic records documenting details 

of roads histories and uses are rare (Mierendorf 2009). 

The Stehekin Wagon Road is a linear historic archeological feature. Abandoned road segments within the 

APE are common and can be recognized by one or a combination of several constructed road features. 

These extant road features consist of: 

 Scraped or leveled road sections (10 - 13 feet or 3 - 4 meters wide) marked by a line or low 

mound of rocks and boulders that were moved to one or both sides of the roadbed 

 Traces of roadbed visible as unforested corridors through the otherwise closed-canopy forest 

 Retaining walls built of subangular rocks and boulders (of immediately local origin) to create or 

maintain a level roadbed across slopes or other natural terrain features 

 Roadbed cuts into existing terrain that created or maintained a low-gradient road alignment 

profile through high ground. 

Road segments are discontinuous and cannot clearly be linked to each other due to erosion and/or burial 

by hillslope runoff, snow and rock avalanches, deposition of debris cones and alluvial fans, overgrowth of 

native shrubs and trees, road rebuilding and repair, and development associated with adjacent private 

residences. Most disturbance to the physical integrity of these road segments occurs in the lower Stehekin 

Valley, where most people live and where development is the greatest; above approximately Milepost 8.0, 

these road segments appear to retain more historic integrity. 

Within the proposed reroute APE between the head of Lake Chelan and Milepost 9.2, two sets of built 

rock features clearly define abandoned road segments. These discontinuous segments of the Old Wagon 
10. Cultural Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 215 

Road parallel the existing Stehekin Valley Road near Mileposts 6.3 and 8.0. In addition, outside the APE, 

there is an additional segment of the road. 

Milepost 6.3 

The first set of features from the Old Wagon Road is located within the APE above the existing Stehekin 

Valley Road at approximately Milepost 6.3. This feature was observed and recorded in May 1996 and 

revisited in July 2008, and consists of three closely spaced rock wall segments built on the downhill side 

of an abandoned roadbed where it traverses the sloping toe of a large, boulder-strewn debris cone. The 

three segments are 22, 34, and 46 feet (7, 10.4, and 14 meters) in length and together they span a distance 

of 360 feet (109.8 meters). The highest measured wall is 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) (six to seven courses of 

rock) and the lowest is 1.6 feet (0.5 meter) high (one to two courses of stone) (Mierendorf 2009). 

Walls were built of locally derived, subangular cobbles and boulders that were stacked and fitted— 

sometimes tightly, but in most cases they appear to have been loosely piled. The rock walls served to hold 

and stabilize the downhill side of the constructed roadbed. They also retain an even bed of rocks and 

earth, where the road crosses shallow gullies and dips eroded into the toe of the debris cone. Portions of 

the rock walls are overgrown by lichens and native shrubs and have begun to dismantle through the 

processes of natural weathering and disturbance. As inferred from the wall design and construction 

techniques, the builders favored opportunistic and energy-minimizing techniques—in particular, moving 

aside or repositioning boulders and piling smaller rocks against and around larger boulders that served to 

anchor the wall segments. The age of the rock walls, their builders, and the history of maintenance or 

rebuilding are currently unknown. Because the ―original‖ Stehekin Valley wagon road is reported to have 

been on the other side of the valley at this mile point, this road segment may be associated with the road 

that subsequently replaced the earlier road following the building of a new dock on the north side of the 

Stehekin River at the head of the lake (Mierendorf 2009). 

Based on archeological analysis, the features appear to lack integrity of association and workmanship; 

their age and affiliation with an original or early Stehekin Valley Road cannot be demonstrated; and they 

do not represent the best example of early road design and construction techniques. These features 

therefore do not appear to meet National Register eligibility criteria (Mierendorf 2009). 

Milepost 8.0 

The second road segment, near the present Stehekin Valley Road at Milepost 8.0, covers an area of about 

3,937 feet by 33 feet and also includes a rock retaining wall about 7 feet high where the road was built 

around a rock outcrop (NPS 1995a:202). It has been determined to be potentially eligible for inclusion on 

the National Register (see below). 

This set of rock features is located approximately 0.2 mile above Milepost 8.0, on the north side of the 

river, and was recorded in 1992 as the ―Stehekin Wagon Road‖ (FS #212; 45CH429). This road segment 

is approximately 197 feet (60 meters) long and most of it is cut shallowly into the top of an alluvial fan. A 

much shorter dry-stacked rock wall segment consists of a lower foundation (or footing course of rocks) 

with a dry masonry rock wall built on top of this from several courses of locally derived subangular 

cobbles and boulders to a maximum height of 4.9 feet (1.5 meters); the roadbed is 10 feet (3 meters) wide 

(Mierendorf 2009). 

The wall segments here vary from intact to disturbed (disturbance caused by stream erosion and natural 

deterioration). The wall is located above a steep slope where the road was constructed around a bedrock 

outcrop. It appears that rather than blasting out the bedrock, the road was built to go around it. The 

footing and retaining walls were built on the downslope side of the rock outcrop and the space between 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

216 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the wall and the outcrop were filled with small subangular rocks to create a fairly level roadbed. 

Compared to the rock walls at Milepost 6.3, the rock walls at Milepost 8.0 were built with more care and 

represent a much greater investment in time and energy, and because of their location were part of the 

road from its initial construction. A Ponderosa pine growing on the roadbed fill at this site was cored with 

an increment borer and found to be 78 years old, indicating that this part of the roadbed was built prior to 

1914 (Mierendorf 2009). 

Unlike the features at Milepost 6.3, based on analysis, the features associated with Milepost 8.0 do appear 

to retain integrity of association, workmanship, location, and setting. In addition, tree core data indicate 

that this road segment was built prior to 1914, consistent with the early mining period in the Stehekin 

Valley. Integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship at this site therefore appear to preserve 

significant historic features directly associated with early transportation and the development of the 

mining industry in the Stehekin watershed and the northern Cascade Range. This cultural resource 

appears to meet National Register eligibility criteria at local and statewide levels of significance 

(Mierendorf 2009). 

Coon Run Vicinity (approximately 20 feet to the east of the existing roadbed) 

Above Milepost 8.0, outside the APE, is another segment of Old Wagon Road described in the Coon Run 

EA associated with flood damage improvements to the Stehekin Valley Road in that area (NPS 2005b).

This roadbed extends for approximately 300 feet. The wagon road remains are 15 feet wide. Rocks and 

soil scraped from the bed form a rock berm, or boulder line, on either side of the road. This road segment 

is devoid of artifacts or built road features such as retaining walls, foundation rocks, or drainage features. 

The existing road segment disappears abruptly at either end, where it has been truncated by road cuts 

created during construction of the present Stehekin Valley Road. Although the age of this road segment is 

unknown, it does not appear to be part of the original Stehekin Wagon Road because this segment is west 

of Bullion, and therefore cannot be the same road that climbed to the Coon Lake elevation. The Coon Run 

EA stated that the wagon road segment (considered part of 45CH429) near Coon Run does not appear to 

be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 2005b).

b. Historic Buildings and Structures 

The following studies document Lake Chelan historic resources: 

 Historic Structure Inventory (1984) 

 Historic Resource Study (1970/1986) 

 Historic Structures Preservation Guide (1987) 

 Resource Management Plan (1993). 

Historic Structures/Cultural Landscapes Overview 

Historic contexts identified in the North Cascades National Park Service Complex Historic Resource 

Study included exploration, settlement, commercial development, recreation, and administration of the 

area by the USFS. These contexts, and the inventory data provided by these studies, were summarized in 

the multiple-property resource nomination prepared for the National Register, ―Historic Resources of 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex.‖ As a result of this nomination, 28 buildings and three 

Historic Districts were listed on the National Register in the project area. 
10. Cultural Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 217 

The following buildings, structures, historic districts, and cultural landscapes within the project area are 

listed or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: Buckner Homestead Historic 

District, Courtney / McComb Cabin, George Miller House, Golden West Lodge Historic District, 

Harlequin Bridge, High Bridge Ranger Station Historic District, Stehekin Ranger Station Residence, and 

the Stehekin School. 

Buckner Homestead Historic District: See ―c. Cultural Landscapes.‖ 

Courtney / McComb Cabin: The Courtney Cabin, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is 

located on the north side of Company Creek Road, near the south shore of the Stehekin River about 5 

miles from the Landing. It is a log and wood-frame structure significant for its association with early 

homesteading in the valley. Hugh Courtney moved uplake with his family in the 1910s to work at the 

Stehekin sawmill. In 1918, he filed a claim for 53 acres and moved into a log cabin built by a previous 

squatter in about 1889. By the 1920s, he had built the wood-frame portion, doubling the size of the home; 

cleared and plowed land for a garden; and built a cellar, barn, and hayshed. He lived in it with his wife 

until the 1950s. Afterward it began to deteriorate as a rental unit until acquired by the NPS in 1971 (NPS 

1995a:205). 

The historic cabin is experiencing increased flood damage (e.g., water flowing through structure when 

road floods). It was moved once, but likely needs to be moved again due to changing conditions. 

(Addressing the damage is beyond the scope of this DEIS.) 

George Miller House: This house is located near Stehekin Landing on the east shore of Lake Chelan. It 

is significant as an example of pre-World War II residential architecture and for its association with 

recreation in Stehekin. It is outside the APE for the alternatives. 

Golden West Lodge Historic District: See ―c. Cultural Landscapes.‖

Harlequin Bridge: Located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of Stehekin Landing, the bridge was 

determined eligible for listing on February 17, 1995. It provides access to private residences and NPS 

facilities along Company Creek Road on the south side of the Stehekin River. Built by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture in 1948, it replaced an older bridge destroyed that year in a flood. The bridge’s 

rare Baltimore truss design and timber construction were cited by the Washington State Historic 

Preservation Officer as contributing to its eligibility (NPS 1995a:207). 

High Bridge Ranger Station Historic District: See ―c. Cultural Landscapes.‖

Stehekin Ranger Station Residence and Woodshed (Purple Point): These buildings are significant for 

their association with the USFS era of land management in the North Cascades and are excellent 

examples of USFS residential architecture from the late 1920s. After the original ranger station was 

destroyed by rising lake waters, the station was rebuilt at its current location at Purple Point. Later a 

warehouse and bunkhouse (which have now been substantially altered) were added. The ranger station is 

currently used for NPS housing and is outside the project area for the alternatives. 

Stehekin School: In 1921, Stehekin residents assembled to identify a site for a new school. Materials for 

the log building were crafted by Stehekin Community volunteers, funds were raised through ―box socials‖

for flooring, windows, and doors, and construction began in late summer. Previous to this, various other 

log cabins served as schools. The old Stehekin School is significant for its association with the early 

settlement and development of the Stehekin Valley (NPS 1995a:206). 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

218 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 23 – Historic Old Stehekin School 

c. Cultural Landscapes 

The following reports and inventories document cultural landscapes: 

 List of Classified Structures Update (2005) 

 High Bridge Ranger Station Cultural Landscape Inventory (2002) 

 Buckner Homestead Cultural Landscape Inventory (1984) 

 Golden West Lodge Cultural Landscape Inventory (1985). 

Evaluation of cultural landscapes is divided into the following categories, which recognize contributing 

resources: 

 Spatial organization—the composition and sequence of outdoor spaces within the district 

 Circulation—the means and patterns of movement through the district 

 Topography—the ways in which the landscape planning responds to the topographic features of 

the site and the modifications of that topography 

 Vegetation—the response of existing vegetation as well as the management of vegetation 

through pruning, removal, or addition of trees and shrubs 

 Structures—all contributing structures, including roads, trails, and other small-scale features 

such as rock walls and culverts 

 Buildings—structures intended to shelter a human activity. 

Three areas within Lake Chelan are managed as cultural landscapes: the Golden West Lodge Historic 

District, Buckner Homestead Historic District, and the High Bridge Historic District. The High Bridge 

Historic District is within the project area but not within the area of potential effects. A Cultural 

Landscape Inventory, completed prior to certification requirements, is available for the Buckner 

Homestead (Kennedy, pers. comm., 2008), as is the Buckner Orchard Homestead Historic District Final 

Management Plan (NPS 1998b). 
11. Visitor Experience 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 219 

Golden West Lodge Historic District: The district consists of seven contributing structures built on a 

4-acre site to provide a wilderness resort. It is the oldest large-scale resort in the park complex and the 

only remaining example of large-scale resort development in the North Cascades. A cultural landscape 

inventory is available for this district (Kennedy, pers. comm., 2008). 

When the early Field Hotel at the head of the lake was dismantled in 1926, the building materials were 

salvaged and used in the construction of the Golden West Lodge. After World War II, the lodge was 

expanded and five rustic cabins, a small swimming pool, fish pond, shuffleboard court, and other 

landscape features were added (NPS 1995a:204). Restoration of the Golden West Lodge has retained its 

historic character. Inside it has a bookstore, information desk, exhibits, and an open activity area. On the 

second floor are offices and storage space. Restrooms are located both upstairs and downstairs. The 

Golden West Lodge Historic District is not within the project area for the proposed alternatives. 

Buckner Homestead Historic District: This district comprises 15 buildings, other structures, and ruins, 

as well as orchards, pasture, and hand-dug irrigation ditches, on approximately 90 acres. It is the largest 

group of structures representing the early settlement of the Stehekin Valley over the six decades from 

1889 to the 1950s (NPS 1995a:203). Among the outbuildings include a brooder house, chicken coop, root 

cellar, barn, milk separator house, two sleeping cabins, and sheds. 

The original log cabin on the site was owned by William Buzzard, who mined in Horseshoe Basin. It was 

originally the farthest homestead up the Stehekin Valley. Sold to William Van Buckner in 1910, it 

evolved from a single cabin into an intricate complex, including structures, paths, irrigation ditches, and 

fruit orchards, that contributes significantly to understanding homesteading in this wilderness region. It is 

the only example of an existing intact homestead complex in the Complex (NPS 1995a:204). 

The Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture plan states that the management direction for rehabilitation 

is to ―preserve the character-defining features of this unique resource while allowing compatible use‖

(NPS 1998b). 

11. VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Since the late 19th century, large numbers of outdoor enthusiasts have been drawn to the North Cascades 

for physical and mental challenge, rest and relaxation, and enjoyment of scenic grandeur. Visitor use in 

the Stehekin Valley is generally concentrated in the lower 9 miles. Sightseeing, fishing, hunting, boating, 

horseback riding, and mountain climbing have been among the most favored activities (NPS 1995a:204). 

Other activities include hiking, bicycling, tours, photography, camping, and rafting. 

Approximately 50,000 people annually visit Stehekin, arriving on one of two commercial passenger 

boats, on foot, or by air on one of two recently available chartered floatplanes. Stehekin residents 

(including NPS employees) also depend on the boats for visitors, mail, groceries, and freight. A 

commercial barge provides services intermittently (about every 10 days in summer and once a month 

during the rest of the year) to haul vehicles, fuel tanks, building materials, and other bulky freight items. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

220 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 24 – Angler on the Stehekin River, Credit: Mike Barnhart 

a. Access and Transportation 

The north end of Lake Chelan and the village of Stehekin serve as a gateway to the interior of the Lake 

Chelan NRA, Stephen T. Mather Wilderness, and North Cascades National Park. This is one of the few 

entry points on the southern end of the park complex that is readily accessible to visitors. Similarly, the 

Stehekin Landing and the Stehekin Valley Road form the main route from this gateway. Thus, the 

Stehekin Valley Road is the primary access route for recreation and is an integral part of the visitor 

experience in this area. In 2003, over 35,500 people visited the Lake Chelan NRA (Allen, pers. comm., 

2005). This figure is down from a visitation level of 52,000 in 2000. Over 70 percent of the 2003 

visitation occurred during the summer season, between June and September, which continues to be 

consistent with ridership statistics for the ferries. 

The Stehekin Valley Road was built on the north side of the Stehekin River in 1897 to provide access to 

mines located in Horseshoe Basin (3.4 miles above Cottonwood Camp). Prior to the 1995 flood, shuttles 

took visitors to Cottonwood Camp. Beginning in 1995, the road became impassable above the Glory 

turnaround. Following flooding in 2003, which made the road impassable to vehicles between Car Wash 

Falls and Bridge Creek and caused a major landslide at Milepost 15.0, an Environmental Assessment was 

prepared (NPS 2006c) which called for closing the upper Stehekin Valley Road to motor vehicles at Car 

Wash Falls (Milepost 12.9), approximately 3 miles above High Bridge. As a result, that portion of the 

road was officially closed in 2006. 
11. Visitor Experience 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 221 

Visitors and residents travel by passenger ferry, floatplane, or trail to the Stehekin Valley from Chelan or 

other ferry Landing areas (Fields Point and Lucerne). Motorists, cyclists, hikers, stock users, and 

snowmobiles are allowed on the Stehekin Valley Road, and most also use the Company Creek Road. 

Vehicle traffic along the Stehekin Valley Road includes NPS and resident vehicles, private and power 

company vehicles, and shuttle buses. 

Most visitors arrive on the Lady of the Lake, a 350-passenger commercial ferry that runs between Chelan 

and Stehekin. The boat ride takes about 4 hours one-way. Another, faster, ferry, the 100-passenger Lady 

Express, is also available and takes approximately 2 hours one-way. Both leave from Chelan and, 

depending on the boat, stop at Lucerne and/or Fields Point en route. 

Taking the fast boat uplake and the slow boat downlake allows day-use visitors to spend approximately 

3.5 hours in Stehekin. With the slow boat each way, a day-use visit is closer to 2 hours, which is enough 

time for a quick guided bus tour to Rainbow Falls and a stop at the visitor center before boarding for the 

return trip. Both boats offer a Rainbow Falls bus tour that starts just after the boats arrive at the Landing. 

In 1991, 59 percent of visitors used the 4-hour boat, 38 percent used the 2-hour boat, 16 percent came or 

left on a private boat, 9 percent used a floatplane, and 6 percent hiked in or out (NPS 1995a:234). In 2007 

(January - September), approximately 17,742 people came by boat (16,680, or 94 percent) or on the float 

plane (1,062, or 6 percent). 

Access up the Stehekin Valley is via the Stehekin Valley Road, which is paved up to Harlequin Bridge. 

At Harlequin Bridge, the road narrows considerably and turns to gravel with strategic pullouts. Traffic is 

generally light, with a few private, government, and shuttle vehicles traveling upvalley to the Stehekin 

Valley Ranch (near Milepost 9.0). 

Company Creek Road, which begins at Harlequin Bridge, is a 2.2-mile-long spur road. In addition to 

providing access to the current NPS maintenance area, airstrip, gravel pit, Chelan PUD power plant, and 

private homes located on the northwest side of the Stehekin River, it provides access to some visitor 

facilities, including Harlequin Campground and the Stehekin River Trail, Devore Creek Trail, and 

Company Creek Trail. 

There is also a state-maintained emergency airstrip located in Stehekin about 4 miles from the Landing on 

Company Creek Road. It is operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation Aeronautics 

Division under a special-use permit from the NPS. The airstrip, which is 2,700 feet long and 80 feet wide, 

is used for emergencies and by residents and visitors. Consistent with its intent as an emergency-use 

airstrip, it posts a ―use at your own risk‖ statement. It is classified as a basic utility airstrip, able to be used 

by at least 75 percent of the single-engine and small twin-engine aircraft commonly used for business and 

recreation purposes. Cable tie-downs can accommodate up to six aircraft at one time. Reflective markers 

line both sides and identify the ends of the airstrip. An unlighted wind sock and a segmented circle made 

of painted rocks are the only navigational aids at the airstrip (NPS 1995a:223, 229). 

b. Visitation 

As discussed in the GMP, visitors come to Stehekin primarily from the western United States, with 75 

percent from Washington and Oregon and 6 percent from California, mostly (42 percent) in groups of two 

and with immediate family members (61 percent). About 1 percent of visitors were from other countries 

(primarily Canada). Nearly half were between 30 and 50 years old, 17 percent were over 60, and 16 

percent were under 16. About 68 percent were first-time visitors (NPS 1992b in NPS 1995a:234). 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

222 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Annual visitation to Stehekin varies. Average visitation between 1996 and 2006 was 40,457 (Table III-13: 

Visitation to Lake Chelan NRA). Visitor numbers have risen and fallen over the past 15 years, likely due 

to a host of factors related to the economy and tourism. 

Table III-13: Visitation to Lake Chelan NRA 

Year Visitation

1996 36,891

1997 34,300

1998 45,779

1999 50,087

2000 51,825

2001 42,547

2002 40,590

2003 35,549

2004 42,529

2005 29,783

2006 35,151

2007 34,665

2008 25,139

2009 34,554

Source: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/ (NPS 2008b:205).

Visitors come to experience the scenery and natural setting (78 percent), solitude, and access to 

wilderness, as well as other parts of the Lake Chelan NRA experience, including for wildlife, 

recreation/sports, and Stehekin Community, history and culture, among other reasons. 

Visitation varies dramatically with the season, with sharp spikes between May and September and 

dramatic drops in the shoulder seasons (April and October) and fairly flat numbers at other times of year 

(November through March). 

Of those who visit Lake Chelan NRA and Stehekin, approximately 63 percent are day-use visitors and 

26 percent stay overnight. Of the day-use visitors, many stay for a very short period between boat 

landings and departures. For those who stay overnight, there are a variety of public camping, concession 

lodging (Stehekin Landing Resort), and private rental cabins; homes; a guest ranch; and several bed and 

breakfasts. 

Stehekin Residents 

Approximately 100 people live in Stehekin year-round, with that number increasing to approximately180 

people during the summer. Residents include families who have lived in the valley for generations, as 

well as recently arrived homeowners. At the time of the GMP (1995), approximately one-third of the 

year-round residents were employed by the NPS or a concessioner, with today’s numbers similar or only 

slightly lower. 

c. Interpretation and Education 

The park administrative operations headquarters is located at Stehekin Landing in the rehabilitated 

Golden West Lodge building, which also serves as the recreation area visitor center. Interpretive 
11. Visitor Experience 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 223 

programs, including evening programs, talks, and walks are offered daily during the peak season and on 

weekends during the shoulder seasons. The visitor center is also staffed regularly. 

Three interpretive trails allow self-guided tours for visitors: the Imus Creek Trail, McKellar Cabin Trail, 

and Buckner Lane. Wayside exhibits at the Landing, along the Stehekin Valley Road, and at High Bridge 

also assist visitors in learning about the area. Visitors also learn about the area on the ferry ride, from bus 

tours, and from Stehekin residents. 

d. Visitor Use Opportunities 

Facilities

In addition to the visitor center, visitor use facilities in Lake Chelan NRA include overnight lodging, a 

restaurant, general store/gift shop, marina, craft store, and a bakery/deli. Except for the bakery, the other 

facilities are clustered around the Stehekin Landing. Just upvalley from the Landing are bicycle and kayak 

rentals. Approximately 9 miles up the Stehekin Valley Road is the Stehekin Valley Ranch, which offers a 

family-style dinner, lodging, guided backpacking, bicycle rentals, rafting, and horseback riding. While 

most facilities are seasonal, operating only during the summer months, some operate year-round to 

accommodate winter visitors and the approximately 100 year-round residents. 

Activities 

Visitors can enjoy a variety of recreational activities, including traveling by passenger ferry, floatplane, or 

trail into Stehekin. Once in the Stehekin Valley, they enjoy hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback 

riding, bicycling, whitewater rafting, kayaking, guided shuttle touring, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

sightseeing, and nature trails. Some lodging accommodations offer the use of a car in the valley. Within 

Lake Chelan NRA and surrounding USFS land, hunting also comprises a small percentage of resident and 

visitor activities, particularly in the fall. 

Picnicking: Picnicking is available at Stehekin Landing, Purple Point, and Harlequin campgrounds within 

the project area and at High Bridge and Tumwater campgrounds outside the project area. 

Bicycling: Bicycle use on roads is permitted within Lake Chelan NRA. Bicycles can be rented in 

Stehekin or transported to Stehekin on the boats. 

Horseback Riding: Horse use is permitted on the Pacific Crest Trail and day rides are offered from the 

Stehekin Valley Ranch. 

Rafting: There is one formal raft launch downstream from Bullion Campground. Another informal raft 

launch / takeout is available along the sandy shore of Harlequin Campground. Other raft takeout locations 

vary, mostly on sandy beaches along the Stehekin River, particularly near the mouth. 

Camping: Several first-come, first-served walk-in campgrounds (some also accessible by vehicles) exist 

in the Stehekin Valley below High Bridge. These include Bullion Camp, Harlequin Camp, Purple Point 

Camp, Purple Point Horse Camp, and outside the project area, High Bridge and Tumwater camps. Groups 

are accommodated at Harlequin Camp, except during flooding, when they are diverted to Purple Point or 

the overflow area if it is available. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

224 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 25 – Windsurfer on Lake Chelan 

Backcountry Camping: Free permits are available for backcountry camping. No permits are required for 

boat-in campgrounds or for USFS camps. 

People enjoy the upper Stehekin Valley for its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. The lower 

Stehekin Valley Road gives the visitor glimpses of the glacier-tipped peaks and cirques and towering rock 

cliffs. Glimpses of the river through the forest and alongside the road are available periodically. High 

Bridge Historic District, with its early 1920s Forest Service ranger station, is an attraction for visitors and 

residents. The Stehekin River at High Bridge cuts dramatically through a bedrock box canyon with steep 

walls. The road bridge is high above the clear whitewater. The district has become a destination for tour 

groups and has been a summer shuttlebus turnaround highlight over the past few years. 

At High Bridge, the Stehekin Valley Road provides access to the Pacific Crest Trail, other trailheads, 

fishing, and camping. Since the 2003 flood, access to recreational opportunities beyond High Bridge has 

mostly been by hiking or horseback riding. Visitors can also bicycle or drive only as far as Car Wash 

Falls, approximately a half mile above High Bridge. 

Trails 

Among the short trails that are used by many visitors in Stehekin include the interpretive Buckner Lane, 

Imus Loop Trail, Rainbow Loop Trail, and Lakeshore Trail. Longer trails include the Company Creek 

Trail, Stehekin River Trail, Rainbow Lake Trail (including spurs to McAlester Lake and Creek), Boulder 

Creek Trail, McGregor Mountain Trail (Coon Lake), Purple Creek Trail (Juanita Lake), Devore Creek 

Trail, Park Creek Trail, Cascade Pass Trail, and the Pacific Crest Trail (Agnes Gorge Trail (south) and 

Bridge Creek Trail (north)). 
12. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 225 

The National Trails System Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, created the Pacific 

Crest and Appalachian National Scenic Trails. National Scenic Trails are ―extended trails so located as to 

provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the 

nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails 

may pass.‖ Although outside the project area, the Pacific Crest Trail is accessed from the end of the 

Stehekin Valley Road. 

e. Safety 

Floods may create safety concerns for people using the Stehekin Valley Road. Currently, it can take from 

several hours up to half a day to warn residents and visitors about possible road flooding. Floodwaters 

generally rise fairly slowly and high ground is available in many areas within a short distance of the 

Stehekin Valley Road (generally within 0.5 mile). 

The National Weather Service is preparing a flood warning system for the Stehekin Valley (NPS 2005). 

Road construction projects are by nature inherently hazardous to workers involved in the project and to 

recreation area visitors. Workers must have adequate training and knowledge, particularly in traffic safety 

operations as well as those associated with their individual areas of expertise, to effectively carry out their 

job. In a national park this knowledge must include familiarity with the terrain and park resources 

affected by the project and how these resources might respond to disturbance (including tree falling, rock 

fall, slumping, etc.). Although recreation area visitors must be aware of road hazards on a continuous 

basis, road construction areas are particularly hazardous, especially when implemented in scenic terrain. 

Visitors may be unaware of the road construction project and may come upon it suddenly, while focused 

on viewing scenery or wildlife. They may be unprepared for or become bothered by long delays during 

one-lane closures. Some are unfamiliar with the nature of historic, winding park roads, which often 

contain few of the traffic devices normally encountered in steep mountainous terrain, such as guard walls, 

reflectors, and sudden or sharp curve signs. 

f. Scenic Resources 

Lake Chelan NRA is a powerful landscape that includes one of the deepest lakes in North America, 

thundering waterfalls, spectacular spring dogwood blooms, and the scenic beauty of the free-flowing 

Stehekin River. Towering peaks surround the valley and are graced by glaciers. Ancient human 

occupation of this major mountain valley is marked by pictographs and stone artifacts, while current 

seasonal cabins and homes are dispersed through forests, pastures, and the historic Buckner Homestead 

hayfield and pasture. The legislation establishing Lake Chelan NRA specified conservation of scenic 

resources as one of the primary reasons for its establishment. 

The 1995 GMP included a detailed inventory of visual and scenic resources (NPS 1995a:206 - 218). In 

summary, 16 different landscape types were identified in the valley from Geographic Information System 

analysis of topography and vegetation. In addition, 21 different key viewpoints were inventoried based on 

interviews with park staff, visitors, and valley residents. 

12. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

This section describes the characteristics of the Stehekin River that contribute to the river’s eligibility for 

listing as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This section is based on the 

Stehekin River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report (NPS 2002b) and is adapted from the discussion 

of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project EA (NPS 2005a).

Information from the Eligibility Report is also used to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project 

on its eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

226 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The Stehekin River and its tributaries have been determined eligible, but have not been designated as part 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In addition, neither the Stehekin River nor any of its tributaries are 

part of the Washington State Scenic Rivers System. Therefore, currently the only way the river could be 

included in the system is via affirmative congressional action, and no action is believed pending or 

contemplated by Congress as of this writing. 

In 2002, the NPS evaluated the Stehekin River and its tributaries for its eligibility for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and determined that the entire watershed of the Stehekin River 

is eligible for designation (NPS 2002b). The eligibility analysis was prompted by management guidance 

in the 1995 GMP for Lake Chelan NRA, and the miscellaneous provisions of a 1991 Consent Decree*

between the Secretary of the Interior and the North Cascades Conservation Council. A brief summary of 

the eligibility report follows, along with its implications for river-related management actions on the part 

of the NPS. 

The eligibility analysis used two criteria to evaluate the river’s eligibility in accordance with the Act: 

(1) the ―Free-flowing‖ condition of the river; and (2) the river’s ―Outstandingly Remarkable Values‖

including fish, wildlife, vegetation, prehistoric and historic resources, geology, scenery, and recreation. 

The ―Free-flowing‖ criterion was evaluated by dividing the river into three segments in light of 

differences in human activity and development along its shoreline. Segment 1 extends from the mouth of 

the Stehekin River to High Bridge (the segment within Lake Chelan NRA); segment 2, from High Bridge 

to Cottonwood Camp; and segment 3, from Cottonwood Campground to the headwaters. To evaluate the 

―ORV‖ criterion, all three segments were considered collectively. 

All three segments of the Stehekin River were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System due to the river’s generally free-flowing condition and outstandingly remarkable 

values, including wildlife, fish, prehistoric, historic, geologic, scenic, and recreational resources. The 

river’s vegetation, however, was found to be exceptional but not sufficiently unusual to contribute to 

eligibility. 

The Stehekin River Eligibility Report places the Stehekin River in the category of an ―Agency Identified, 

5(d)(1) Study River.‖ This administrative determination carries no direct legal authority, but does lay the 

foundation for future designation of the river should the U.S. Congress choose to do so. The eligibility 

finding does, however, influence NPS management actions that could potentially affect the river’s freeflowing characteristics or the various ―Outstandingly Remarkable Values‖ that contribute to its eligibility. 

In accordance with guidance from the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, and 

Section 4.3.4 of NPS Management Policies 2006, the NPS must avoid taking management actions that 

would adversely affect the free-flowing condition and ―Outstandingly Remarkable Values‖ that qualify 

the river for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Classification of the Stehekin River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) 

The WSRA defines three classes of national Wild and Scenic Rivers: 

 Wild river areas: Those rivers or section of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and with 

unpolluted water. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

 

* A judgment whereby the defendant agrees to stop the activity that was asserted to be illegal, without admitting wrongdoing or 

guilt.
12. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 227 

 Scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by 

roads. 

 Recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or railroad 

that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Because levels of human activity and development are not uniform throughout the Stehekin River 

watershed, the eligibility report segmented the river to determine the appropriate classifications for each 

segment. 

Segment 1 extends from the river mouth at Lake Chelan and ends at High Bridge, a length of 

approximately 11 miles, encompassing the proposed project area. Because of disturbance to the riverbank 

and the presence of houses, businesses, power lines, and other human development, the Eligibility Report 

recommended a classification of ―recreational‖ for Segment 1. In Segment 1, the first quarter mile of the 

river’s tributaries (except for Company Creek) from their confluence with the river would be classified as 

recreational. The rest of those tributaries’ lengths would be classified as wild. The first half mile of 

Company Creek would be classified as recreational. All tributaries above Segment 1 would be classified 

as wild. 

Segment 2, which extends from High Bridge to Cottonwood Camp and is not within the proposed project 

area, was classified as ―scenic‖ in light of very limited road accessibility and shoreline development. 

Segment 3, also outside the project area, extends from Cottonwood Campground to the headwaters. This 

segment was classified as ―wild‖ because except for a few trails it is completely undeveloped. 

Wild and Scenic Characteristics of the Stehekin River 

The WSRA identifies the characteristics that qualify rivers as eligible for inclusion in the National System 

as a river or river segment that 

 Is free-flowing, as determined by standards set by the Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture; and 

 Possesses one or more resources of outstandingly remarkable value to the region or nation, such 

as exceptional scenery, recreational opportunities, geology, fisheries, wildlife, prehistoric values, 

or cultural heritage. 

Free-flowing 

Free-flowing, as applied to ―any river or section of a river,‖ is defined in section 16(b) of the WSRA as 

...existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, 

riprapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, 

diversion works, and other minor structures ... shall not automatically bar its 

consideration for inclusion: provided, that this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, 

or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

The Eligibility Report describes river flow in Segment 1 as primarily natural, with existing modifications 

that are well within the standards for a Wild and Scenic River. Segment 1 of the Stehekin River exhibits 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

228 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

some level of channel modification or restriction, but the intrusions are generally unobtrusive and of short 

length. Existing channel modifications intended to protect the main road or private property include the 

then-estimated 80 erosion protection structures, such as cabled logs, rip-rap, rock barbs, or a combination 

of structures, at 35 sites in Segment 1. A vehicular bridge spanning the Stehekin River above Harlequin 

Campground also alters the channel. Some tributaries flowing into Segment 1, such as Company Creek, 

are also crossed by vehicular bridges. Several tributaries also have intakes for small irrigation systems. 

The report notes that these intakes have very little impact on streamflow. 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

All three segments of the Stehekin River exhibit outstandingly remarkable values as discussed in the 

Eligibility Report. The outstandingly remarkable values identified in the report include wildlife, fish, 

prehistoric resources, historic resources, geology, scenic resources, and recreation. 

The Stehekin River and its valley support a great diversity of game and nongame wildlife and fish 

species, and provide or potentially provide habitat for many species of special interest, including 

threatened and endangered species. Many of these species are dependent upon the Stehekin River for 

some or all of their life cycle and the river is an important habitat component and migration route. Thus, 

fish and wildlife are outstandingly remarkable values associated with the Stehekin River. 

Where there is evidence of prehistoric resources (occupation or use by Native Americans) in the river or 

river corridor and these resources have rare or unusual characteristics or exceptional human-interest 

value, then these constitute an outstandingly remarkable value. Since the early 1980s, NPS inventoried 

approximately 5 percent of the Complex (684,000 acres). Even though only a relatively small area has 

been surveyed, over 250 pre-contact archaeological sites have been documented, with 12 of these in the 

Stehekin River Valley. These are resources associated with Native Americans before the time of contact 

with European settlers (approximately 1850). There are 33 archaeological sites recorded in Lake Chelan 

NRA, of these sites, 25 are prehistoric. Flake tools and unmodified flakes dating to 3,000 years ago have 

also been found in this area. As a result, the abundance and importance of the prehistoric resources in the 

Stehekin Valley qualify as an outstandingly remarkable value under the WSRA. 

Historic resources include several sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and several more 

sites that are eligible for nomination. As a result, historic sites or features generally over 50 years in age 

that signify an important event, person, or cultural activity are categorized as an outstandingly remarkable 

value under the WSRA. The Stehekin River Valley contains three designated historic districts, which 

include log cabins, shelters, lookouts, mines, hostelries, and other structures built during the early 

exploration, settlement, commercial development, and federal management of the Stehekin Valley. 

The geology of the Stehekin Valley includes excellent textbook examples of glacial features and 

processes, including glaciers, ice fields, cirques, spires, hanging valleys, and bedrock box canyons. The 

Golden Horn batholith is the only true granite found in the North Cascades and is a feature unique to the 

watershed. Therefore, the geology of the Stehekin Valley was found to be an outstandingly remarkable 

value under the WSRA. 

Scenic resources include a landscape dominated by dramatic, glacially sculpted landforms, diverse 

vegetation, and exceptionally clear flowing water. Human impacts are few and unobtrusive and allow 

visitors to experience the grandeur of the wilderness. Though subjective, the quality of the scenery and 

natural landscape qualify scenic resources as an outstandingly remarkable value under the WSRA. 

For a recreational resource to be considered an outstandingly remarkable value, it must be, or have the 

potential to be, unique enough to attract visitors from outside the geographic region to use the river 
13. Park Operations 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 229 

resources for recreational purposes. This is true of the Stehekin River. Because of the difficulty in 

accessing the area (lack of vehicular roads into it), visitors must make extra arrangements to reach it. 

Stehekin Valley visitors come to sightsee, photograph, camp, hike, boat, and swim in / around the 

Stehekin River. Therefore, recreation resources qualify as an outstandingly remarkable value under the 

WSRA. 

13. PARK OPERATIONS 

Approximately 20 - 35 NPS employees work in Stehekin to provide visitor services, conduct resource 

management and law enforcement, and maintain NPS administrative facilities, including roads, buildings, 

structures, and utilities. 

Park operations activities include a variety of administrative activities, maintenance activities (roads, 

trails, orchard, historic structure, building, and housing), resource management activities (native and 

nonnative plant and wildlife management, fire/fuels management, research, inventory, monitoring, and 

restoration), and visitor services activities (search and rescue and other emergency services, 

interpretation, and visitor center operations). 

When the project statement for the replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility was developed 

in 2000, Lake Chelan NRA contained 12.9 miles of roads, 128 miles of trails, 14 camping areas, 27 

quarters structures, a trash-compaction/transfer station, 44 acres of maintained grounds, three National 

Historic Districts (with a total of 27 historic structures), 19 vehicles, 6 pieces of major equipment, 2 large 

boats, 9 water systems (including 2 public ones), 15 septic systems, a wastewater treatment plant, 9,435 

square feet of docks, and an 8,400-square-foot, three-story historic structure that serves as the district 

administration building / ranger station / visitor center. 

Roads and Bridges 

Stehekin Valley Road: The Stehekin Valley Road runs from the Stehekin Landing through the project 

area and continues into North Cascades National Park. It is approximately 12 miles long and is paved for 

the first 4 miles between the Stehekin Landing and Harlequin Bridge. North of the Harlequin Bridge to 

the road end, the road is surfaced with gravel. In the project area, the paved road varies in width from 12 

to 16 feet. The road is one lane, with various segments that have sight distance problems (both vertical 

and horizontal curves). Traffic volumes are light because there are few vehicles in the area (access to 

vehicles is limited because there is no direct access to Stehekin by vehicle unless the vehicle is brought in 

by barge). Most of the vehicles belong to residents or park concessioners (tour shuttles). NPS typically 

uses its own staff and vehicles (such as front-end loaders, graders, and dump trucks) to maintain the road. 

NPS owns and maintains the road for Lake Chelan NRA. Annual maintenance may include filling 

potholes, grading the road, spreading gravel, and performing drainage work such as unclogging, 

replacing, or repairing culverts. To maintain the road during the winter, NPS hires a contractor who plows 

the road from the Stehekin Landing up to Milepost 9.2 so that access is maintained to this point. (Average 

monthly snowfall in Stehekin ranges from approximately 7 to 12 inches in March and November to 24, 

40, and 44 inches in February, December, and January, respectively. Average annual snowfall is 

approximately 128 inches [Western Regional Climate Center 2004].) 

The road is an important route for recreation area staff in accessing the Stehekin Valley. This road is used 

in emergency response such as fighting wildfires, transporting visitors out in an emergency situation (for 

example, if a hiker or camper were injured), or evacuating residents during floods. It is also used for more 

routine operations, such as implementing the Forest Fuel Reduction Program, performing resource 

surveys, providing assistance to visitors, and protecting and managing Lake Chelan NRA resources. 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

230 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Company Creek Road: The Company Creek Road is a county road, and was originally part of the 

Stehekin Valley Road. It is now used for access across the Stehekin River from the current Stehekin 

Valley Road. 

Company Creek Road is a 2.2-mile-long, one-lane road with occasional turnouts and a crushed aggregate 

surface. It provides the only access to numerous private parcels, Harlequin Campground, the hydroelectric 

power plant, the NPS maintenance area, the Company Creek Gravel Pit, and the airstrip on the southwest 

side of the Stehekin River. 

The Company Creek Road is plowed in winter. In the spring and fall it is often subject to flooding, 

particularly in its upper and lower portion, near the NPS maintenance area and Mileposts 2.1 - 2.2. Other 

portions of the road have received floodwaters in the last several major floods, with portions of the road 

being damaged or lost and rebuilt in place. 

Other Roads: There is a network of minor roads off the Company Creek and Stehekin Valley Roads, 

including Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture area roads, Rainbow Falls access road, NPS 

maintenance area access roads, Company Creek pit access roads, NPS housing roads, and roads around 

Stehekin Landing to access the Golden West Lodge and other nearby buildings. 

Harlequin Bridge: Harlequin Bridge is located approximately 4.33 miles up the Stehekin Valley, where 

it joins the Stehekin Valley Road and the Company Creek Road. It is approximately 75 feet long with 

average daily traffic of 50 - 75 vehicles. Routine inspections are coupled with formal bridge inspections 

occurring every two years. The bridge was last replaced in 2001. The rare Baltimore truss design and 

timber construction have contributed to make the bridge eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (see ―b. Historic Buildings and Structures‖ in ―10. Cultural Resources‖).

Road Maintenance Activities 

Winter: Mechanical removal of snow occurs regularly in the winter on the Stehekin Valley Road to 

Milepost 9.2 and on the Company Creek Road. The Stehekin Valley Road is plowed from the Stehekin 

Landing up to the turnaround at Milepost 9.15. Snow removal reduces the hazards of winter driving 

conditions and ensures that Lake Chelan NRA roads are open to residents and visitors in winter. The 

roads are plowed from approximately November to March each year, depending on snow conditions. 

Snow- and ice-melt chemicals or sand is not used. 

Spring: Spring road-opening operations begin by April to ensure availability during the peak visitor use 

season (June to October). For nonpublic roads, work is done as needed or at the end of the public road 

opening. Road-opening activities include clearing roads of windfall trees and debris, clearing avalanches 

and rock slides, cleaning culverts, and minor repairs to the road surface, shoulders, and embankments. 

Summer/Fall: Road maintenance activities occurring during normally dry weather include grading 

unpaved road surfaces, shoulder maintenance, removal of sloughed material from ditches, pavement 

repairs and leveling, pothole patching, crack sealing, slurry sealing, repaving, sign installation, etc. 

Unpaved roads are graded, reshaped, and smoothed, replacing surface material as needed (without 

widening) to restore crown, proper shape, drainage, and a smooth traveling surface. Maintenance includes 

pulling material from and cleaning roadside ditches and culverts and disposing of this material as needed. 

It also includes reshaping shoulders as necessary. 

Unpaved road surface materials are often lost due to traffic, erosion during storms, and other predictable 

and unpredictable events. As-needed repair and stabilization of unpaved roads occurs by adding crushed 
13. Park Operations 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 231 

rock to the road surface. To accomplish this, reshaping and compacting to control ruts, potholes, 

washouts, and corrugation may also be done. 

On paved roads, patching of small areas of asphalt paving with cold, premix asphalt concrete to correct 

abrupt depressions, potholes, edge failures, and other potential road/parking surface hazards is undertaken 

to provide a smooth paved surface. Occasionally, permanent pothole patching is conducted with a premix 

asphalt concrete and asphalt emulsion (tack) to correct abrupt depressions, potholes, edge failures, and 

other potential road/parking surface hazards to provide a smooth paved surface. 

Other maintenance actions include clearing road shoulders and parking ditches to enable rapid meltwater 

and rain dispersion off the road surface. This includes the cleaning and reshaping of roadside ditches 

along paved and unpaved roads and parking areas as well as the removal, hauling, and disposal of excess 

material to restore the original grade and to ensure adequate drainage. On occasion, it can include the 

importation of additional material. It also includes the trimming or removal of woody vegetation from 

roadside ditches and shoulders and the removal of overgrown herbaceous vegetation. These actions are 

done to eliminate or improve edge ruts, washouts, ridges, corrugation, and encroaching vegetation. 

When pavement failures are encountered, these areas may be repaired by removing and replacing areas of 

failed surfaces with premix asphalt, including a base course, if required, to provide a structurally sound 

surface and to eliminate safety hazards from roads and parking areas. Work may include the placement of 

a new asphalt surface leveling course on asphalt-paved surfaces to provide a smooth driving surface and 

to eliminate safety hazards. Premix asphalt concrete is then applied with either a grader or a spreader box. 

Slurry seal or chip seal is applied as needed, and includes the placement of liquid asphalt with an 

aggregate or chip seal coat to seal cracks and prevent water entry and related damage to base course 

materials, to correct minor surface depressions, to seal asphalt surfaces, to restore skid resistance, and to 

retard further surface deterioration. 

Day-to-day maintenance may also include the following: 

 Sweeping paved road/parking surfaces, including intersections and curb gutters to remove dirt, 

sand, and other debris 

 Cleaning drainage structures by removing rocks, debris, and silt from pipe culverts, box culverts, 

and inlets to maintain adequate drainage and to prevent roadway flooding 

 Repairing pipe culverts, drop inlets, catch basins, and culvert headwalls to provide proper 

drainage 

 Cutting and removing brush, trees, and overhanging limbs along roads, in campgrounds, and in 

parking areas to maintain vistas and restore sight distances, to eliminate traffic hazards, and to 

remove encroaching vegetation 

 Picking up and disposing of litter along roads, at overlooks, and along/in parking areas for 

aesthetics and to remove objects that could be hazardous, could obstruct drainage, or could 

damage road maintenance equipment 

 Repairing slope failures and erosion near roads and developed areas and the removal of eroded 

material, including occasional reseeding, replanting, or installing mechanical erosion protection 

measures as needed to prevent such an occurrence from happening again in the same area 

 Removing rock fall and slide material from the roadway and roadsides 

 Cleaning road bridge decks and bearing surfaces to remove sand and other debris, including the 

cleaning of drain holes, joints, and curbs 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

232 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Repairing minor bridge components such as railing and decks. 

Other Maintenance Activities: Among the other activities necessary to keep NPS administrative 

facilities running include ongoing testing and maintenance of recreation area water and septic systems and 

the wastewater treatment plant; repairs to NPS buildings and structures, including offices, houses, docks, 

and other transportation facilities; extraction and sorting of rock and gravel from the Company Creek Pit; 

vehicle maintenance; resupply of materials and fuel; ongoing cleanup and maintenance of recreational 

facilities, including trails, campgrounds, and restrooms; and maintenance of landscaping, including 

mowing, snow removal, etc. Table III-14: Existing Maintenance Compound Structures shows how the 

existing maintenance area is currently configured. 

Table III-14: Existing Maintenance Compound Structures 

Building Square Feet Condition*

Fire cache 1,637 Poor

Maintenance office 660 Good

Maintenance shop 1,140 Good

Solid-waste compaction / 

warehouse

2,440 Poor

Solid-waste platform 875 Serious

Hazardous waste storage 144 Unknown

Gas station 800

(12,000 gallons)

Good

Paint / flammable storage 256 Unknown

Covered storage 1 1,008 Good

Covered storage 1 1,008 Good

Covered storage 1 1,008 Good

Carpenter shop 900 Poor

Water system n/a N/A

Circulation space 10,890 N/A

Total 11,876

(without circulation space)

*The NPS uses a ranking system to identify the condition of its facilities. Under this system, the combined average asset priority 

index is 52 out of 100; the combined average facility condition index is 0.220 (poor). Overall, the existing maintenance facility is 

costly to maintain, inefficient to operate, and subject to recurrent flooding, with access through floodwater occurring 

approximately every other year.

Vegetation: The NPS staff is currently conducting long-term ecological monitoring of selected forest 

types (Douglas-fir-western hemlock and subalpine fir) as well as alpine-subalpine vegetation to monitor 

potential changes resulting from global climate change. In addition, nonnative invasive plants are 

inventoried and mapped as funding allows and are actively removed annually. Special status plants are 

inventoried and mapped associated with surveys for proposed projects and management actions. 

Mushroom surveys are also ongoing. Inventory work has included general vegetation mapping, surveys 

for state-listed vascular plant species, and limited surveys for mushrooms and nonnative species. 

Wildlife: Annual long-term monitoring includes landbird surveys at five sites within the Stehekin Valley 

between the head of Lake Chelan and High Bridge. Periodic monitoring surveys also include Harlequin 

Duck surveys from High Bridge to the head of Lake Chelan (last done in 1992) and Spotted Owl Activity 

Site monitoring at one site in the Stehekin Valley (last surveyed in 2010). The extensive upper and lower 

valley spotted owl surveys of 1993 - 1994 were repeated in 2007 - 2008. Faunal surveys that include 
13. Park Operations 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 233 

small mammals and several species of reptiles, are also done periodically. The last of these surveys was 

completed in 1992. In 2009, the NPS will begin monitoring nesting activity of Bald Eagles and Ospreys 

within the lower Stehekin Valley and along Lake Chelan within the NRA, as part of the new Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license of the Lake Chelan hydroelectric project. 

Fish: The NPS staff monitors spawning of cutthroat and rainbow trout in the lower Stehekin watershed 

(High Bridge to Lake Chelan). A number of index reaches (approximately 10 to 12) will be identified and 

surveyed for trout redds (either by walking or snorkeling) several times each spring. Spawning is likely 

taking place in side channels and tributaries (particularly Company, Blackberry, and Margerum creeks). 

The purpose is to monitor trends in abundance of cutthroat and rainbow spawners. Results will be used to 

evaluate progress toward restoration of adfluvial/fluvial westslope cutthroat trout and management efforts 

directed at reduction of nonnative rainbow trout in the lower 10 miles of the Stehekin River. Partial 

funding is provided by Chelan PUD under their FERC relicensing agreement. 

Stehekin River: Monitoring programs for the Stehekin River include river discharge, channel patterns, 

and large woody debris surveys. Inventory of Stehekin River features has included surficial geology, 

soils, vegetation, river and side channel habitats, and wetlands (Table III-15: Stehekin River Inventory and 

Monitoring Programs).

Table III-15: Stehekin River Inventory and Monitoring Programs 

Subject Agency Date/Length of Record

Monitoring

River discharge USGS 1911 - present

River channel patterns NPS 1906 - 2007

Large wood accumulation NPS 1985, 2000, 2007

Inventory

Surficial geology NPS 2005

Soils NPS 1988 + new project

Vegetation NPS 1988 + new project

Main stream and side channel habitat NPS 1988

Wetlands NPS 1988

Restoration 

Vegetation / habitat restoration in the recreation area occurs in response to need and funding. It may 

consist of collecting (gathering seed from native species near the proposed restoration site), scarifying 

(raking or creating roughness in compacted areas), site preparation (incorporating forest duff or topsoil / 

placing large woody debris), and seeding (scattering or broadcasting seed collected from native species in 

the vicinity of the site). Occasionally, plants may be propagated from seeds or cuttings collected from the 

proposed revegetation site (generally avoided due to the need for supplemental watering to establish the 

young plants) (Gempko, pers. comm., 2009). 

Fire Management 

There are currently 48 long-term fire-effects-monitoring plots located within the forest fuel reduction 

areas of the Stehekin Valley, which are used to track the progress and effects of prescribed fire and 

thinning as they are implemented through the North Cascades National Park Service Complex Forest Fuel 

Reduction/Firewood Management Plan (NPS 2005e). The NPS fire management team has been 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

234 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

conducting prescribed fires and thinning to reduce hazardous fuels within the wildland-urban interface 

and to maintain the benefits of fire in a fire-dependent ecosystem. The fire-effects-monitoring plots 

document fuel loadings, tree mortality, species composition, and species abundance before and after 

thinning and prescribed fires, and monitor long-term changes through continued visits to the plots the first 

year, second year, and thereafter every five years following prescribed fire (Kopper, pers. comm., 2009). 

There are three fire-effects-monitoring plots located along the proposed reroute of the Stehekin Valley 

Road. These plots are located in areas that have been thinned but have not yet been burned. They are used 

to identify the impact of fire management program actions on area forest habitat. 

The monitoring plots are 50 by 20 meters and are marked in all corners by rebar stakes with metal tags. 

Each tag contains the plot code ―FPSME2‖ followed by the individual plot number. The impacted plots 

are FPSME2-43, FPSME2-45, and FPSME2-46.

The plots are located in the Douglas Fir/Ponderosa Pine forest community. This vegetation type typically 

includes a well-developed shrub and understory component. The most common shrubs are common 

snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis), serviceberry, 

(Amelanchier alnifolia), and white spiraea (Spiraea betulifolia). The understory is predominantly 

comprised of native perennial grasses, including bluebunch wheatgrass (Psuedoroegneria spicata) and 

pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens), and various herbaceous species, including arrowleaf balsamroot 

(Balsamorhiza sagittata), hawkweed (Hieracium sp.), and lupine (Lupinus sp.). 

Road Safety

See also ―e. Safety‖ in ―11. Visitor Experience.‖

In a road traffic safety study conducted in August 1991 (as described in NPS 1995a:227), average daily 

traffic volumes on the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road ranged from 33 to 221 vehicles 

per day. Between 1986 and 1990, 20 accidents were reported. Most involved only minor property damage 

and were attributed to the narrow roadway and/or limited sight distance. 

Since 2003, there have been 11 documented vehicle accidents. None of these resulted in injuries or 

fatalities. Since 2003, there have also been 15 documented bicycle accidents which resulted in injuries. 

14. SOCIOECONOMICS 

Lake Chelan NRA is administered as part of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex (also 

including North Cascades National Park and Ross Lake NRA). The park is surrounded by the Glacier 

Peak Wilderness, the Lake Chelan / Sawtooth Wilderness, the Wenatchee National Forest, and North 

Cascades National Park. Lake Chelan NRA is located within Chelan County. 

The closest incorporated city providing services and access to the area is Chelan. Chelan is within a few 

hours of several major cities in Washington State, including Spokane, Yakima, and Seattle. The nextclosest large city near Lake Chelan NRA is Wenatchee. In addition to attracting tourists from the west 

side of the Cascades and beyond, these areas near the Columbia River have historically provided fruit, 

including apples and peaches. 

Chelan County has a land base of 2,915 square miles and a population of approximately 71,000 people 

(city-data.com 2007). This density of people per square mile is low compared to the state average of 88.6 

people per square mile (Wikipedia.com 2008). Chelan has a population of approximately 3,860 people 

(city-data.com 2007), East Wenatchee has a population of 11,570 people, and Wenatchee, approximately 

27,856 people (Wikipedia.com 2008). The population of Chelan County in 2005 (69,950) ranked it 17th in 
14. Socioeconomics 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 235 

the state (USDC 2005). Between 1960 and 1992, the population in Chelan County grew from 40,744 to 

54,600, with decades between these years showing increases of from 0.09 percent to 2.63 percent (1990

census in NPS 1995a:244). 

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Accounts (Bearfacts), in 2005 Chelan 

County had a per capita personal income of $29,657. This ranked it twelfth in the state, and was 84 

percent of the state average ($35,479) and 86 percent of the national average ($34,471). When 1995 - 

2005 data were compared, the average annual growth rate of the per capital personal income was 3.4 

percent, compared to 4.1 percent for both Washington State and the United States. Table III-16: Per 

Capita Personal Income shows a comparison of this data to that reported in the 1995 GMP. 

Table III-16: Per Capita Personal Income 

1980 1990 2005

Chelan County Per Capita Income $9,785 $16,589 $29,657

Percent of State Per Capita Income 95.5 89.9 84

Sources: NPS 1995a:245 and USDC 2005 (1995 - 2005).

Earnings of people employed in Chelan increased 5.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, which was slightly 

lower than the change for Washington State (5.7 percent) and the United States (5.6 percent). As noted in 

the GMP (NPS 1995a:245), the Chelan County economy is based on two seasonal industries, tourism and 

agriculture, which peak during the same general time each year (July through September), while technical 

trades and other year-round businesses diversify the economy of the Washington State. 

Stehekin had a resident population of approximately 100 people in 2000. As noted above, this population 

nearly doubles during the summer. There are approximately 126 homes in Stehekin. Most of these are 

owner-occupied; however, a number of them are long- or short-term rentals. Based on City Data (citydata.com 2009), the estimated median house value in 2007 was approximately $223,327, which is slightly 

lower than for Washington State ($300,800). Estimated median household income for the Stehekin zip 

code was $44,161, compared to $55,591 for the state.

Because of the area’s remoteness, residents must be independent and self-reliant. The Stehekin 

Community economy has traditionally been heavily dependent on providing visitor services. Among 

those visitor services currently provided include a shuttle bus, overnight accommodations, bicycle and 

kayak rentals, a restaurant and bakery, and a gift store. Some residents have home-based businesses, that 

include crafting furniture, photography, writing, and painting. Other residents are retired or make their 

living through tourism in other ways. 

A concessioner manages the lodging at the Landing and the contract also includes marina services, a 

restaurant and general store, bus transportation, fuel, and other activities. One smaller concession is 

available for the craft store. There are approximately four additional commercial-use licenses and one 

special-use permit for the provision of other services, including rentals and tours. 

In addition to the economic activity generated by the recreation area in Stehekin, day-use visitors to 

Stehekin may stay in lodgings and purchase food, gifts, and fuel as well as camping or backcountry 

supplies downlake in Chelan or Wenatchee. Other Stehekin visitors use private boats and likely purchase 

fuel and supplies for their day or overnight trips downlake. 

Based on the 1995 GMP, the approximately 43,550 visitors (25,872 nonlocal) to Stehekin in 1992 spent 

an estimated $1.75 million in Stehekin and $3.91 million in Chelan, for a total of $5.67 million (NPS 
Chapter III: Affected Environment 

236 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

1995a:248). As noted in the GMP, nonlocal visitors are estimated to generate expenditures for 

commercial transportation, lodging, food and drink, shopping, entertainment, automobile repair and 

services, private boats, and private aircraft. Local visitors also generate many of these costs; however, 

lodging and entertainment costs would be generally absent in Chelan and focused on Stehekin. 

One of the most recent Money Generation Model (2) studies conducted by Michigan State University for 

the NPS shows that every dollar spent by the federal government on a national park generates $4.00 - 

$5.00 in the local economy. Figures for Lake Chelan NRA in fiscal year 2005 (October 2004 - September 

2005), the most recent year of analysis, show that the recreation area generated 28 jobs, $412,000 in 

income, and $1,176,000 in spending (Michigan State University 2008). (Note: For the study, the impacts 

of job and income effects exclude spending by local visitors). According to the study, this is standard 

practice in economic impact analyses, because spending by local residents does not represent ―new‖ 

money brought into gateway regions. Visitor spending is calculated for areas within 50 miles of the 

recreation area (Michigan State University 2008). 

The money generation model study is based on recreation visits and overnight stays as reported by the 

NPS. Visitors are broken down into local day-trip visitors, nonlocal day-trip visitors, and visitors on 

overnight trips staying in motels or campgrounds inside or outside the recreation area based on previous 

visitor surveys. Visitor spending is estimated based on visitor-use survey data from selected parks where 

studies have occurred and extrapolated to parks without studies. Spending does not include expenditures 

on durable goods that cannot be attributed to a single trip (Michigan State University 2008). Payroll 

information (wages and salaries plus benefits) was also obtained from the NPS. 

To account for different park settings, there are different multipliers for large urban, small urban, and 

rural areas. The multipliers are derived from IMPLAN, a federal land management agency standard used 

to evaluate economic impacts. IMPLAN was developed by the USFS to calculate economic impacts 

generated by national forests. A generalized list of these can be found in the GMP for the version of this 

software that was then available (1985) (NPS 1995a:256 - 257). The multipliers are for the following 

activities: construction sand and gravel, industrial and commercial construction, maintenance and repair 

of facilities, local transportation services, water transportation, air transportation, hotels and lodging 

places, eating and drinking places, automobile repair and services, recreation-related retail trade, 

amusement and recreation services, and government-federal. 

The model does not include park operations expenses or construction activities, only base annual salaries. 

It also does not include the impacts of employees in regional offices or other administrative divisions, 

where visitation is not reported. Lake Chelan NRA has a payroll of 17 people in winter and approximately 

32 in the summer, most of whom reside in Stehekin. Some work effort attributed to Lake Chelan NRA, 

however, is part of the North Cascades NPS Complex combined operations and is not directly related to 

either Stehekin or Chelan County. Based on concession contracts, additional staff is employed in visitor 

services for the concessioner. Money generated by the concession operation is reinvested to enhance 

visitor services for Lake Chelan NRA. 

When annual operations costs are added in to the mixture, an additional $1.3 million is spent by Lake 

Chelan for ongoing resources, maintenance, and administration. In addition, an estimated $100,000 is 

spent annually on separately funded projects. These figures, however, do not represent actual spending in 

the local economy. Not all of these operational expenditures are made in Chelan County. 
CHAPTER IV:

Environmental 

Consequences

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 239 

CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes the impacts of each alternative on recreation area resources, including cumulative 

impacts. Methods used for the analysis are presented in the ―Impact‖ sections and provides information 

about methodology common to all impact sections. An expanded Methodology section is contained under 

each Impact topic. Similar to Chapter II: Management Alternatives, this chapter contains an Impact 

Comparison Chart (Table IV-16 at the end of this chapter) to compare the differences in projected impacts 

among the alternatives. 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that environmental documents disclose the 

environmental impacts of the proposed federal action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any 

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed action be implemented (in this 

document, ―effects‖ and ―impacts‖ are used interchangeably). This section analyzes the environmental 

impacts of project alternatives on affected recreation area resources. These analyses provide the basis for 

comparing the effects of the alternatives. NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity, and duration 

of impacts, indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and measures to mitigate impacts. In addition to 

determining the environmental consequences of the preferred and other alternatives, National Park 

Service (NPS) Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006a) and Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2001a) require 

analysis of potential effects to determine if actions would impair park resources. The basis for 

understanding the analysis within this chapter is provided below. 

Photo 26 – Stehekin River near Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

240 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

METHODOLOGY

This section describes the terms that are used in evaluating environmental impacts. 

Context of Impact: The context is the setting within which impacts are analyzed—such as the project 

area or region, or for cultural resources, the project area or area of potential effects (APE). 

Type of Impact: The type of impact is a measure of whether the action will improve or harm the resource 

and whether that harm occurs immediately or at some later point in time. 

 Beneficial: The impact improves the resource or the quality or quantity of the resource. 

 Adverse: The impact harms or depletes the resource or its quality or quantity. 

 Direct: The impact is caused by and occurring at the same time and place as the action. 

 Indirect: The impact is caused by the action, but occurs later in time, or at another place, or to 

another resource. 

Duration of Impact: Duration is a measure of the time period over which the effects of an impact persist 

and may be short term (quickly reversible and associated with a specific event, such as construction, 

during project implementation) or long term (reversible over a much longer period or may occur 

continuously based on normal activity). 

Area of Impact: Impacts may be localized, detectable only in the vicinity of the activity, or widespread, 

detectable on a regional or landscape level. 

Intensity of Impact: In this document, the intensity of impacts is measured using the following scale: 

negligible, minor, moderate, and major. These are defined for each resource within the analysis sections. 

In addition, determinations of effect for actions that would affect threatened or endangered species 

comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (no effect; may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect; and may affect, likely to adversely affect), while determinations of effect for cultural 

resources also comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (no historic 

properties affected, no adverse effect, and adverse effect). 

Impact Mitigation: Impacts have been assessed under the assumption that proposed measures to 

minimize or mitigate the impact would be implemented. The following terms identify the way to change 

the intensity of impacts or to change the resource condition following impacts. Project actions can: 

 Avoid conducting management activities in an area or at a time that affects the resource 

 Minimize the type, duration, or intensity of the impact to an affected resource 

 Mitigate the impact by: 

‒ Repairing localized damage to the affected resource immediately after an adverse impact 

‒ Rehabilitating an affected resource with a combination of additional management activities 

‒ Compensating for a major long-term adverse direct impact through additional strategies 

designed to improve an affected resource to the degree practicable. 
Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 241 

IMPAIRMENT

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the preferred and other alternatives, NPS

Management Policies (NPS 2006a) and Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2001a) require a determination of 

whether proposed actions would impair park resources. ―Impairment‖ is a term from the 1916 act creating 

the NPS (the Organic Act) and is defined as an impact that would harm park resources or values (see 

Section 1.4.5 below).

Whether an impact results in impairment depends on the particular resource affected; the severity, 

duration and timing of the impact; and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the impact. If an 

action is determined to result in impairment, the action may not be approved. 

In this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), determinations of impairment are provided in the 

conclusion section under each natural and cultural resource topic for each alternative. These 

determinations are rendered solely by the NPS; other agencies such as FHWA do not participate. 

The following excerpts from NPS Management Policies define ―impairment‖ and highlight the difference 

between an impact and impairment. 

Section 1.4.3: The NPS Obligation to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment of Park Resources and Values 

The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to 

conserve park resources and values. This mandate is independent of the separate 

prohibition on impairment and applies all the time with respect to all park resources and 

values, even when there is no risk that any park resources or values may be impaired. 

NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest extent 

practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values. The laws do give the Service 

the management discretion, however, to allow impacts to park resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so long as the impact does not 

constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. 

The fundamental purpose of all parks also includes providing for the enjoyment of park 

resources and values by the people of the United States. The enjoyment that is 

contemplated by the statute is broad; it is the enjoyment of all the people of the United 

States and includes enjoyment both by people who visit parks and by those who 

appreciate them from afar. It also includes deriving benefit (including scientific 

knowledge) and inspiration from parks, as well as other forms of enjoyment and 

inspiration. Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the 

national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is 

left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources 

and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant. This 

is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act. (NPS 2006a, Section 1.4.3) 

Section 1.4.4: The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and Values 

While Congress has given the Service the management discretion to allow impacts within 

parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement (generally enforceable by the 

federal courts) that the Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired 

unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. This, the cornerstone 

of the Organic Act, establishes the primary responsibility of the National Park Service. It 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

242 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

ensures that park resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow 

the American people to have present and future opportunities for enjoyment of them. 

The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless 

directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing 

the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by 

implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the 

authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment. (NPS 2006a, 

Section 1.4.4) 

Section 1.4.5: What Constitutes Impairment of Park Resources and Values 

The impairment that is prohibited by the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is 

an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would 

harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise 

would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. Whether an impact 

meets this definition depends on the particular resources and values that would be 

affected; the severity, duration, and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect effects of 

the impact; and the cumulative effects of the impact in question and other impacts. 

An impact to any park resource or value may, but does not necessarily, constitute an 

impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it 

affects a resource or value whose conservation is: 

 necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

the park, or 

 key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park, or 

 identified in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents as 

being of significance. 

An impact would be less likely to constitute an impairment if it is an unavoidable result 

of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park resources or values and 

it cannot be further mitigated. An impact that may, but would not necessarily, lead to 

impairment may result from visitor activities; NPS administrative activities; or activities 

undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park. Impairment 

may also result from sources or activities outside the park. (NPS 2006a, Section 1.4.5) 

Section 1.4.6: What Constitutes Park Resources and Values 

The ―park resources and values‖ that are subject to the no-impairment standard include: 

the park’s scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife, and the processes and 

conditions that sustain them, including, to the extent present in the park: the ecological, 

biological, and physical processes that created the park and continue to act upon it; scenic 

features; natural visibility, both in daytime and at night; natural landscapes; natural 

soundscapes and smells; water and air resources; soils; geological resources; 

paleontological resources; archeological resources; cultural landscapes; ethnographic 

resources; historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and objects; museum collections; and 

native plants and animals; appropriate opportunities to experience enjoyment of the

above resources, to the extent that can be done without impairing them; the park’s role in 

contributing to the national dignity, the high public value and integrity, and the 
Introduction 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 243 

superlative environmental quality of the national park system, and the benefit and 

inspiration provided to the American people by the national park system; and any 

additional attributes encompassed by the specific values and purposes for which the park 

was established. (NPS 2006a, Section 1.4.6) 

Section 1.4.7: Decision-making Requirements to Identify and Avoid Impairments 

Before approving a proposed action that could lead to an impairment of park resources 

and values, an NPS decision-maker must consider the impacts of the proposed action and 

determine, in writing, that the activity will not lead to an impairment of park resources 

and values. If there would be an impairment, the action must not be approved. (NPS 

2006a, Section 1.4.7) 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) describes a cumulative impact as follows 

(Regulation 1508.7): 

A ―Cumulative impact‖ is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

The cumulative projects addressed in this analysis include past and present actions, as well as any 

planning or development activity currently being implemented or planned for implementation in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. Cumulative actions are evaluated in conjunction with the impacts of an 

alternative to determine if they have any additive effects on a particular resource. Because most of the 

cumulative projects are in the early planning stages, the evaluation of cumulative impacts was based on a 

general description of the project. These projects are included in the cumulative effects analysis presented 

in this chapter (see Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List). 

Note: Except where inserted in the sections below, the context and duration is as follows for all resource 

impact topics. 

Cumulative impacts are evaluated in terms of context and duration. 

Context of Impact: Changes were considered within the lower Stehekin Valley below High Bridge to 

Lake Chelan in the nonwilderness portion of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA). 

Duration of Impact: Short term: These impacts are often quickly reversible and associated with a 

specific event, such as construction, during project implementation, occurring for a period of less than one 

to five years. Long term: These impacts are reversible over a much longer period, may occur continuously 

based on normal activity, or may occur for more than five years. 

Impacts Associated with Future Proposed Materials Sources, Staging, or Spoils 

Areas 

Contractor-selected noncommercial material sources, staging, or spoils areas not identified within this 

document for project work would, at a minimum, have written documentation submitted by the contractor 

prior to any use to ensure that potential effects on rare, threatened, or endangered species (ESA), waters 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

244 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

of the United States (Clean Water Act (CWA)), or prehistoric or historic resources (NHPA) have been 

evaluated in association with the proposed activity or activities. 

IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS

The NPS and FHWA have used the design process to reduce impacts. For example in this project, the 

road design includes measures such as locating pullouts well away from sensitive nesting areas, avoiding 

the removal of large nest or perch trees where possible, and minimizing cleared areas. 

Acreage impacts and other quantified impacts provided within the analysis are preliminary. This 

information is provided to convey the relative differences in impacts among alternatives and is from 

multiple sources, including the 30 percent road designs provided by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Final impact numbers would likely be 

within 10 percent of the numbers provided in Table IV-1: Impact Assumptions and throughout this 

document. Estimated road impacts have generally been rounded to the nearest half or whole acre, 

although some more specific differences are given within, depending on the impact being discussed. 

Impacts associated with erosion protection measures and recreational features have been derived from 

designs based on the anticipated area that would be affected. Implementation of these measures would 

have similar impacts but could be slightly more or less than the approximate impact figures identified. 

Table IV-1: Impact Assumptions 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Overall road mileage 4.9 mi Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1

Actual area 

(road length × 16 ft)

9.4 ac Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1

Estimated lands available for 

exchange 

37 ac 24 ac Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2

Site-specific road 

improvements

(pullouts, winter turnaround)

0.8 ac 0.9 ac 0.9 ac Same as Alt 1

McGregor Meadows Access 

Road

N/A 1.3 ac

(0.8 mi)

Same as Alt 2 N/A

Number of barbs (acres) 0 6 - 8 (0.5) 4 (0.3) 16 - 17 (1.1)

Number of logjams (acres) 0 2 (0.1) 5 (0.3) 3 (0.1)

Maintenance / housing 

relocation

5 - 8 ac Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1 Same as Alt 1

Recreational improvements 3.1 ac 3.6 ac 3.4 ac 3.5 ac

Restoration

a. Riparian 1.5 ac 4.1 ac 3.9 ac 2.9 ac

b. Upland 3.6 ac 4.4 ac 3.7 ac 3.7 ac

c. Bioengineering

(barbs and logjams)

n/a 0.6 ac 0.6 ac 1.2 ac

Total restoration (a+b+c) 5.1 ac 9.1 ac 8.2 ac 7.8 ac

Total disturbance 10 ac (new)

37 ac (LPP)

12 ac (existing)

28 ac (new)

24 ac (LPP)

8 ac (existing)

28 ac (new)

24 ac (LPP)

9 ac (existing)

11 ac (new)

24 ac (LPP)

12 ac (existing)
Environmental Impact Analysis 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 245 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

1. LAND USE IMPACTS 

a. Land Use Methodology 

Methodology: Land use analysis was based on a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the potential 

changes to lands within the project area encompassed by the alternatives. The amount of undisturbed 

natural landscape / recovering landscape was compared to proposals for potential new development and 

changes associated with existing development. 

Type of Impact: Types of land use changes considered include conversion from undeveloped land to 

developed land and additional protection of undeveloped or restored lands as public lands. The extent to 

which an area has been previously impacted by human activities is also considered. Beneficial impacts 

would result from sustainable future development out of the channel migration zone, protection of 

undisturbed land, and restoration of lands now developed to natural conditions. Adverse impacts would 

result from development remaining in the channel migration zone or new development in previously 

undisturbed areas. Indirect impacts could result from retention of the Stehekin Valley Road. Indirect 

impacts would also be associated with impacts from changes to lands identified by the LPP (NPS 1995b) 

for exchange since identifying lands for exchange would not necessarily mean that they would be 

developed. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. 

 Minor: Impacts would be slightly detectable or localized within a small portion of the project 

area. 

 Moderate: Impacts would be readily apparent. 

 Major: Impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and widespread. Changes to the 

character of the Stehekin Valley would occur. 

b. Land Use Impacts 

The following broad factors would affect land use in Alternatives 1 - 4: 

 Introducing recreation facilities, relocating maintenance / housing, adding erosion protection 

measures, and offering exchange lands in currently undeveloped areas 

 Relocating a portion of the Stehekin Valley Road in Alternatives 2 and 3 or raising the grade of a 

portion of the Stehekin Valley Road in Alternatives 1 and 4 

 Changes to the 1995 LPP (Alternatives 2 - 4) to allow clustering of development (to provide a 

more sustainable land base not as susceptible to flooding). 

These actions would affect the amount of undisturbed native landscape compared to restored native 

landscape and developed lands. While other actions, such as road rehabilitation, erosion protection 

measures, and recreational development, would have negligible to minor effects, these key components of 

the proposed plan would account for most impacts. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

246 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Maintenance Facility and Housing Replacement and Relocation: Alternatives 1 - 4 would implement 

the General Management Plan (GMP) direction to remove administrative facilities from the floodplain. 

Approximately 5 acres now used for the NPS maintenance complex within the 100-year floodplain / 

channel migration zone of the Stehekin River would be consolidated, with relocated administrative 

housing on 5 to 8 acres of uplands near the airstrip. The Stehekin airstrip is located on an alluvial fan 

above the 100-year floodplain and out of the channel migration zone. Most of the area surrounding it has 

been previously disturbed (cleared). The maintenance facility move would allow for the removal of 

hazardous waste storage facilities and outdated septic systems from within the 100-year floodplain to high 

ground, where more suitable site conditions exist to accommodate these facilities. Building materials 

would be salvaged where possible and most of the area would be restored to natural conditions, a longterm moderate beneficial effect. 

The replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility would result in the restoration of lands within 

the 100-year floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin River, as well as in the long-term 

persistence of the facilities because these would no longer be affected by flooding. The Stehekin River 

would benefit from the removal of facilities that contain numerous point sources of potential pollution, 

including from heavy equipment; electrical appliances; storage of cleaning materials and supplies, 

furnishings, and building materials, such as paints and solvents; and a solid-waste storage facility. These 

facilities have flooded approximately every other year (most recently in 2006). Because the facility would 

be designed to a silver or greater LEED rating, it would provide efficient, green building design intended 

to limit the effects of development. Unlike the current maintenance complex, buildings would be located 

close together and would be landscaped with native plants. Circulation spaces would be designed in 

concert with buildings and would contribute to efficient use that would further reduce the effects of 

development. Although some small structures in the old maintenance area could be relocated and 

repurposed, their removal from the 100-year floodplain would bring the facility into compliance with 

Executive Orders, NPS policies, and North Cascades National Park Service Complex plans. 

Overall, there would be minor to moderate adverse effects on land use from the development of an 

additional 5 to 8 acres of upland within the lower Stehekin Valley. These effects would be offset by the 

moderate long-term beneficial effect from removing approximately 5 acres of development from within 

the 100-year floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. 

Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds: A long-term minor adverse impact on land use would occur from the establishment of 

new campsites at Bullion. Negligible beneficial effects would occur from the conversion of Bullion Camp 

to a day-use area. 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: Realigning and raising the grade of the road within McGregor Meadows would 

likely raise floodwater surface elevation on private land in McGregor Meadows by limiting flow from the 

river to its floodplain, including a side channel on the northeast side of the road. Retention of the road 

would continue to have long-term localized moderate adverse effects on land use. Other indirect effects 

on land use from retaining the road would occur over time as actions were taken to protect the road, 

including from adding new erosion protection measures. 

Maintaining the road in place could also continue to encourage unsustainable development in the channel 

migration zone, a localized long-term moderate adverse impact. 
1. Land Use Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 247 

Implementation of 1995 Land Protection Plan: The NPS would continue to implement the 1995 LPP

(NPS 1995b) and the GMP direction to move administrative and private development out of the 100-year 

floodplain of the Stehekin River. The priorities for land protection (primarily acquisition and exchange) 

would remain the same. The criteria used to rank properties for acquisition and exchange would continue 

to be focused on removing development from the 100-year floodplain and on protecting scenic qualities 

as viewed from the Stehekin Valley Road, as well as on protecting key natural resources associated with 

water. 

The NPS would also continue to have limited ability to influence the nature and extent of development on 

private lands within the Stehekin Valley. Development constraints and conditions would be developed by 

Chelan County and would generally be one dwelling per 5 acres (under current zoning). Some parcels 

were previously divided into 1-acre lots, which were considered buildable before current zoning was 

enacted. Most of these smaller parcels are located near the river mouth in the channel migration zone. 

Additional permitted uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, bed-and-breakfast 

establishments, guest inns, recreation or tourist uses, and small-scale businesses. Construction constraints 

would include conformity to the Shoreline Management Act and zoning in the Chelan County Plan and 

would continue to include appropriate setbacks from the Stehekin River to protect environmental quality. 

Ongoing NPS review of development within the lower Stehekin Valley (including exchanges and new 

lands) would include planning and pre-design; preliminary and final design; construction and monitoring; 

and maintenance and compliance actions (including regular inspection of the property by the NPS for 

compliance with Conditions, Covenants and Deed Restrictions (CCRs) (Appendix 9). 

As noted in Chapter II: Management Alternatives, the tracts proposed for exchange in the 1995 LPP

(approximately 37 acres) would remain possible for exchange at some later date (see Chapter II: 

Management Alternatives, Table II-4: 1995 Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels). Of these 

37 acres, one combined parcel (part of 08-100) is primarily located within the floodplain and does not 

have enough buildable area. As a result, there would be approximately 35 acres that could be developed 

after exchanges. As many as 114 acres in high-priority acquisition, with no cap on the number of acres, 

could be put under land protection status through acquisition, exchange, easements, or covenants. 

There are currently 168 privately owned tracts, comprising 417 acres. Although there are approximately 

62 high-priority, 18 moderate-priority, and 86 low-priority properties in the LPP that are targeted for fee, 

easement, or a combination land protection strategy by the NPS, given the history of land acquisition and 

exchange in Stehekin over the past 15 years, it is likely that most (about 90 percent) of the remaining 417 

acres of privately owned land in Stehekin would remain private. Therefore, there could be ongoing longterm minor to moderate indirect adverse effects on land use from development of some of this land in the 

channel migration zone. Long-term moderate adverse effects would also be associated with potential 

exchange of the 20 acres of the Lower Field parcel because there is currently no development at this site. 

Additional minor to moderate localized beneficial effects could occur from land acquisition of other highpriority lands or protection of exchange lands. 

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: The conversion of approximately 6.1 miles of existing trail (1.5 acres) to hiker / 

equestrian trail would have no effect on land use since the trail currently exists. Construction of 6.3 miles 

of new trail (1.5 acres) would result in a change in land use from development of the trail. This action 

could have long-term minor adverse effects from increased use of public lands that would affect 

McGregor Meadows and some residents between the Boulder Creek and Rainbow Creek alluvial fans. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

248 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 - 4 

Recreational Facilities

Lower Valley Trail: In Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately 4.6 miles of existing trail (1.1 acres) would be 

converted to hiker / equestrian trail. Another 7.9 miles of existing trail would also be used, including 

some former Stehekin Valley Road (proposed McGregor Meadows Access Road) and other abandoned 

road restoration areas. Construction of 4.6 miles of new trail could result in long-term minor impacts from 

development of the trail. As with Alternative 1, impacts from development of the trail could affect nearby 

residents. 

Campgrounds: A long-term minor adverse impact on land use would occur from the establishment of new 

and modified campsites (Purple Point and Rainbow Falls in Alternatives 2 - 4, and Company Creek in 

Alternatives 3 and 4). 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Although restoration would vary among alternatives, there would be 

long-term negligible adverse effects and long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects on land use from 

the conversion of former developed areas to restored landscape. In addition to restoration of former 

housing and maintenance areas, there would be riparian restoration at Lower Field and Buckner 

Homestead hayfield and pasture as well as restoration of riverbank areas from bioengineering associated 

with rock barbs and logjams. The benefits of restoration would be greatest in Alternative 2, followed by 3, 

and 4. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: The key goal of the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b) has been changed in 

the revised LPP to protect lands of high resource value within the Stehekin River channel migration zone. 

As a result, there are new criteria to establish priorities for acquisition and exchange in the revised LPP. 

These nine criteria would be weighted more toward protection of the Stehekin River than scenic qualities 

along the Stehekin Valley Road and general natural resources preservation. Therefore, although the NPS 

would continue to implement the GMP direction to move private property out of the 100-year floodplain 

of the Stehekin River, under Alternatives 2 - 4 that focus would be expanded to removing development 

from the channel migration zone, including areas subject to frequent flooding in McGregor Meadows. 

This would cause numerous low-priority properties (those with development) to become high-priority 

properties to facilitate their exchange or acquisition. Acquisition and exchange priorities would therefore 

be focused on relocating or removing private residential development from the channel migration zone, 

which would have long-term moderate to major beneficial impacts on land use from increasing 

sustainable development. Although these criteria are weighted differently in Alternatives 2 and 3 versus 

Alternative 4 to reflect different land use patterns, beneficial impacts would occur in all alternatives, 

although to a lesser degree in Alternative 4 (see ―Additional Impacts‖ sections below). 

In Alternatives 2 - 4, most public land within Lake Chelan NRA would continue to remain in public 

ownership. Of the total current acreage (roughly 62,000 acres), only 24 acres, or 0.04 percent, would be 

offered for exchange. This total is much less than the total number of private lands remaining in the 

Stehekin Valley (417 acres). The 24 acres that would be available for exchange in the proposed revision 

to the LPP is also less than the approximately 37 acres remaining under the 1995 LPP (in Alternative 1). 

It is unlikely that these exchange lands would be exchanged for a similar number of acres of private land 

because development actually increases the value of the land. Therefore it is possible that the amount of 

private land could grow by a few acres through the exchange process, however, when direct acquisition 

occurred, it would reduce the amount of private land. Overall the loss of public land would be small in 

comparison to the total number of acres preserved in public ownership in Lake Chelan NRA and in 

surrounding national forests and North Cascades National Park Service Complex and would have a minor 
1. Land Use Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 249 

beneficial effect on land use from allowing more sustainable development and from the protection of 

additional sensitive areas. 

In total, approximately 24 acres of public land would potentially be exchanged for private land (Table II6: Alternatives 2 - 4 Revised Land Protection Plan Proposed Exchange Parcels). Given the recent history 

of land acquisition and exchange in Stehekin over the past 14 years, therefore, it is likely that most, 

approximately 390 - 400 of 417 acres, or roughly 95 percent of the remaining privately owned land in 

Stehekin would remain private. Even though this is consistent with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA, 

there would continue to be long-term minor to moderate adverse effects on land use from additional 

conversion of undeveloped land to developed land. This would be coupled with minor long-term 

beneficial impacts on land use from the potential protection of additional land from other acquisition 

methods. New development would also be balanced by conversion of some developed land to its natural 

state. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

In addition to the impacts from actions common to all Alternatives (1 - 4) and impacts from actions 

common to Alternatives 2 - 4, there would be impacts to land use from the road reroute, erosion 

protection measures, new recreational facilities, and other changes associated with the revised LPP. 

Road Reroute: Approximately 18 acres of undisturbed land could be affected by a road reroute, a major 

adverse effect on land use that would be partially offset by restoration of much of the old roadbed and 

revegetation of cut and fill areas over time (Table IV-1: Impact Assumptions). In addition, a portion of the 

existing Stehekin Valley Road alignment would be maintained as the McGregor Meadows Access Road, 

but the remaining portion (approximately 0.7 mile, or 1.4 acres) of road along the river would be restored. 

Road restoration would have a long-term minor beneficial effect on land use. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Implementing erosion protection measures at three sites would increase 

the sustainability of the Stehekin Valley Road, a long-term minor beneficial effect. With the exception of 

the erosion protection near the river mouth, the other two sites are at the edge of the channel migration 

zone where the river’s ability to migrate laterally is naturally constricted. As a result, actions at Wilson 

Creek and Frog Island would have no impact on land use. 

Recreational Facilities

Raft Launch: A small area of land near the mouth of the Stehekin River (which currently has rip-rap) 

would be used for a raft takeout, parking area, and access road. Construction of this public access point to 

the river, surrounded by private land, is near where this activity now occurs informally and would have 

both localized minor beneficial and moderate adverse effects on land use. Beneficial effects could also 

result from consistent and defined public use, in contrast to the current random use pattern; however, 

having a defined location with parking could also increase recreational use adjacent to private lands. 

Because the access for the site would be constructed off the Stehekin Valley Road, instead of off the 

access road, some of the potential impact to the area residents from the change in land use would be 

reduced. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: In Alternative 2, the nine criteria would be ranked as shown in 

Chapter II: Management Alternatives, Table II-5: Proposed Criteria Weighting to Determine Land 

Protection Plan Priorities for Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 4. In the revised LPP, there would be 

66 high-priority properties (totaling 271.50 acres), 98 medium-priority properties (totaling 141.22 acres), 

while four properties (4.75 acres) would be low priority for acquisition. These high-priority properties 

could be acquired through acquisition, exchange, easements, or covenants. As noted above, because most 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

250 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

lands would remain private and most impacts would convert private lands from undeveloped to 

developed, there would be minor to moderate long-term adverse effects on land use. Where additional 

private lands remained undeveloped or were protected by acquisition, easements, or covenants from 

exchange, or where exchanged lands were restored, there would be long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on land use. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

In addition to the impacts from actions common to all alternatives (Alternatives 1 - 4) and impacts from 

actions common to Alternatives 2 - 4, the road reroute (18 acres converted from forest to road) would 

have a major adverse effect; erosion protection measures at five sites would provide a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effect by fostering sustainable land use patterns; one new camp would have a longterm negligible adverse effect; and there would be the same impacts from the implementation of the LPP

modifications (including both long-term minor to moderate beneficial and adverse effects). 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 1 for the road grade raise and the same as 

Alternative 3 for campgrounds, and the same as Alternative 2 for the raft takeout.

Erosion Protection Measures: Installation of 16 - 17 rock barbs at seven sites would provide a minor 

long-term beneficial effect by creating more stable land use associated from keeping the river in place, 

but would also continue to allow the road to remain in an unsustainable location within the channel 

migration zone at several sites. If these measures failed, there would be long-term moderate adverse 

effects from the need for their reconstruction or for road reroutes. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: As noted above, the LPP has been revised to identify new 

priorities for acquisition and exchange based on nine criteria weighted less toward protection of the 

Stehekin River than in Alternatives 2 and 3. Although these criteria and actions associated with the LPP

would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3, the criteria would be weighted differently in Alternative 4, 

as shown in Chapter II: Management Alternatives, Table II-5: Proposed Criteria Weighting to Determine 

Land Protection Plan Priorities for Alternatives 2 and 3 and Alternative 4. 

Based on the revised LPP, there would be approximately 14 high-priority properties (totaling 102.55 

acres), 72 medium-priority properties (totaling 237.44 acres), and 82 low-priority properties (totaling 

77.48 acres). Therefore, implementation of this alternative could continue to result in long-term moderate 

to major adverse impacts to land use from continuing an unsustainable pattern of land use in the channel 

migration zone particularly at McGregor Meadows. 

As in Alternatives 2 and 3, most land within Lake Chelan NRA would continue to remain in public 

ownership, with only about 24 acres, or 0.04 percent, offered for exchange (the same lands as in 

Alternatives 2 and 3). In Alternative 4 there would be more lands in the channel migration zone that could 

continue to be developed because of the different ranking criteria compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. In 

Alternative 4 as in other alternatives, however, there would be no cap on the number of acres that could 

be put under land protection status through NPS acquisition, exchange, easements, or covenants 

associated with these, so the total acreage of public lands could increase slightly. 

As in Alternatives 2 and 3, given the history of land acquisition and exchange in Stehekin over the past 14 

years, it is likely that most of the remaining 417 acres of privately owned land in Stehekin would remain 

private, a long-term minor to moderate adverse effect on land use, coupled with a minor long term benefit 

on land use from protecting up to 24 additional acres of private land. 
1. Land Use Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 251 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate depending on the alternative) to minimize 

impacts to land use would be as follows: 

 Clearly identifying the construction limits to prevent expansion of construction operations into 

undisturbed areas. 

 Work with Chelan County on zoning and land use planning. 

 Minimizing disturbance from reroutes by incorporating toe walls at fill locations where feasible. 

 Retaining some sensitive lands previously proposed for exchange. 

 Concentrating the maintenance and housing area developments. 

 Combining maintenance functions in buildings where possible. 

 Restoring the former maintenance and housing areas. 

 Limiting circulation space associated with new housing and maintenance areas to functional 

needs. 

 Minimizing clearing of vegetation associated with the road rehabilitation. 

 Continuing to acquire private lands in the floodplain and/or channel migration zone as identified 

by LPP priorities. 

 Restoring some riparian areas to natural conditions. 

 Continuing to use CCRs on exchanged public lands when private development is proposed. 

Cumulative Impacts: For a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in 

this analysis, see Appendix 5: Cumulative Impacts Project List. Over time in the lower Stehekin Valley, 

there have been both actions that have increased the amount of undeveloped land (such as removal and 

restoration of existing developed roads and buildings) and actions that have decreased it (such as 

construction of new administrative and recreational facilities, road reroutes, buildings, and utilities, as 

well as development on private lands). A comparison of data from when Lake Chelan NRA was 

established (in 1968) to current data shows an increase both in development and in the number of acres of 

federally owned land. 

Although private land acreage has decreased from approximately 1,700 acres in 1968 (at establishment of 

the recreation area) to approximately 417 acres now, most of the remaining private land is expected to 

remain in private ownership. The NPS has no intention of purchasing all the land within the Stehekin 

Valley. The Stehekin Community and visitor facilities would likely continue to both grow and diminish 

over time as lands are developed and/or redeveloped. 

Projects that have added to the cumulative impacts of development in Stehekin include all of the former 

bank modifications along the Stehekin River (affecting 6.5 percent of the riverbank), several reroutes of 

the Stehekin Valley Road, construction of new NPS houses, impacts of NPS administrative and 

recreational facilities, and existing private development. Current and future impacts would also come 

from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing mitigation projects and Lake Chelan 

NRA actions. 

Future proposed bank modifications would likely be the greatest under Alternative 4 (see Table IV-13: 

Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin River Shoreline Erosion Protection Measures) due to the continued 

presence of more of the road within the channel migration zone, less under Alternative 3, and the least 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

252 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

under Alternative 2, because of the proposed major road reroutes in those alternatives that would limit the 

ability of the river to affect the road, except associated with the McGregor Meadows Access Road. 

Alternative 1 currently has fewer identified impacts, but because it keeps the road in place, it would 

eventually require erosion protection measures similar to those in Alternative 4. To the extent that 

additional private lands were subdivided and/or developed, these would add to the overall effects on land 

use in the lower Stehekin Valley. These impacts would essentially be undifferentiated among alternatives, 

although the number of acres that could be exchanged is greatest under Alternative 1. While this plan 

would remove NPS facilities (housing and maintenance facilities, and portions of the road in Alternatives 

2 and 3) from the channel migration zone, most private development would remain. 

The road reroute (Alternatives 2 and 3), new residential and maintenance area clustering at the airstrip 

(Alternatives 1 - 4), raising the grade of the road (Alternatives 1 and 4), clustering of development 

(Alternatives 2 - 4), and introduction of public use facilities at the Stehekin River mouth (Alternatives 2 

and 4) would contribute to both cumulative impacts and beneficial effects by increasing the amount of 

development on previously undeveloped land and restoring land through the removal of buildings and 

roads. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute the fewest changes in land use (locally minor to moderate adverse 

effects on land use), since they would result in the least amount of additional development (see below); 

however, they would continue to have the potential to have the greatest impact on sustainability of road 

access and land use in the channel migration zone. The road reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

contribute greater cumulative effects on development (minor to major adverse effects) from the relocation 

of the road from adjacent to the river to a currently forested area, and would have the fewest impacts on 

the movement of the river channel. 

Table IV-2: Changes to Land Use from Road Improvements 

Length of 

Rehabilitation*

Major Reroute 

Construction

Estimated Acres 

of Impact** for 

Road

Actual Area of 

Stehekin Valley 

Road Restoration

Alternative 1 4.9 miles n/a 9.8 9.5 acres 

rehabilitation

0 new

5.1 acres

Alternative 2 3.1 miles 1.9 miles 24

(18.0 reroute;

6.2 road 

rehabilitation)

9.5 acres

3.4 acres new

9.0 acres

Alternative 3 3.3 miles 1.7 miles 25

(18.0 reroute;

6.6 road 

rehabilitation)

9.5 acres

3.3 acres new

8.2 acres

Alternative 4 4.9 miles n/a 9.8 9.5 acres 

rehabilitation

0 new

7.8 acres

*Rehabilitation includes improvements to surfacing, drainage, sight distance, etc. The widest road sections (16 feet) are used in 

estimating impacts.

**FHWA estimates 2 acres of disturbance per mile for rehabilitation.
1. Land Use Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 253 

Table IV-3: Changes to Land Use from Land Protection Plan Revision 

Lands Available 

for Exchange

Criteria-based Process? Number and Priority of Properties

High Medium Low

Alternative 1 Up to 37 acres Yes (focused on removing 

development from 100-year 

floodplain)

62 18 86

Alternative 2 Up to 24 acres Yes (focused on removing 

development from Channel 

Migration Zone)

66 98 4

Alternative 3 Same as 

Alternative 2

Same as Alternative 2 66 98 4

Alternative 4 Same as 

Alternative 2

Same as Alternative 2 (except also 

focused on retaining the Stehekin 

Valley Road Current Alignment)

14 72 82

Conclusion: Replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility and housing would have long-term 

localized moderate adverse effects on approximately 5 to 8 acres of disturbed and adjacent land near the 

airstrip. Concurrent moderate to major beneficial effects on the 5 acres now occupied by the existing 

maintenance area would result from restoration of riparian and upland areas and from creation of more 

sustainable land-use patterns for Lake Chelan NRA facilities out of the channel migration zone. 

While Alternatives 1 and 4 would affect new areas for the winter turnaround and pullouts, Alternatives 2 

and 3 would also affect more than 3 acres of new area for the rerouted roadway, but would restore 

abandoned sections, and could affect an additional 15 acres of surrounding area for cuts and fills. 

Combined, new development of currently undeveloped lands (road, maintenance facilities and housing 

area, erosion protection measures, etc.) would affect approximately 10 acres in Alternative 1, 28 acres in 

Alternative 2, 28 acres in Alternative 3, and 11 acres in Alternative 4. These would include short- and 

long-term minor to major adverse effects, with more effects in Alternatives 2 and 3 from reroute 

construction. 

LPP implementation could convert up to 37 acres of existing public land to private land in Alternative 1, 

and up to 24 acres in Alternatives 2 - 4. Although private lands acquired would compensate for some of 

these acres, an unknown number of acres would be added as public land because exchanges do not occur 

on an acre-for-acre basis. Depending on the extent of development of these lands, effects would be 

localized, minor to moderate or major, and long term, with fewer impacts in Alternatives 2 - 4 from fewer 

available lands. An unknown amount of private land could also be acquired as public land through 

acquisition from willing sellers / donations. 

Erosion protection measures to maintain the road would be different in all alternatives and would have 

negligible to moderate localized effects. Riparian restoration and bioengineering would have long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects on land use by slowing unnatural rates of erosion. Impacts from new 

recreational facilities would be similar among all alternatives (negligible to moderate).

The greatest direct effects on land use would occur in Alternatives 2 and 3 because they would relocate 

the road (with its existing adverse effects on the channel migration zone) to higher ground and disturb 

new areas (approximately 18 acres). At the same time, relocating the road would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on the sustainability of the Stehekin Valley Road. Because Alternatives 1 and 4 would 

retain the road (including its adverse effects on the channel migration zone) there would be fewer impacts 

on undisturbed lands (10 and 11 acres, respectively); however, these alternatives would result in a 

continuation of unsustainable land use and would affect the channel migration zone by leaving more of 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

254 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the road within it. Compared to the area that would be retained and protected within the lower Stehekin 

Valley, depending on the alternative selected, new development would occur on a very small percentage 

of the land within Lake Chelan NRA. 

Because nearly all of Lake Chelan NRA would be retained in public ownership, reroute impacts in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would occur in a common forest community type, and the Stehekin Community 

would continue to persist, there would be no significant adverse effects on land use as a result of the 

implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4. 

2. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 

a. Air Quality Methodology 

Air quality analysis was based on both qualitative and quantitative assessment of typical air emissions 

from construction and operations activities. While localized emissions from the proposed project would 

contribute to effects on air quality, deterioration of air quality is also a regional issue influenced by a 

variety of factors, including weather, transportation, manufacturing, and other criteria occurring outside 

the recreation area. 

Context of Impact: Air quality impacts were considered within the lower Stehekin Valley in the 

nonwilderness portion of Lake Chelan NRA and within the region. 

Type of Impact: Beneficial air quality impacts would reduce pollutant emissions or lower pollutant 

concentrations, while adverse impacts would increase them. 

Intensity of Impact 

 Negligible: Measurable or anticipated degree of change would not be detectable or would be only 

slightly detectable. Localized or at the lowest level of detection. 

 Minor: Measurable or anticipated degree of change would have a slight effect, causing a slightly 

noticeable change compared to existing conditions. Often localized. 

 Moderate: Measurable or anticipated degree of change is readily apparent, appreciable, and 

would be noticed by most people. Can be localized or widespread. 

 Major: Measurable or anticipated degree of change would be substantial, causing a highly 

noticeable change compared to existing conditions. Often widespread. 

b. Air Quality Impacts 

The North Cascades National Park Service Complex, including Lake Chelan NRA, is located in an 

attainment area for all ambient air quality standards. Air quality within the recreation area is very good, 

but is locally affected by automobile and ferry emissions, the diesel generator at the power plant, dust 

from the unsurfaced roads and lake bed, home heating and maintenance operations of residents, NPS 

administrative operations, wildland fires and prescribed fires, and weather conditions, such as temperature 

inversions. 

Although it is unlikely that any effects from the proposed actions under the alternatives would cause 

either local or regional nonattainment of air quality or major changes in the emissions of criteria 

pollutants, it is likely that there would be localized short-term degradation of air quality within portions of 

the proposed project area. 
2. Air Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 255 

In general, air quality effects from the actions proposed in the alternatives would be generated by the 

following: 

 Earth movement (including blasting, clearing and construction/demolition activities, and 

vegetation clearing and restoration) 

 Exhaust emissions from transportation-associated vehicle emissions and nonroad (construction / 

demolition / forest clearing) equipment 

 Evaporative emissions from the use of construction materials, such as the use of even lowvolatile organic compound (VOC) solvents and paints during construction. 

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4) 

Maintenance Facility and Housing Replacement and Relocation: Replacement and relocation of the 

maintenance complex and housing area would require excavation associated with the placement of utility 

(water, power, and sewer) lines and for constructing circulation space (including parking and walkways). 

These activities would constitute localized negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts on air quality 

from particulates released during soil-moving activities, since soils at the site have a coarse texture. 

Transport of construction materials sufficient to build the maintenance complex and housing structures 

would be needed. These supplies would require numerous barge trips from Chelan to Stehekin, using 

approximately 200 gallons of diesel fuel per trip (see Table IV-4: Transportation of Materials). Barges 

can transport up to 230 tons per trip and would thus transport needed materials in about 20 trips. As a 

result, there would be short-term minor to moderate localized impacts to air quality that would dissipate 

quickly as the barge passes uplake and downlake. Once in Stehekin, additional vehicle trips in 12- 18-

cubic-yard dump trucks would be required to transport the materials upvalley to the airstrip area. This 

would require burning approximately 58 gallons of diesel fuel. Along the unsurfaced sections of road (for 

example, the unpaved road above Harlequin Bridge), trucks would produce dust that could affect nearby 

residents and visitors. 

Table IV-4: Transportation of Materials 

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Maintenance/housing Unknown number of trips by barge and truck to transport materials and supplies to construct 

housing area

Road grade raise 

(Alternatives 1,4) or 

reroute (Alternatives

2,3)

5,600 cubic yards fill 

imported

57,000 cubic yards 

cut and 48,000 cubic 

yards fill within 

project area

64,000 cubic yards 

cut and 54,000 cubic 

yards fill within 

project area

Same as Alternative

1

Road Surfacing 2,540 base

1,439 surface

3,541 base

2,054 surface

3,285 base

1,886 surface

Same as Alternative

1

Wilson Creek 1,100 cubic yards

8 - 10 logs

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative

1

Rock for Barbs 0 600 - 800 cubic 

yards

400 cubic yards 1,600 - 1,700 cubic 

yards

Logjams 0 100 logs 1,000 logs 200 logs

There would be evaporative emissions from the use of sealants and chemicals used in the project as well 

as from paints and solvents used in construction of the maintenance complex and new and replacement 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

256 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

housing. To the extent possible, chemicals used in construction of the housing and maintenance areas 

would be low VOC emitters. 

The carbon footprint of various activities is estimated by alternative in Table IV-5. Although Alternative 

1 has 25% less tons of carbon than the others, over time its footprint would meet or surpass the other 

alternatives because new construction would be necessary to keep the Stehekin Valley Road in place. 

Table IV-5: Estimated Carbon Emissions by Action for Alternatives 1 - 4 

Action Alternative 1

(tons of carbon)

Alternative 2

(tons of carbon)

Alternative 3

(tons of carbon)

Alternative 4

(tons of carbon)

Road Rehabilitation 

and/or Reroutes

210 259 234 Same as Alternative

1

Erosion Protection 

Measures

74 100 112 138

Maintenance, 

Housing and Helipad

45 Same as Alternative 

1

Same as Alternative 

1

Same as Alternative 

1

Recreational 

Improvements

Negligible Same as Alternative 

1

Same as Alternative 

1

Same as Alternative 

1

TOTAL 330 404 391 393

Source: Appendix 14: Carbon Emissions Estimates and Calculations.

NOTE: This analysis does not include carbon associated with vegetation loss or gain.

Construction of the new maintenance complex and housing would also result in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects on air quality by replacing numerous inefficient, poorly constructed buildings 

with buildings that have state-of-the art energy efficient design and construction, utilities, and appliances. 

Among the features that would be incorporated into the new buildings would be solar panels; full 

insulation, including roof, walls, and crawl spaces; propane, rather than electric or wood, heat; doubleglazed windows; low-flow water devices; water-efficient toilets; propane hook-ups for clothes dryers; 

insulated water pipes; compact fluorescent or LED lighting; and insulated water heaters. 

Road Construction, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation: Ongoing maintenance and repair of the road 

surface and associated structures (including rock and vegetation removal, minor culvert work, crack 

sealing, chip sealing, and future asphalt overlays) would continue to result in construction exhaust 

emissions associated with the use of vehicles and equipment. 

A variety of heavy equipment, including dump trucks, graders, rollers, excavators, backhoes, and other 

devices, would be used to rehabilitate and surface the road from Harlequin Bridge to the winter 

turnaround under all alternatives. Use of this equipment would be concentrated along this portion of the 

Stehekin Valley Road, but would also travel from the Landing to beyond the turnaround at Milepost 9.2. 

The most intensive concentration of heavy equipment use would be where new pullouts needed to be 

constructed, where fill material needed to be imported to raise the grade of shoulder areas prior to 

surfacing, and in those portions of McGregor Meadows where the road grade would be raised 

(Alternatives 1 and 4) or where reroutes were constructed (Alternatives 2 and 3). Other areas of 

concentrated impacts would include slight changes in the road alignment through McGregor Meadows to 

improve sight distance (Alternatives 1 and 4) and actions to reduce the slope at Milepost 8.0 (Alternatives 

2 - 4). There would also be excavation where culvert work was needed, areas of side ditch construction or 

reconstruction, and fill areas associated with Wilson Creek for barb/bioengineering construction and for 

restoration. 
2. Air Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 257 

Although the length of the rehabilitation would vary among alternatives, actions and impacts would be 

similar, encompassing 4.9 miles of road in Alternatives 1 and 4, 3.0 miles (1.3 miles before the reroute 

and 1.7 miles after) in Alternative 2, and 3.2 miles of road (1.3 miles before and 1.9 miles after) in 

Alternative 3. Compared to Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 would have fewer rehabilitation actions and 

more new construction for the reroute sections. 

Localized degradation of air quality would occur in the vicinity of earth-moving construction activities, 

including excavation, filling and grading, brush removal, blasting, and the use of heavy equipment, as 

well as from vehicles passing over temporarily or permanently unsurfaced road surfaces, causing dust to 

rise. Forest-clearing equipment (chainsaws) and other hand and power tools would also be used in the 

road rehabilitation and to clear areas where new pullouts and the winter turnaround would occur (all 

alternatives) and for the reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3), causing negligible to minor exhaust emissions 

over a period of several days to several months. 

There would be also be increased (locally negligible to moderate) gasoline and diesel emissions during 

rehabilitation of the road from the use of construction vehicles and equipment, particularly when actions 

resulted in temporary traffic delays and increased idling of vehicles, causing minor, localized emissions in 

the vicinity of the delay (due to the small number of public vehicles in Stehekin). Although traffic delays 

would temporarily increase the concentration of pollutants in the vicinity of idling vehicles, depending on 

air movement associated with weather conditions, these emissions would be short term, localized, and 

quickly dispersed and would be reduced through possible idling limitations during delays. 

Negligible to minor localized adverse effects on air quality would occur from dust emissions, depending 

on the season, type of vegetation, fuel, and soil moisture levels, which (similar to other actions below) 

would be minimized by the use of best management practices (BMPs) such as use of a water truck during 

construction and covering soils during transport. 

Surfacing: Surfacing the road (with asphalt chip seal) would involve importing materials and excavating, 

replacing, and/or compacting the road base and subbase, where necessary. This would result in minor 

short-term adverse effects from earth movement and transportation of materials. Localized long-term 

moderate beneficial impacts on air quality would occur from a decrease in the release of dust from driving 

over formerly unsurfaced roadways. Surfacing would occur on 3.9 miles in Alternative 1. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, surfacing would include the new reroutes but not the McGregor Meadows Access 

Road. Therefore, 4.9 miles would be surfaced in Alternatives 2 - 4. In addition, there would be a new 

asphalt chip seal surface from the Landing to Harlequin Bridge. Adverse effects on air quality, including 

dust from driving on unsurfaced roads and particulate releases from the movement of fill materials, would 

occur from the need to import and place approximately 3,979 cubic yards for surfacing in Alternatives 1 

and 4; 5,595 cubic yards in Alternative 2; and 5,171 cubic yards in Alternative 3. 

Erosion Protection Measures: All alternatives would include the need to transport approximately 1,100 

cubic yards of soil and rock from Wilson Creek to other project areas or the Company Creek Pit, a 

negligible adverse effect on air quality. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: All alternatives would also include long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts from restoration of abandoned sections of road, from riparian restoration in some areas, 

from additional plantings, and short-term negligible adverse impacts from transportation of plant 

materials and supplies. Restoration would be greatest under Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, 

and 1. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

258 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: Approximately 5,600 cubic yards of material would be imported and placed for the 

grade raise through portions of McGregor Meadows. Excavating and moving material for the road grade 

raise from a location outside of Stehekin would result in minor to moderate localized adverse impacts to 

air quality from transport and placement of these materials. Between 300 and 500 dump truck loads (12 - 

18 cubic yards each) would be required to transport the material from the Landing to McGregor 

Meadows, and approximately 62 barge loads would also be required. Over time, it is likely that fill 

material would need to be replaced periodically following flooding, resulting in ongoing (long-term) 

minor localized adverse effects. 

There would be no increase in roadway capacity or increased overall traffic volumes as a result of the road 

improvements. As a result, long-term exhaust emissions from vehicles using the Stehekin Valley Road 

are not anticipated to change. Although public transportation (buses) on the Stehekin Valley Road would 

not be affected by the proposed rehabilitation of the road, rehabilitation would increase the ability of 

buses and other large vehicles to stay on the road with additional surfacing and pullouts and an enlarged 

winter turnaround, perhaps having a negligible beneficial effect on decreasing particulate emissions. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Additional actions to locate rip-rap and log-cribbing at Wilson Creek 

would require additional transport of large rock and logs and excavation of the bank, contributing 

additional localized minor adverse effects on air quality.

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: Construction of the Lower Valley Trail in Alternatives 1 and 4 would require 

removing vegetation and excavating to mineral soil approximately 6.3 miles of new trail in an area 

comprising about 1.58 acres. Since most of this work would be done with hand tools and not large 

machinery, effects on air quality would be localized negligible to minor and adverse effect. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Road Reroute: Compared to the impacts of raising the grade through McGregor Meadows in 

Alternative 1, earthmoving associated with the 1.8-mile reroute would take longer, resulting in more 

potential impacts to air quality from the release of particulates (dust) and emissions from construction 

equipment and vehicle traffic. The 57,000 cubic yards of soil and rock would be both excavated and 

moved within the reroute area. Fill would be approximately 48,000 cubic yards. Cut and fill needs have 

been designed to be approximately balanced (cut areas used for fill areas). 

Alternative 2 would also result in more forest clearing than Alternative 1, with minor localized adverse 

impacts from equipment use. Combining the 18 acres of impact for the road reroute and area of road 

impacted for rehabilitation (2 acres per mile), the total disturbance area could be up to 28 acres, which 

would have air quality impacts during removal of trees and other vegetation and from particulates 

disturbed by the equipment used for removal. 

This alternative also differs from Alternative 1 because there would be additional vehicle (including 

diesel truck) travel related to constructing and surfacing an additional 1.9 miles of new Stehekin Valley 

Road reroute. Although there would be no increase in roadway capacity or increased overall traffic 

volumes as a result of the road improvements, because the road through McGregor Meadows would deadend, there would be some additional trips to travel back through McGregor Meadows after reaching the 

end to continue on the Stehekin Valley Road for some residents, delivery services, and/or utility vehicles. 
2. Air Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 259 

This would result in a negligible to minor increase in vehicle trips per day and consequent effects on air 

quality. 

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: In Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts from constructing the Lower Valley Trail would be 

similar, except that in these alternatives, more existing trail (7.9 miles) would be used and fewer miles of 

new trail (4.6) would be constructed, resulting in fewer new adverse impacts than Alternative 1. 

Campgrounds and Raft Takeout: Localized negligible adverse effects on air quality from ground 

disturbance releasing particulates would also occur during construction of new campsites at Purple Point 

Horse Camp and Rainbow Falls, relocation of Bullion Camp, and construction of the new raft takeout and 

associated parking area. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Approximately six to eight barbs would be constructed in Alternative 2 

near the mouth of the Stehekin River, Wilson Creek, and at Frog Island, and two logjams (one on the 

bank at Boulder Creek, one near the mouth of the river). Because each barb would require up to 100 cubic 

yards of large rock, there would be transport by barge and truck of approximately 600 - 800 cubic yards 

of rock. Approximately another 130 cubic yards would be used for an avulsion sill at Boulder Creek. 

Each barb would require six to nine trips to transport rock from Stehekin Landing. In addition, there 

would be transport and placement associated with procurement of approximately 50 large logs each for 

the river mouth and Boulder Creek logjams. These would be gathered as floating logs from the head of 

Lake Chelan, from the tops of logjams below Boulder Creek, or from the reroute. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Road Reroute: As in Alternative 2, compared to the impacts of raising the road grade in Alternative 1, 

earthmoving associated with the 1.7-mile reroute would take longer, resulting in short-term localized 

adverse impacts to air quality from the release of particulates (dust) and from construction equipment and 

vehicle traffic. Because cut and fill amounts would be approximately balanced for the reroute, there 

would be no additional importation of fill material to Stehekin for that portion of the project; rather, this 

material (approximately 64,000 cubic yards of cut and 54,000 cubic yards of fill) would be transported 

within the area of the reroute. As in Alternative 2, there would be additional vehicle travel related to 

constructing and surfacing an additional 1.7 miles of new Stehekin Valley Road along the reroute, slightly 

less than in Alternative 2. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Effects from building logjams at Weaver Point, at Stehekin River mouth, 

near Boulder Creek (along with a grade-control structure / avulsion sill), at Wilson Creek, and at Frog 

Island, as well as two barbs at Weaver Point and two at the Lower Field, would be short and long term, 

localized, and minor to moderate. These barbs would require up to 400 cubic yards of imported rock and 

more trips for transport from Stehekin Landing, a short-term minor adverse effect. Procurement of logs 

for the logjams at Boulder Creek would be the same as in Alternative 2, plus additional logs would be 

procured for Weaver Point (150), Frog Island (200), Wilson Creek (300), and near the Stehekin River 

mouth (300). As in Alternative 2, these would be gathered from floating logs or from the tops of logjams 

below Boulder Creek. 

Recreational Facilities

Lower Valley Trail: Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

260 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Campgrounds: Additional negligible adverse effects would occur from construction of an additional 

camp near Company Creek. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Road Grade Raise: Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 1.

Erosion Protection Measures: Because 16 - 17 barbs would be placed at eroding bank areas, 1,600 - 

1,700 cubic yards of rock would be transported for barbs, a short-term moderate adverse effect. In 

addition, there would be transport for logs for the small logjam and avulsion sill located near Boulder 

Creek (50 logs), the small logjam near the river mouth (50 logs), and the logjam at Weaver Point (150 

logs). 

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: Actions and impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Camps and Raft Takeout: Actions and impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2 plus the 

Company Creek campground from Alternative 3, with minor short-term adverse impacts during 

construction. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to air quality would be as follows: 

 Chipping or mulching vegetation on site rather than disposing of it off site or burning it. 

 Spraying water over exposed soil, particularly during dry conditions, to minimize fugitive dust on 

main roadway. 

 Covering trucks when transporting materials outside the project area to reduce or eliminate 

particle release during transport. 

 Encouraging contractor employees and NPS employees to travel in groups to and from the project 

site (rather than in multiple separate vehicles). 

 Revegetating bare and staging areas as soon as possible (upon final grading or when staging area 

is no longer in use). 

 Minimizing the extent of vegetation removal associated with road rehabilitation. 

 Encouraging the use of local labor sources and large-volume material delivery to minimize trip 

generation during construction activity. 

 Not locating wood-burning stoves or fireplaces in buildings. 

 Using propane and solar devices for heating. 

 Using low-VOC paints, solvents, and other chemicals in building construction. 

 Encouraging idling of construction vehicles and equipment for no longer than 15 minutes when 

not in use. 

 Encouraging use of a biodiesel mix fuel rather than traditional diesel fuel. 
2. Air Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 261 

Cumulative Impacts: Over time, in the region, human impacts such as the development of roads, 

businesses, and housing have contributed to increasing vehicle travel to obtain goods and services and to 

access recreational experiences. In Washington, as elsewhere, population increases have resulted in 

dramatic increases in the number of vehicle miles traveled. In Stehekin, because the road network is 

isolated from others in Washington, miles traveled have not elsewhere increased as dramatically. 

Increases associated with vehicle travel have been coupled with increases in the number of industrial, 

commercial, and other vehicle sources of pollution. With the passage of the federal and state clean air 

acts, emissions controls have been implemented on stationary and mobile sources of air quality 

degradation. Washington has been proactive in establishing vehicle emissions standards for urban areas. 

Over time, these standards have changed and have resulted in moderating the effect of ever-increasing 

population and industry. 

In Lake Chelan NRA, existing adverse impacts to air quality (vehicle traffic, lakebed dust, campfires, and 

power generation) would not increase as a result of the proposed actions under the alternatives described 

in this SRCIP/DEIS. There would also be no changes to existing long-term regional beneficial effects on 

air quality, such as carpooling and public transportation to and within the Stehekin Valley. Therefore, 

when added to the impacts of other actions that may occur in the recreation area and which would affect 

air quality, including other construction, transportation, and restoration projects, the proposed action, 

under Alternatives 1 - 4, would contribute negligible to minor localized short-term adverse effects. A 

long-term moderate localized beneficial impact would also be contributed under all alternatives from the 

reduction in gravel use from the Company Creek Pit and from reduced dust on the main valley road (from 

surfacing). If the project occurred at the same time as other projects having an effect on air quality, such 

as during other state transportation projects, effects would increase, but would remain localized and 

negligible to minor and would be generally undetectable, except within the vicinity of the actions. 

Regional air quality would not be affected by the proposed actions under the alternatives described in this 

SRCIP/DEIS. 

Conclusion: Actions in the alternatives would result in a variety of particulate emissions (such as dust) 

during excavation, filling, and grading. Exhaust emissions would be produced from vehicle travel, 

transport of fill materials both to and within the project area, and ongoing operations during use (heating 

of buildings, etc.). Evaporative emissions would come from surfacing, painting, and solvent use, 

primarily during construction, but also later during operation of the maintenance area. There would also 

be negligible to minor evaporative emissions from ongoing use of the maintenance area. 

Overall, the effects of clearing vegetation, excavating soil, and placing fill would contribute to short-term 

moderate increases in particulate concentrations, occurring only during construction activities. These 

impacts would be locally negligible to minor for recreational facilities; minor for erosion protection 

measures (Alternatives 1 - 4); minor to moderate for Milepost 8.0 actions (Alternatives 2 - 4); minor for 

construction of the maintenance and housing areas (Alternatives 1 - 4); negligible to moderate for road 

rehabilitation actions (Alternatives 1 - 4); minor to moderate for reroute construction soil transport and 

movement (Alternatives 2 and 3); and moderate for grade raise soil transport and movement (Alternatives 

1 and 4). There would be no long-term contributions that would increase particulate concentrations from 

the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4; however, long-term moderate beneficial impacts on air quality 

would occur from eliminating dust from unsurfaced sections of road. These beneficial impacts would be 

greatest in Alternatives 2 and 3, where the road and reroutes would be surfaced with an asphalt chip seal 

(except for the McGregor Meadows Access Road), and least under Alternatives 1 and 4, because the 

unstable area through McGregor Meadows would not be surfaced. 

All alternatives would increase the need for barge transport due to the construction of the maintenance 

and housing areas and for the importation of surfacing materials. Long-term exhaust emissions under all 

alternatives would result from ongoing vehicle travel in Stehekin and would be similar to Alternative 1, 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

262 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

since overall vehicle use would not rise as a result of the implementation of the action alternatives 

(Alternatives 2 - 4). Short-term effects, however, would vary between the alternatives and would be 

associated with rehabilitation and grade raises (Alternatives 1 and 4) or rehabilitation and construction of 

reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3). Minor road realignments, the construction of varying numbers of barbs 

under each alternative, and the construction of recreational features (Lower Valley Trail, campsites, and 

the raft takeout) would also vary by alternative and would contribute to short-term minor air quality 

effects from diesel exhaust during construction. Road improvements would take from 2 to 3 years to 

implement, while other portions of the project would take place over a period of approximately 3 to 15 

years as other portions of the alternatives (erosion protection measures, recreational improvements, and 

housing and maintenance facility construction) were funded and implemented. As a result, emissions 

would occur in a number of areas, often widely spaced in time and distance from each other. Most of 

these impacts would be associated with impacts from carbon monoxide and particulates associated with 

diesel exhaust. Where biodiesel was used, these impacts would be fewer. 

Vehicle and evaporative emissions and dust would be largely dispersed by air movement in the project 

area, although lingering effects from vehicle emissions would occur during traffic delays and some 

temperature inversions. Airborne particulates would be more likely to increase in concentration on dry, 

windless days. Overall impacts from dust and construction equipment emissions would be short term and 

negligible to moderate along the project corridor under Alternatives 2 and 3, primarily due to road 

construction, and negligible to minor under Alternatives 1 and 4, primarily due to road rehabilitation. 

Effects would be the same under all alternatives for construction of the maintenance and housing areas, 

and similar effects would occur in the action Alternatives 2 - 4, from construction of recreational 

facilities, since there would be one more camp in Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 1, with construction of 

only the Lower Valley Trail, would likely have fewer impacts related to recreational features. 

Overall, the action alternatives would result in negligible to moderate degradation of local air quality, but 

the effects would be temporary, lasting only during construction activities. Surfacing the road would 

reduce the level of dust currently generated by vehicle travel over the unsurfaced road, thus eliminating 

fugitive dust emissions over time. Dust reduction would be one of the primary achievements of the road 

project and would produce moderate long-term beneficial effects on air quality, helping to preserve and 

improve the status of the local airshed (NPS 2005). Other beneficial long-term impacts would be realized 

by reducing the number of dump trucks and grader trips needed to maintain the gravel road in the floodprone McGregor Meadows. Energy-conservation measures employed in the housing and maintenance 

area structures would also achieve long-term air quality benefits by reducing emissions, primarily those 

associated with heating, and by constructing efficient heat-retaining structures. Restoration and 

bioengineering would also contribute some negligible beneficial effects from plant establishment. 

There would be no major adverse impacts and no impairment of air quality or air quality-related values 

from the proposed actions under the alternatives described in this SRCIP/DEIS. 

3. SOILS AND VEGETATION IMPACTS 

Note: These impact topics are considered together because many of the same actions that would affect 

soils would also affect vegetation. 

a. Soils Methodology 

Soils analysis was based on a qualitative assessment of generalized soil types and typical effects of the 

type of impact described. Quantitative analysis was also conducted to determine the amount of soil to be 

removed in major excavation and fill areas. 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 263 

Type of Impact: Activities that result in soil impacts include the construction of buildings or structures, 

parking areas, roads, trails, and other facilities. Adverse impacts to soil include soil removal, profile 

mixing, compaction, erosion, and contamination. Adverse impacts would degrade chemical or physical 

properties of soils or result in the loss or temporary removal of soils. Beneficial impacts result from 

actions that protect soils from erosion or restore natural soil conditions. Restoration and revegetation have 

both adverse and beneficial effects. 

 Soil Removal: Surfacing and construction remove and/or cover the soil surface, resulting in 

changes to basic soil properties, including altering the ability of water to penetrate the soil, 

nutrient availability, and water-holding capacity. Excavation and removal of the soil surface 

would result in a long-term impact because basic soil properties (such as compaction, texture, and 

physical and chemical composition), which may have taken tens to hundreds or thousands of 

years to develop are removed. Covering the surface reduces water movement and minimizes the 

opportunity for the normal physical and chemical soil processes. 

 Soil Profile Mixing: Soil excavation and redistribution causes removal or mixing of the soil 

profile and disrupts soil structural characteristics, interrupting the chemical, physical, and 

biological processes that naturally occur in soil horizons. The level of change is dependent on the 

level of the alteration. It may take centuries to redevelop the soil profile. 

 Soil Compaction: Soil compaction may occur as a result of construction activities or in areas of 

intensive use such as trails, campgrounds, and picnic areas. Finer-grained soils, including wetland 

and silty-sandy river soils, are very susceptible to compaction effects. Soil compaction reduces 

infiltration rates and decreases pore space, thereby increasing surface runoff and the potential for 

erosion. Deep compaction of soils may impede subsurface water movement. In turn, these effects 

can alter soil chemical processes such as nutrient transfer, biological processes such as root 

development and microbial patterns, and physical processes such as soil structure. Vegetation 

growth on compacted soils is often limited due to low infiltration, poor root penetration, and lack 

of nutrients. 

 Soil Erosion: Removal of vegetation and organic-rich soil horizons through grading or casual 

pedestrian use may result in accelerated erosion of the soil surface, particularly on slopes steeper 

than 50 percent. Where vegetation is replaced by hard surfacing, such as buildings, surfacing, or 

walkways, soils are also compacted and physical and biotic processes are disrupted. Sandy soils 

on steep slopes and along watercourses are especially susceptible to erosion, especially poorly 

consolidated alluvial soils such as those found along the Stehekin River. In contrast, gravelly soils 

on alluvial fans and some river terraces are far less susceptible to erosion. Rare or Sensitive Soils:

Certain microclimates in the lower Stehekin Valley have distinct vegetation cover and soils. Bare 

rock exposures host slow-developing, easily disturbed cryptogrammic soils. Wetlands and other 

areas with fine-grained soils are prone to erosion and compaction impacts. 

 Soil Contamination: The addition of chemical constituents into the soils as a result of surfacing 

and untreated runoff from surfaced surfaces, or from incidental spills, may alter micro- or 

macroorganism populations, diversity, and dynamics. Machinery involved with construction 

activities may deposit small amounts of natural and synthetic petroleum-hydrocarbons onto soils 

through equipment failure or normal operations. 

 Soil Restoration: Ecological restoration that would minimize erosion potential and increase 

organic matter in the soil is considered a beneficial effect. Short-term adverse effects may occur 

during site-restoration activities where construction equipment may compact soils, temporarily 

eliminate groundcover vegetation, and cause potential erosion from surface water runoff over the 

exposed soils; however, over the long term, restoration will restore the soil-forming processes by 

reducing erosion. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

264 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: The effects to soil resources would be generally undetectable. Any effects to soil 

productivity or fertility would be slight and no long-term effects to soils would occur. 

 Minor: The effects to soils would be detectable and would include loss of organic surface 

horizons. Effects to soil productivity or fertility and the area affected would be small. 

 Moderate: The effect on soils would be readily apparent and likely long term, and would 

potentially include loss of subsurface soil horizons. Impacts would result in a change to the 

character of the resources over a relatively wide area, or in changes to a rare or sensitive soil. 

 Major: The effect on soils would be readily apparent and long term, and would cause soil erosion 

over large areas (or over small areas, if a particularly rare soil type is threatened). 

b. Vegetation Methodology 

Vegetation analysis was based on a qualitative assessment of project area vegetation and the effects 

anticipated as a result of ongoing maintenance, construction, or rehabilitation. Quantitative analysis was 

also conducted to determine the effects of vegetation loss. This analysis was based on the amount of 

disturbance (removal of or damage to vegetation) from construction or road operations compared to 

current conditions. It is also considers the benefits of site restoration. Assessment of the potential for the 

project to introduce or spread nonnative plant species, such as exotics and noxious weeds, was also made. 

The geographical extent of plant communities has been determined through field and aerial vegetation 

mapping. Field reconnaissance of areas of potential impact was used to analyze plant community types 

and to look for any rare, threatened, or endangered species. Human use can disturb or compact soils, 

create conditions favorable for nonnative species or introduce nonnative species, and decrease native 

vegetation cover. Because human use impacts such as recreational use and foot traffic can extend beyond 

developed areas and affect plant community size and continuity, the potential for these indirect impacts 

beyond development boundaries was considered as a factor in determining the intensity of impacts on 

vegetation. 

The evaluation of the integrity of plant communities was based on: 

 Biodiversity (diversity of communities within an ecosystem, species within a community, and 

genetic variation among individual species): Measures of biodiversity may include plant 

community structure and composition, connectivity of ecosystems, variation in age, structure 

(density and arrangement), individual species composition and abundance, and the presence or 

absence of natural structural layers. 

 Exotic species introduction and spread: Nonnative species can alter soil chemical and physical 

properties, hamper native species establishment, and alter native plant community structure and 

function. This impact analysis considered whether proposed actions would favor the 

establishment of nonnative species and the ability to contain and reverse nonnative plant 

infestation. 

 Resilience of the plant community: Resilient plant communities are more capable of 

withstanding human impacts without long-term deformation because they can recover more 

quickly. 

Type of Impact: Actions that reduce the size of or disrupt the continuity and/or integrity of native plant 

communities are considered adverse impacts. Ground disturbance and importing nonnative plants can 

adversely impact native plant communities because they provide means for nonnative species to gain a 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 265 

foothold. Restoration of disturbed areas using native seeds and reusing topsoil and plants, mulch, or other 

stabilizing materials accelerates site recovery and reduces opportunities for exotic plants to become 

established. Actions that preserve and/or restore these essential qualities of native plant communities 

constitute beneficial impacts. New development within an otherwise intact and undisturbed area may 

fragment or disassociate plant communities. Small areas of restoration surrounded by existing or new 

development may constitute a lesser beneficial impact on plant communities than restoration of a small 

area adjacent to a larger intact community. In general, reducing and limiting fragmentation and 

maintaining connections within and among plant communities can minimize adverse effects on plant 

communities. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Impacts would have no measurable or perceptible changes in plant community size, 

continuity, or integrity. Individual native plants would be affected, but there would be no effect 

on native species populations. There would be no increases or barely detectable increases in the 

number of nonnative species and the extent of their range. The effects would be short term and on 

a small scale. 

 Minor: Impacts would be measurable or perceptible and localized within a relatively small area, 

and the overall viability of the plant community would not be affected. Individual plants and/or a 

relatively minor segment of populations would be affected. Changes in the extent of nonnative 

species would be short term, localized, and measurable. 

 Moderate: Impacts would cause a change in the plant community (e.g., size, continuity, and 

integrity); however, the impact would remain localized. The change would be measurable and 

perceptible, but could be reversed. The alternative would affect some individual native plants and 

would also affect a sizeable segment of the species’ population in the long term and over a 

relatively large area. Changes in the extent of several or more nonnative species would be over a 

relatively long period of time. Nonnative plants could spread beyond the localized area. 

 Major: Impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and permanent in their effect on plant 

community size, diversity, continuity, or integrity. The alternative would have a considerable 

long-term effect on native plant populations and nonnative plants. 

c. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Under all Alternatives 1 - 4, soils and vegetation would be affected at various sites along the Stehekin 

Valley Road and Company Creek Road, wherever excavation, fill, vegetation disturbance or removal, 

and/or covering areas with hard surfaces would occur. Soils and vegetation would also be affected in the 

proposed maintenance and housing areas, for erosion protection measures, and near the recreational 

facility improvements. Much of this disturbance would be limited to the existing road prism (in the area 

affected by original road construction activities) and/or other existing disturbed areas. Some actions, 

however, including those associated with the construction of the maintenance and housing areas, would 

occur in areas that either are recovering from former disturbance from human activities or have not been 

affected by recent human activities. Restoration of native riparian and upland plant communities which 

varies by alternative would benefit soils and vegetation. 

Vegetation loss combined with construction, including compaction from grading for gravel, concrete, or 

asphalt surfacing, would also change soil water infiltration. During excavation and grading, soils would 

be mixed, moved, and replaced with fill, causing a long-term change in soil profiles, loss of vegetation, 

and decreasing soil productivity. Fine-grained soils would be more likely to be compacted by construction 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

266 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

activities, which would temporarily decrease soil permeability, change the soil moisture content, and 

lessen water storage capacity. 

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

Maintenance Facility and Housing Replacement and Relocation: There would be minor to moderate 

effects on soils and vegetation from development of about 5 - 8 acres of existing disturbed area near the 

airstrip for the maintenance area and housing. This area contains bigleaf maple and Douglas-fir; shrubs, 

including ceanothus, elderberry, and willows; and a variety of forbs. With the proposed clearing for the 

new maintenance and housing areas, there would continue to be long-term moderate adverse effects on 

soils and vegetation. Construction would require excavation of relatively young, coarse-textured soils for 

placement of foundations. This would cause loss of relatively young, weakly developed soil profiles and 

would change infiltration through placement of impervious structures and surfaces, such as buildings, 

parking areas, roads, and paths. Compaction would occur from the placement of utility system 

infrastructure (water, sewer, and electric lines), and could result in limited soil and vegetation recovery 

following construction. Much of this area, however, is comprised of coarse-grained gravel soils not prone 

to compaction. In addition to space occupied by buildings, accompanying circulation and parking areas 

for the housing and maintenance areas would also affect soils and vegetation. Approximately 0.3 acre of 

impermeable surfacing would be added for the maintenance area (including for buildings and circulation). 

It is likely that a similar area would contain impermeable surfacing in the housing area. Combined, the 

loss of vegetation, soil profiles, mixing of soil with fill, and loss of infiltration would have a localized 

long-term minor adverse effect, with impacts limited because of the poorly developed (young) coarsegrained soils and highly modified vegetation type (primarily comprised of nonnative species of grasses 

and forbs in open areas). 

Restoration of the former maintenance area, comprising approximately 5 acres, would result in long-term 

major localized beneficial effects on riparian and upland vegetation and soils within this currently 

impacted floodplain, from restoration of topsoil and vegetation. Soils in the existing maintenance area are 

finer-grained and more productive than those at the airstrip. Ongoing minor adverse effects would also 

continue to occur from the effects of maintaining the Company Creek Road near the former maintenance 

area. 

Road Rehabilitation: Routine, ongoing maintenance of the road surface would involve shoulder, culvert, 

and ditch maintenance. Vegetation would continue to be removed and soils would be mixed and removed, 

causing localized displacement of poorly developed soils, a long-term negligible to minor adverse effect 

occurring at various locations over time. During flooding, soils in recently disturbed or vulnerable areas 

would also erode. 

Road improvements would occur over 4.9 miles of road (Alternatives 1 and 4) and on existing road in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, from Harlequin Bridge to the winter turnaround, and would affect approximately 9.5 

acres of existing disturbed area. New soil and vegetation disturbance would occur from the addition of 

pullouts, the winter turnaround, and construction of new side ditches. There would be long-term minor to 

moderate adverse effects over much of this area, plus short-term impacts to accommodate construction 

limits. Overall construction limits are estimated at 2 acres per mile for the 4.9 miles but would likely not 

affect areas much beyond the existing roadway except for improvements at Wilson Creek, Milepost 8.0, 

Milepost 9.2, pullouts, and the winter turnaround. 

Road construction and improvements would include placement of fill materials on top of the soil profile 

and covering soil with impervious surface treatments, a long-term localized minor to moderate adverse 

effect. Surfacing would result in water running off rather than infiltrating, with potential resultant soil 

erosion from water concentrated off of impervious surfaces and placed in ditches and culverts. Water 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 267 

runoff would also pick up contaminants such as oil and gasoline residue and would enter the soil through 

adjacent unsurfaced shoulders and side ditches. The presence of these contaminants would have a 

localized but long-term minor adverse effect on vegetation and soils. Negligible to minor long-term 

beneficial effects would occur from retaining the topsoil during construction of new areas, such as 

pullouts, and pulling it back along the edges of the road to allow for restoration by natural or broadcast 

seeding of native plants. 

In addition to direct vegetation loss, other negligible to minor indirect effects on vegetation would include 

changes to the existing plant community. These would occur in areas where, over time, the addition or 

loss of direct sunlight changes the local plant community type or favors nonnative species inadvertently 

imported in fill. Vegetation adjacent to the newly surfaced road would receive a long-term minor to 

moderate localized beneficial effect from reduced dust. 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek): Excavation at Wilson Creek to lay back the slope and lower the road would 

affect 0.3 acre of upland soils and vegetation. This action would generate 1,100 cubic yards of gravel, 

sand, and boulders, with 550 cubic yards reused on site. Among the trees that would be affected are 

Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and bigleaf maple in a variety of size classes. Approximately 12 trees and 

a snag (between 20 and 30 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) would be removed. Other observed 

vegetation includes false Solomon’s seal, wild rose, snowberry, dogwood, wild raspberry, and bracken 

fern. The slope is primarily comprised of rocky cobbles interspersed with trees and grasses. Several large 

cedars on the river side would be retained, as would a large cottonwood. Impacts from the vegetation 

removal would be adverse and moderate. Short- and long-term beneficial impacts would occur from 

vegetation reestablishing at the site after construction. 

Weaver Point: Soils and vegetation would be disturbed from relocation of 1 - 2 campsites threatened by 

lakeshore and riverbank erosion. 

Large Woody Debris: There would be no impacts from the continued procurement of floating large 

woody debris from Lake Chelan after major floods under Alternative 1. 

Recreational Facilities: The Lower Valley Trail would be constructed from new and existing trail (and in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 from sections of abandoned road). The trail would be constructed by pulling back the 

topsoil to expose bare mineral soil, with little deep excavation, except where needed to place water-flow 

structures, such as culverts or water bars, or to locate the footings for the bridge crossing to the Stehekin 

River Trail if existing concrete bridge supports were not used. Because mostly hand tools would be used 

rather than heavy equipment, effects on soils would be minor, with less compaction, less mixing of soil, 

and less physical soil removal from one area to another. Over time, plants would reestablish at the edges 

of the trail and plant debris would fall on the trail tread and would both soften the appearance of the trail 

and contribute to reestablishment of the surface horizon. Depending on trail use and soil type, compaction 

would take place over many years or would not occur. Because no hard surfacing would be applied, water 

would continue to infiltrate both the pathway and adjacent areas. Overall, effects on soils and vegetation 

in a variety of plant communities from construction of the Lower Valley Trail would be localized, but 

because they would combine to affect more than an acre of land in all alternatives, impacts would be 

adverse, minor to moderate, and long term. More impacts would occur from some aspects of trail 

construction, including where the trail is constructed across steep slopes and drainages and near Little 

Boulder Creek. Adverse effects from construction would be coupled with long-term minor beneficial 

effects from the reestablishment of native vegetation from formerly cleared areas along the trail and road 

and from the ongoing effect of leaf and needle fall onto the soil surface, recreating the humus layer over 

time. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

268 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Restoration in all alternatives would include approximately 5 acres in 

the former maintenance area, plus areas of former development associated with land purchases and 

exchanges. Over time, long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects would be realized as these areas 

became less visible and more like the surrounding community through additional plant establishment. 

Campgrounds: Relocation and modification of Bullion Campground would affect soils and vegetation. 

Approximately 400 square feet per would be affected, a long-term minor adverse effect. Over time the 

effects of construction would be diminished as vegetation reestablished, while trampling and compaction 

from foot traffic would constitute a long-term minor adverse impact. Coarse-textured soils at this site 

would limit compaction and surface erosion. Vegetation includes scattered Douglas-fir, Ponderosa pine, 

and moss-strewn boulders, with an understory of kinnickinnick, Oregon grape, serviceberry, spiraea, and 

other forbs and grasses. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: The Stehekin Valley Road at Milepost 6.25 to Milepost 6.53 (0.28 mile) and 

Milepost 6.95 to Milepost 7.14 (0.19 mile) would be elevated with imported clean fill and rock. This 

would affect up to 0.9 acre of existing road surface and up to 0.6 acre on either side, for a total area of 1.5 

acres. The placement of fill would result in a negligible to minor short-term impact on vegetation, 

depending on the rate of vegetation recolonization adjacent to the road. Long-term minor adverse effects 

would occur from compaction of nearby soils. 

Road Realignment: For the minor realignment near Milepost 6.0 and construction of a toe wall, there 

would be both long-term negligible to minor adverse effects on soils and vegetation and short- and longterm minor beneficial effects from stabilizing the slope. Soil would be displaced to implement sight 

distance improvements, and 5,000 square feet would be affected by the construction of the dry-stacked

rock wall, a localized minor adverse effect since the excavated soil and rock would be used to raise the 

grade of the road and to build the wall. Combined, up to 2.4 acres of existing road and vegetation in a 

common forest community dominated by Douglas-fir and big-leaf maple would be affected by the 

realignment and grade raise. 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek): In addition to changes in the location of the road, implementing the Road 

Improvement Project would result in placement of clusters of rip-rap and log-cribbing at the toe of the 

slope. This would have additional minor adverse impacts on soils from the excavation of the bank (there 

is no vegetation on the bank). 

Implementation of 1995 Land Protection Plan: Approximately 37 acres could be impacted by 

development on the currently proposed land exchange parcels. It is likely, however, that not all of this 

area would be affected. With exchange, it is anticipated that 10 - 15 parcels would be developed with 

home sites of an average size, including some potential outbuildings, gardens, and utilities, such as septic 

systems, affecting up to 5,000 square feet per parcel. Current county zoning establishes a 5-acre minimum 

lot size for most areas. Estimating a 0.25 mile of road (12 feet wide) for each parcel would add 15,840 

square feet each, for a total of up to 0.5 acre. If all 10 - 15 parcels were developed with 5,000 square feet 

of buildings and a 0.25-mile driveway (though it is likely many would be smaller), direct impacts from 

development could affect approximately 5 - 8 acres. Because there would be variability in development of 

the parcels as well as in potential road access, and because actual impacts would likely be smaller, this 

acreage is likely an overestimate of potential vegetation and soil disturbance. Because there would be no 

change in the availability of exchange parcels, and because these parcels were identified primarily for 

scenic and general natural resources values, proposed land exchanges could have long-term minor to 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 269 

moderate adverse effects from development and long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects from 

acquisition of some high-priority lands, such as riparian areas in the floodplain / channel migration zone. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Road Reroute: Approximately 18 acres could be cleared of vegetation within the construction limits for 

the 16-foot-wide, 1.9-mile-long reroute around McGregor Meadows. Approximately 57,000 cubic yards 

of cut and 48,000 cubic yards of fill would be excavated and replaced for the roadway, pullouts, and 

culverts. Estimated clearing would include the road segment plus pullouts and side ditches within the 18 

acres. Because much of this area has not been disturbed by human activity except for portions that 

intersect with the Old Wagon Road, this would constitute a long-term localized moderate adverse effect 

on soils and both short- and long-term moderate to major adverse effects on vegetation, since forested 

landscape would be converted to new roadway. 

Restoration of parts of the bypassed Stehekin Valley Road would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

1.4 acres. Although vegetation could reestablish within the area surrounding the road where cuts and fills 

were constructed, it would take many years for trees to reestablish. Disturbance would reduce the 

productivity of soils and vegetation along the reroute corridor, including within adjacent areas disturbed 

to create cuts or fills within the road corridor (20 - 25 feet on either side of the proposed road). Topsoil 

would be removed, structural fill material would be placed on top of the soil, and the road would be 

surfaced with an asphalt chip seal. Outside the road corridor, after construction, topsoil would be returned 

to the cleared areas up to the road shoulder and the areas seeded and contoured to allow revegetation to 

take place. Stabilization by temporary sediment and erosion protection barriers would occur to allow for 

maximum revegetation and retention of soils, a long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effect, 

depending on whether it occurred adjacent to the road or in cut and fill areas following disturbance. 

The reroute section is located primarily within upland mesic mixed coniferous forest dominated by 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine that grades to a riparian—nutrient-rich mixed deciduous / coniferous 

forest near the Lower Field. Although the reroute has been designed to avoid the largest trees, loss of 

vegetation in this area would include trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and ferns, as well as vegetation 

associated with rock outcrops and boulders, such as mosses and lichens. Among the trees that would be 

removed would be Douglas-fir, western red cedar, bigleaf maple, vine maple, Douglas maple, and 

ponderosa pine. Among the shrubs that would be removed would be Oregon grape, dogwood, alder, 

serviceberry, Oregon boxwood, and birch-leaved spiraea. Forbs include lupine, wintergreen, dogbane, 

wild ginger, bead lily, columbine, pipsissewa, yarrow, and many others. Among the trees that were 

identified by fire management staff based on two fire effects plots (each approximately 164 × 66 feet) 

were 35 Douglas-fir approximately 20 and 30 inches dbh and seven ponderosa pines in the same size 

classes that would be removed by the construction of the reroute. More than 243 other trees between 1 

and 20 inches dbh and six snags of undetermined size were also counted. This survey yielded between 

209 and 281 mature trees per acre. Another recent survey of areas within the reroute found 55 trees 

greater than 20 inches dbh, 170 trees between 3 and 20 inches dbh, and 33 trees less than 3 inches dbh, 

yielding approximately 225 mature trees per acre. Therefore, taking an average of these surveys, there 

would be a loss of approximately 238 trees per acre, or about 4,290 trees over 18 acres. 

In addition to direct vegetation loss, indirect effects identified in ―Impacts of Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (1 - 4)‖ would also occur, including changes to the existing soils and plant community over 

time, such as invasion by nonnative species inadvertently imported in fill or within bare areas remaining 

from limited rehabilitation / restoration success. In addition, because of the reroute there would be a break 

in an area of formerly contiguous plant community cover that would result initially in these kinds of 

changes to the edges of this community that would eventually spread outward. Because there would be 

more sunlight reaching road edges, the vegetation community could become more diverse over time. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

270 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Road and maintenance area relocation would have long-term minor beneficial effects on soil-forming 

processes and forest dynamics from redevelopment of a riparian zone in the Stehekin River floodplain / 

channel migration zone. 

McGregor Meadows Access Road Retention: To retain the 0.8 mile of road into McGregor Meadows, 

there would be long-term maintenance actions similar to those noted under ―Impacts from Actions 

Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4),‖ although this access road would be maintained to different standards 

than the reroute. Approximately 0.3 mile of former road (bypassed by the reroute) would also be retained 

as a trail and treeless lane to maintain the grade-control structures at Milepost 7.0. Routine maintenance 

actions would occur within the prism of the access road, over approximately 1.3 acres, and would 

constitute a long-term minor adverse effect on vegetation and soils. 

Restoration of Stehekin Valley Road Old Alignment: Maintaining motor vehicle access into McGregor 

Meadows would limit restoration to approximately 0.7 mile (1.4 acres) of the current Stehekin Valley 

Road alignment. Revegetation of this abandoned section of road would be accomplished by scraping off 

gravel, scarifying the road surface, and placing woody debris, and forest litter and duff. Topsoil collected 

from the reroute areas would also be used to the extent practicable. The area would then be seeded with 

local native seed and mulched. Natural recruitment of vegetation would also occur. If the cover of native 

vegetation is considered too low (less than 80 percent) after five years, then native plants would be 

collected from a nearby site (and nursery grown) to augment planting at the site. Restored vegetation 

would provide habitat and natural soil retention in the channel migration zone. Where reserved topsoil for 

the road reroute was not used to rehabilitate cleared areas, it would be used to rehabilitate this road. 

Because a portion of this section of rehabilitated road would be used for the Lower Valley Trail, not all of 

this area would be revegetated. Restoration of this area would have a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effect. 

Where the abandoned road is used for staging, the soil would be temporarily compacted by construction 

equipment and materials. These would be short-term negligible adverse impacts. Because the reroute 

rehabilitation areas would also be scarified and topsoil pulled back over the shoulders to allow for better 

moisture retention, organic material incorporation, and aeration of compacted soils for revegetation 

activities, there would be short-term negligible adverse and minor long-term beneficial effects. 

Erosion Protection Measures: In addition to actions to stabilize the road near Wilson Creek, the 

construction of six to eight barbs, a logjam, and a grade-control structure (avulsion sill) and logjam near 

Boulder Creek would contribute to additional minor localized short- and long-term adverse effects on 

soils and vegetation from the importation of rock and fill, compaction, loss of plant cover, and other 

factors. This would be coupled with long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects from bioengineering 

and reuse of excavated soils in the design of these features. Soil productivity could be retained because 

barbs and logjams would reduce the rate of erosion, which would, if not implemented, result in the 

continued loss of soil and riparian vegetation as the riverbank continued to erode. 

Weaver Point: Actions would be the same as in Alternative 1. 

Stehekin River Mouth: A new 300-foot-long access road would be built off the main Stehekin Valley 

Road. The 12-foot-wide road would follow a mostly treeless existing lane, but 5 - 10 trees would be 

removed at various points. Three rock barbs would also be built along this sparsely vegetated shoreline, 

currently containing about 100 linear feet of rip-rap on public land. Restoration of the rip-rap area (0.1 

acre), bioengineering (0.1 acre), and construction of the barbs would limit bank erosion, including loss of 

vegetation and soils, on 0.2 acre. There would be a long-term moderate adverse effect on up to 0.5 acre of 

vegetation and soils alongside the bank and in the adjacent forested area, coupled with long-term minor 

beneficial effects from bioengineering, removal of the rip-rap, and willow restoration along the bank. 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 271 

Milepost 2.0 (Boulder Creek): The logjam and grade-control structure below Boulder Creek between the 

Stehekin River channel and the Boulder Creek alluvial fan would affect approximately 0.07 acre of soils 

and vegetation, including for excavation of the sill and logjam. In this area, vegetation disturbance would 

primarily affect a few western red cedars, Douglas-fir, cottonwood, and an understory of forbs, and logs, 

a localized minor adverse effect on vegetation, combined with localized moderate adverse effects on soils. 

Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island): One to two barbs at Frog Island and riparian restoration / bioengineering 

along the bank would affect up to 0.1 acre of soils and vegetation for the barbs, along with 0.1 acre of 

restoration. Combined, these actions would have a minor, long-term, localized adverse effect, coupled 

with short-term negligible to minor adverse effects and long-term minor beneficial effects from the 

restoration. 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek): In addition to the lowering of the road and regrading the slope, two to three 

rock barbs and bioengineering would be installed. Bioengineering would be used to rehabilitate the slope 

below the road, while seeding and stabilization would retain the slope above the road. Installation of the 

barbs would have localized short- and long-term minor adverse effects on soils and vegetation, while 

restoration, including bioengineering, and would have long-term minor beneficial effects. 

Photo 27 – Stehekin River at High Spring Flow Near Frog Island (Stehekin Valley Road is Located 

at Base of Steep Cliffs, about 20 feet from the Eroding Bank) 

Milepost 8.0 Slope Stabilization: Laying back the upper one-quarter to one-third of the steep slope 

above the road would result in the removal of several dozen small trees and shrubs and disturb topsoil 

over an area of about 0.2 acre. Scaling (removal) of rocks off the slope would also result in some 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

272 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

vegetation disturbance. Together, these actions would result in minor to moderate short-term adverse 

impacts to soils and vegetation. Among the trees on the slope and at the base of the slope that would be 

affected would be Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, red alder, Pacific dogwood, and a few ponderosa pines and 

silver firs. Existing trees are between 6 and 48 inches dbh. Approximately two trees and one snag 

(between 18 and 48 inches dbh) could be removed. Stabilization of the slope would reduce erosion of 

soils and side casting of material from the road onto the riverbank. Minor localized long-term beneficial 

effects would also occur from the ability of more plants to establish on a stable slope. 

Milepost 9.2 Realignment: Construction of a parking area, raising of the road grade, installation of 

drainage structures and ditches, and surfacing would impact about 0.6 acre, and would require the 

removal of 10 - 20 small Douglas-fir and lodgepole pines. This would result in localized long-term minor 

adverse effects on area vegetation and soils. 

Large Woody Debris: Obtaining large woody debris from the tops of logjams from the Stehekin River 

below Boulder Creek would result in short-term minor adverse effects on vegetation and soils from access 

equipment and disturbance, coupled with long-term minor beneficial and adverse effects from use and 

placement of the woody debris in bank erosion protection measures. 

Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds / Raft Takeout: In addition to the Lower Valley Trail (common to all alternatives), 

establishment of campsites and river access would affect soils and vegetation over approximately 0.5 

acre. Not all of this area would be affected by direct removal of vegetation. Approximately 400 square 

feet per campsite plus the raft takeout would be affected, a long-term minor adverse effect. Over time the 

effects of construction would be diminished as vegetation reestablished, while trampling and compaction 

from foot traffic would constitute a long-term minor adverse impact. Coarse-textured soils at several of 

these sites would limit compaction and surface erosion. 

Vegetation affected at Purple Point Horse Camp would include Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and scattered 

bigleaf maple with an understory of grasses, Oregon grape, and spiraea. Rainbow is within a Douglas-firponderosa pine forest with a low-growing understory of kinnickinnick and other forbs. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Long-term beneficial effects from riparian and upland restoration and 

bioengineering on 9.1 acres would compensate for some of the adverse effects of excavation and fill in 

some areas in the lower valley. Although there would be some negligible adverse effects during 

installation, restoration of native species along the bank of the Stehekin River would contribute to the 

long-term stabilization of soils and the continuation of natural physical and biotic processes of soils and 

reestablishment of vegetation. In addition to maintenance area restoration (5.0 acres), there would be 

restoration of approximately 3.3 acres of abandoned Stehekin Valley Road, Stehekin River mouth, 

Weaver Point, Frog Island, Wilson Creek, Lower Field, and the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, 

the former maintenance/housing areas, and the shooting range. Approximately 0.5 acre would also benefit 

from bioengineering. 

Restoration of the Buckner Homestead lower hayfield and pasture would include seeding and planting 

trees and shrubs over 0.3 acre of Stehekin riverbank, a short-term negligible adverse effect from 

disturbance (compaction, etc.) during revegetation activities, coupled with a long-term moderate 

beneficial effect that would slow erosion threatening shallow-rooted grasses in this area. Restoration of 

the Stehekin River bank near the Lower Field would also include seeding and planting of 0.4 acre, 

resulting in additional short-term negligible adverse effects coupled with long-term moderate beneficial 

effects. Restoration would be combined with removing the road from this section. Species seeded and 

planted would include trees and shrubs, including alder, bigleaf maple, cottonwood, and willow. 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 273 

Photo 28 – Rapid bank erosion at Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: Under the revision to the LPP, approximately 24 acres could be 

impacted over the long term by future development on the proposed land exchange parcels. Most of the 

proposed exchange parcels are located within the upland mesic mixed coniferous forest vegetation type, 

one of the most common in the lower Stehekin Valley. Exceptions to this include areas adjacent to the 

airstrip, which currently are part of the pasture/disturbed vegetation type (primarily consisting of 

nonnative species). Exchange parcels are also mainly on gravelly soils, which are not sensitive to 

compaction or surface erosion. Because the proposed land exchange parcels are more than one acre (1.33 

- 7.2 acres) and most of the land from the larger parcels would likely remain undeveloped, development 

of portions of these 10 - 15 parcels would have a long-term minor to moderate adverse effect on 

vegetation and soils. Effects would be from conversion of native landscape to developed area and from 

the potential invasion of nonnative species associated with that development. Negligible to minor 

beneficial effects would result from stipulations that retained key vegetation characteristics, including 

from covenants associated with how the parcels would be developed (stipulated in exchange/purchase 

agreements). Long-term moderate to major beneficial effects would occur from acquiring riparian area 

parcels in exchange or by direct purchase from removal of development from the Stehekin River 

floodplain and channel migration zone. Vegetation that could be affected is described in Appendix 8: 

Vascular Plants Observed within Proposed Project Areas. 

Removal of Buildings and Structures on Acquired and Exchanged Lands: Removal of buildings and 

structures from acquired and exchanged lands would result in short-term minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation during removal. Restoration, including seeding or planting local native species, such as 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

274 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

dogwood and willow, and using stabilization measures in denuded areas would reduce some impacts. To 

the extent that cabins and other infrastructure would be removed before being claimed by the river, there 

would be long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects on soils and vegetation. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Most actions from Alternative 2 would also occur in Alternative 3. Impacts would be the same for the 

housing and maintenance facility replacement and relocation (including former maintenance area 

restoration), McGregor Meadows Access Road retention, Mileposts 8.0 and 9.2 actions, recreational 

facilities, and implementation of the revised LPP. Alternative 3, however, would have a shorter reroute a 

different array of erosion protection measures (barbs and logjams), and one additional campground. 

Road Reroute: Vegetation and soils impacts would be similar to that described above for Alternative 2, 

with approximately 18 acres cleared within the construction limits for the reroute. This would constitute a 

short-term moderate to major adverse effect and a long-term moderate to major adverse effect, since 

forested landscape would be converted to roadway and vegetation reestablishment would take many 

years. As in Alternative 2, constructing the reroute around McGregor Meadows would require major soil 

disturbance, with 64,000 cubic yards of cut and 54,000 cubic yards of fill. FHWA road design would 

balance the cut and fill to the extent practicable to minimize the need to barge in material or to barge out 

waste. The cut and fill work would result in a long-term localized moderate adverse effect on soils. 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Weaver Point: There would be long-term minor adverse effects on soils and vegetation from construction 

of a logjam at this site, combined with localized minor to moderate beneficial effects on 0.18 acre from 

riparian restoration, bioengineering, and slowing of bank erosion. Construction of the logjam would 

disturb the bank as far back as 30 feet, but would also protect soils from erosion. Adverse impacts on soils 

and vegetation would be long term and negligible because the area is comprised of mostly nonnative sodforming grass. Other plants would be affected in this sparsely vegetation area, including trailing 

blackberry, horsetail, Himalayan blackberry, and other exotic grasses. 

Stehekin River Mouth: Instead of three rock barbs in Alternative 2, a large logjam would be constructed to 

deflect erosion at the bank, a long-term minor to moderate adverse effect on soils and vegetation from 

excavation to construct the logjam coupled with a long-term minor to moderate beneficial effect from the 

reestablishment of vegetation in the area. As in Alternative 2, the removal of rip-rap and restoration of a 

willow riparian area would have a long-term minor beneficial effect 

Boulder Creek: Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2 for the logjam / avulsion sill. 

Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island): Instead of one to two rock barbs and riparian restoration (as in Alternative 2), 

a logjam would be constructed to retain the road along the bank. Impacts would be long-term and minor 

on soils and minor to moderate from the removal of riparian vegetation because of the short length of the 

bank affected. Slowing the erosion of existing native vegetation and replanting would have minor 

beneficial effects. 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) / Lower Field: The two rock barbs at the upper end of the Lower Field and 

the logjam at Wilson Creek, coupled with bioengineering, would have long-term minor adverse effects on 

soils and vegetation and negligible beneficial effects from bioengineering and bank stabilization. In this 

alternative, barbs at the Lower Field would help to retain the road and restored riparian area. 

Large Woody Debris: Actions and impacts would the same as Alternative 2. 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 275 

Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds: Combined effects of actions in Alternative 2 and one additional camp would have a 

negligible adverse effect in a highly disturbed grassy area near Company Creek with scattered Douglasfir. Up to 0.3 acre of vegetation and soil (0.1 acre for just the campsites) would be affected, with a series 

of negligible to minor localized adverse effects from designating campsites and access pathways. Because 

the raft launch access road would not be constructed in Alternative 3, soil and vegetation impacts at the 

river mouth would be less than in Alternative 2.

Restoration and Bioengineering: A slightly shorter section of the abandoned Stehekin Valley Road 

would be restored (approximately 0.6 mile, or 1.0 acre) compared to Alternative 2. Adverse impacts 

would be short term and negligible to minor, while beneficial impacts from restoration of approximately 

8.2 acres of upland and riparian areas‖ after ―impacts would be long term and minor to moderate. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2. There 

would be long-term minor to moderate adverse effects on vegetation and soils coupled with long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effects from potential acquisition of riparian areas and from the decrease in 

development in the floodplain / channel migration zone. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Actions and impacts in Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 1 for retaining the Stehekin Valley 

Road in its current alignment and for maintenance and housing area construction; similar to Alternatives 2 

and 3 for restoration of Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture and the Lower Field; the same as 

Alternatives 2 - 4 for the retaining wall at Milepost 8.0; and similar to Alternative 3 for erosion protection 

measures but with new actions at Milepost 7.0 and Milepost 9.2 (five more barbs). For recreational 

improvements, there would be the additional camp from Alternative 3 and the raft takeout from 

Alternative 2. There would be less restoration than in Alternative 3 because there would be no road 

reroute; however, additional bioengineering would occur in areas affected by more barb placement. 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Milepost 2.0 (Boulder Creek): Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3 for the 

logjam and avulsion sill. 

Weaver Point / Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) / Lower Field: Actions and impacts would be the same as in 

Alternative 3 at Lower Field and at Weaver Point, and the same as in Alternative 2 at Wilson Creek. 

Stehekin River Mouth / Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island): Actions and impacts would be the same as in 

Alternative 2 for the installation of three barbs, bioengineering, and riparian restoration. 

Milepost 7.0 / Milepost 9.2: Construction of two barbs at Milepost 7.0 and three at Milepost 9.2 would 

affect 0.3 acre. Adverse effects on soils and vegetation would be minor and beneficial effects would be 

negligible to minor from bioengineering. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

276 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 29 – View Upstream at the Left (East) Bank of the Stehekin River Near its Intersection with 

Lake Chelan (Note Rip-rap Bank Armor on Upper Right) 

Large Woody Debris: Large woody debris procurement would occur over a larger area than in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, including areas from the lake up to the Bullion Raft Launch. Procurement of large 

woody debris from the tops of logjams over a wider area would result in short-term moderate adverse 

effects from equipment disturbance, coupled with long-term minor beneficial and adverse effects from 

use and placement of the large woody debris in bank erosion-protection measures. Obtaining large woody 

debris from a wider area than in Alternatives 2 and 3 would spread impacts over a wider area, or could 

result in impacts to areas where wood was more easily obtained, therefore resulting in fewer overall 

impacts. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: Implementation of the revised LPP would allow more 

development along the existing road alignment and would focus less on moving affected properties out of 

the channel migration zone. Although priorities for land acquisition and exchange would be different, 

similar effects (development of approximately 2.75 acres for each exchange parcel) could occur. As in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, because the proposed land exchange parcels are larger than 1 acre and most of the 

land associated with the larger parcels would likely remain undeveloped, development of portions of 

these 10 - 15 parcels would have a long-term minor to moderate adverse effect on vegetation and soils, 

including from conversion of native landscape to developed area and from the potential invasion of 

nonnative species associated with that development. There would be similar negligible to minor beneficial 

effects from covenants stipulated in exchange/purchase agreements. Long-term moderate beneficial 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 277 

effects would also occur from acquiring riparian parcels and removal of development from the Stehekin 

River floodplain and channel migration zone. Because more development would continue to exist in the 

channel migration zone in Alternative 4 and because there would be fewer high-priority parcels acquired 

or exchanged, there would continue to be long-term moderate adverse effects on floodplain vegetation 

and soils. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to soils include the following: 

 Locating staging areas where they will minimize new disturbance of area soils and vegetation.

 Minimizing ground disturbance to the extent practicable. 

 Minimizing construction along water courses during periods of heavy precipitation. 

 Minimizing driving over or compacting root-zones. 

 Using mats or plywood to minimize soil-compaction impacts in sensitive areas or fine-grained 

soils. 

 Salvaging topsoil from excavated areas for use in recovering source area or other project areas. 

 Windrowing topsoil at a height that will help to preserve soil microorganisms (less than 3 feet). 

 Covering salvaged topsoil with a breathable, water-repellent fabric and anchoring the perimeter to 

limit erosion. 

 Avoiding leaving excavated soil alongside trees, and providing tree protection if needed for 

specimen trees. 

 Reusing excavated materials where possible in the project area. 

 Revegetating project areas through native seeding or planting. 

 Importing weed-free clean fill and topsoil. 

 Identifying clearing limits to minimize the amount of vegetation loss. 

 Clearing and grubbing only those areas where construction would occur. 

 Reusing topsoil from the reroute areas, to the extent practicable, to obliterate and revegetate 

abandoned road sections. 

 Preparing and approving a Hazardous Spill Plan before construction begins. 

 Encouraging the use of vegetable oil in place of hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment. 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to vegetation include the following: 

 Minimizing construction limits and areas to be cleared where possible. 

 Clearly identifying the construction limits, to prevent expansion of construction operations into 

undisturbed areas. 

 Rehabilitating or restoring road reroute clearing areas not occupied by the roadway. 

 Retaining specimen trees where possible adjacent to erosion protection sites and along the reroute 

/ realignment areas (as identified by park staff). 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

278 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Salvaging plant material, prior to construction, from areas to be disturbed. 

 Replanting salvaged plants on reroute side slopes and obliterated areas to accelerate site recovery 

and to reduce the opportunity for exotic species to establish (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

 Continuing to use CCRs associated with the development of exchanged lands to address clearing 

of vegetation; location and design of access roads and utilities; density, height, design, and color 

of visible development; and access for management of natural and cultural resources. 

 Restoring staging and other temporarily impacted areas following construction. 

 Obliterating and revegetating abandoned road segments and areas disturbed by construction with 

native plant species. 

 Using bioengineering techniques, such as willow layering, to stabilize riverbanks. 

 Minimizing actions that affect endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species in the project 

area. 

 Keeping fill slopes as steep as possible where fill is proposed to raise the road to minimize the 

disturbance footprint. 

 Minimizing clearing of vegetation associated with reroutes by incorporating toe walls at 

appropriate locations (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

Mitigation measures for preventing the spread of noxious weeds include the following: 

 Importing only freshly exposed subsurface materials from outside the recreation area. 

 Avoiding the use of stockpiled materials from the Company Creek Pit unless designated for the 

project. 

 Covering trucks when transporting materials outside the project area to reduce or eliminate 

particle release during transport. 

 Washing all vehicles that have come into contact with soil or materials that may contain noxious 

weed seed prior to working in weed-free areas or transporting weed-free materials. 

 Covering stored soil and rock to prevent exposure to noxious weed seed. 

 Separating contaminated soil from weed-free soil and using it for subsurface fill. 

 Conducting annual monitoring for potential weed infestation. 

 Identifying and controlling exotic plant species infestations prior to construction (especially 

associated with the airstrip and old roads). 

Cumulative Impacts: Habitat modification within the recreation area includes broad-scale changes in 

vegetation characteristics due to fire suppression and administrative and private development. Loss of 

vegetation has occurred where land has been developed for facilities, trails, and roads, and for private 

homes and businesses. Development, including roads, private property, and recreation area administrative 

facilities, in the Stehekin Valley currently affects approximately 283 acres of the approximately 13,000 

acres on the Stehekin River valley floor from High Bridge to Lake Chelan. The original 23-mile road 

development disturbed approximately 50 acres of vegetation and soils (NPS 2005). Combined, past 

actions have had localized moderate long-term adverse impacts on soils and vegetation due to the 

increased impervious surface, decreased infiltration, soil compaction, loss of soil moisture, and loss of 

organic soil horizon spread over some of the lower Stehekin Valley, occurring mostly within the channel 

migration zone of the Stehekin River. 
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 279 

When the effects of development are combined with those from specific projects along the Stehekin 

Valley and Company Creek roads to build the levee, rock barbs, grade-control structures, and other 

features, there have been long-term minor to moderate cumulative adverse impacts on soils and 

vegetation, especially in riparian areas. The Forest Fuel Reduction Program has impacted soils and 

vegetation in the lower Stehekin Valley by thinning (removing) trees, downed woody debris, and other 

vegetation to reduce the potential for ground fuels to carry fire near developed areas. Overall development 

has contributed to the introduction and spread of nonnative (including invasive) species. Recreation area 

actions to reduce the distribution and spread of nonnative invasive species have been effective in some 

areas. Similarly, acquisition of land and the purchase of scenic easements since 1968 have resulted in 

major beneficial impacts to soil and vegetation in the lower valley. 

Past projects to relocate the Stehekin Valley Road have resulted in several reroutes along with similar 

areas of restoration. In addition, a series of erosion protection measures at 46 sites, including rock barbs, 

grade-control structures, and other features, have affected 1.6 miles of riverbank. Use of bioengineering 

and rock barbs since the 1990s has mitigated some impacts that would have occurred with extensive 

placement of rip-rap. 

Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute additional long-term minor adverse and minor to major beneficial 

effects from the replacement and relocation of the housing and maintenance complex. Alternatives 1 and 

4 would also contribute additional negligible to moderate adverse effects from continuing to maintain the 

Stehekin Valley Road in place and localized moderate adverse effects to soils and vegetation by adding 

16 to 17 additional rock barbs either as part of the implementation of this plan (Alternative 4) or later as 

the need arose (Alternative 1). Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute short- and long-term negligible to 

moderate adverse effects from clearing and grading the reroutes and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects from moving the road out of the floodplain and channel migration zone. Over time, 

conversion of McGregor Meadows back to riparian vegetation would contribute a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effect. Recreational facility development would be similar under Alternatives 2 - 4, 

with slightly more effects in Alternatives 4 from more new trail development and Alternatives 3 and 4 

from one additional camp. Alternatives 2 - 4 would also contribute new long-term localized moderate to 

major beneficial effects from restoration at Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, the Lower Field, 

acquired private land in the channel migration zone, and the former maintenance yard and housing area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would also add some restoration from the former roadway and would contribute 

negligible to minor long-term beneficial effects from minimizing effects on soils by retaining topsoil for 

the road reroutes. 

Most of the recreation area continues to be undisturbed by human impacts. The low-elevation mixed 

forests of the lower Stehekin Valley that would be affected represent only 2 percent of the overall 

watershed. Therefore, the amount of area affected by past and possible future project soil and vegetation 

impacts is localized and moderate when considered within the context of the Stehekin River watershed or 

the lower Stehekin Valley. Impacts from the above actions, together with the impacts of implementing 

one of the alternatives, would continue to result in a range of localized long-term negligible to moderate 

adverse and negligible to moderate beneficial cumulative impacts to soils and vegetation in the recreation 

area. 

In Alternative 1, future adverse impacts to soils and vegetation would continue to occur from road 

maintenance. Over time, it is likely that the measures to keep the road in place now proposed in 

Alternative 4 would be implemented in Alternative 1 and impacts would be expected to increase as the 

river continues to encroach on the road. Long-term minor to moderate cumulative adverse effects would 

continue to occur from maintaining the Company Creek Road in its current alignment. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

280 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute fewer long-term impacts to vegetation because the Stehekin Valley 

Road would be moved away from the channel migration zone where possible, thus limiting the future 

extent of flooding on the road (less in Alternative 2). In some areas, where the road is adjacent to steep 

terrain and cannot be moved without major additional impacts on vegetation, additional minor impacts 

could continue to occur from erosion of soils and loss of vegetation. As in Alternative 1, ongoing effects 

would occur from maintaining the Company Creek Road in its current alignment. Alternative 4, compared 

to Alternative 1, would also likely contribute fewer long-term impacts on soils and vegetation because 

more erosion protection measures would be constructed. 

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would have negligible to moderate adverse and negligible to major beneficial 

effects. Alternative 2 would have negligible to major adverse effects and negligible to major beneficial 

effects. Alternative 3 would have impacts similar to Alternative 2, with adverse and beneficial effects 

both somewhat less from a shorter reroute, less restoration, and more erosion protection measures. 

Alternative 4 would contribute negligible to moderate adverse effects and minor to major beneficial 

effects. In Alternative 1, there would be approximately 10 acres of new disturbance. In Alternatives 2 and 

3, an additional 18 acres would be disturbed for the road reroutes. In total, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

have approximately 28 new acres of disturbance and Alternative 4 would have approximately 11 acres of 

new disturbance. Restoration in all alternatives would improve soils and vegetation on from 5.1 

(Alternative 1) to 9.0 acres (Alternative 2). The range of impacts is summarized in Table IV-6: Summary 

of Soils and Vegetation Impacts. 

Because there would be no widespread major adverse impacts on vegetation and no major widespread 

adverse impacts to soils or effects on rare vegetation or soils, there would be no impairment of park 

resources or values related to soils or vegetation. 

Table IV-6: Summary of Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Maintenance and 

housing areas

Localized long-term 

minor to moderate 

adverse effects to 

upland vegetation.

Long-term negligible 

to major beneficial 

effects from riparian 

and upland 

restoration.

Same as Alternative 

1

Same as Alternative 

1

Same as Alternative 

1

Road rehabilitation Long-term negligible 

to moderate adverse 

effects.

Long-term negligible 

to minor beneficial 

effects.

Long-term negligible 

to moderate adverse 

effects.

Long-term negligible 

to minor beneficial 

effects.

Similar to Alternative 

2 

Same as Alternative 

1

Grade raise Short- to long-term 

negligible to minor 

adverse effects.

N/A N/A Same as Alternative 

1

Reroute N/A Short- and long-term 

localized moderate 

to major adverse 

effects;

Long-term negligible 

to moderate 

beneficial effects.

Similar to Alternative 

2, with slightly 

shorter reroute

N/A
3. Soils and Vegetation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 281 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Access road N/A Long-term minor 

adverse effects.

Long-term minor 

adverse effects.

N/A

Erosion protection 

measures

Short- and long-term 

minor adverse 

effects;

Long-term negligible 

beneficial effects.

Short- and long-term 

minor to moderate 

adverse effects;

Long-term negligible 

to minor or moderate 

beneficial effects.

Similar to Alternative 

2, with fewer barbs 

and more logjams.

Short- and long-term 

minor to moderate 

adverse effects, with 

more barbs than 

Alternative 3;

Long-term negligible 

to minor beneficial 

effects.

Milepost 8.0 / 9.2 N/A Long-term localized 

minor to moderate 

adverse effects.

Long-term minor 

beneficial effects.

Same as Alternative 

2

Same as Alternative

2

Large woody 

debris 

No effects. Short- and long-term 

negligible to minor 

adverse effects.

Long-term minor 

beneficial effects.

Same as Alternative

2

Similar to Alternative

2, with moderate 

impacts spread over 

a wider area.

Recreational 

facilities

Long-term minor 

adverse effects; 

long-term negligible 

beneficial effects.

Long-term minor 

adverse effects;

Long-term negligible 

beneficial effects.

Similar to Alternative

2 with one more 

camp and no raft 

takeout.

Similar to Alternative

2 with one more 

camp.

Restoration and 

bioengineering

Long-term beneficial 

effects from 

restoration of former 

maintenance area.

Same as Alternative

1, plus long-term 

minor to major 

beneficial effects 

from additional 

restoration and 

bioengineering.

Same as Alternative

2, with slightly less 

road restoration.

Similar to Alternative

2, but with fewer

beneficial effects.

Land Protection 

Plan

Long-term minor to 

moderate adverse 

and beneficial 

effects.

Long-term minor to 

moderate adverse 

effects. Long-term 

moderate to major 

beneficial effects.

Same as Alternative

2

Same as Alternative

2, with fewer 

potential beneficial 

effects.

Conclusion Negligible to 

moderate adverse 

effects. Negligible to 

minor beneficial 

impacts.

Negligible to major 

adverse effects.

Negligible to 

moderate beneficial 

impacts.

Similar to Alternative

2; however, both 

adverse and 

beneficial effects 

would be somewhat 

less from a shorter 

reroute.

Minor to moderate 

adverse impacts.

Minor beneficial 

effects.

Contribution to 

cumulative impacts

Localized minor 

adverse cumulative 

impacts and 

localized negligible 

to minor beneficial 

effects.

Localized moderate 

adverse cumulative 

impacts and 

localized minor 

beneficial impacts.

Similar to Alternative

2.

Minor to moderate 

cumulative adverse 

effects.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

282 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

4. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS IMPACTS 

a. Geologic Hazards Methodology 

Geologic hazards were mapped for the 1995 GMP, and were used to qualitatively assess beneficial and 

adverse impacts of actions in the alternatives. 

Type of Impact: As a natural area, a variety of geologic hazards, including flooding, rock fall, 

avalanches, and hazards associated with extreme storm events, such as debris flows, are possible within 

Lake Chelan NRA. Beneficial impacts would reduce the potential risk from geologic hazards; adverse 

impacts would increase the potential risk. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: The alternative would result in a change in the potential risk associated with geologic 

hazards, but the change would not be measurable or perceptible. 

 Minor: The alternative would result in an apparent change in the potential risk associated with 

geologic hazards. Some people or structures would be periodically exposed to this risk. 

 Moderate: The alternative would result in a readily apparent and appreciable increase in potential 

risk associated with geologic hazards. More people or structures would be more consistently 

exposed to this risk. 

 Major: The alternative would result in a substantial increase in potential risk associated with 

geologic hazards. Most people or structures would be routinely exposed to this risk. 

b. Impacts from Geologic Hazards 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

Ongoing geologic hazards would continue along the Stehekin Valley Road and in other areas from rock 

fall associated with steep valley slopes composed of loose glacial deposits at McGregor Meadows, and 

from rock falls at Frog Island, below cliffs at Rainbow Falls, and near Harlequin Bridge. Slope instability 

at Milepost 8.0 also represents a rock fall hazard. Swift, deep water during floods along the Stehekin 

River channel and its tributaries is also a major hazard. The potential for injury or damage from these 

hazards would continue to be minor to moderate. Over time, if floods continued to increase in frequency 

and magnitude and if slopes adjacent to the road remained unstable, the potential for hazards to increase 

would occur, a long-term moderate adverse effect from geologic hazards. There would also continue to be 

ongoing exposure to flood hazards on the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Roads, creating a 

short-term localized minor to moderate adverse effect. The new maintenance area and housing would be 

outside of geologic hazard (floodplain / channel migration) zones, a moderate long-term beneficial effect. 

There would also be some new risk associated with new or relocated recreational facilities along the 

Stehekin River at Bullion Camp. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Impacts from Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the same as Alternative 1, except for those associated with 

Milepost 8.0 and those associated with most flood hazards on the Stehekin Valley Road. Actions at 

Milepost 8.0 would reduce the slope hazard there, resulting in a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effect. Unlike Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 3 would also eliminate exposure to the considerable 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 283 

hazard in the Stehekin River floodplain by rerouting 1.9 miles (Alternative 2) or 1.7 miles (Alternative 3) 

of road. The proposed reroute, however, would traverse several debris cones prone to periodic flows of 

large rock and debris. One of these carried a snow avalanche to the proposed road site in 2008. Given the 

higher frequency of flood events compared to snow avalanches or debris flows, the reroute would result 

in a lower likelihood of geologic hazards, but hazards would continue to be minor to moderate. 

Construction of a campground at Rainbow Falls would place visitors near a rock fall hazard. Locating 

campsites according to site-specific conditions, and the fact that most rock falls occur in the winter when 

the camp would be closed by snow, would reduce exposure. Exposure to hazards along the Stehekin 

Valley Road in McGregor Meadows would be reduced the most in Alternatives 2 and 3; however, 

because the access road would remain, there would continue to be exposure to flood hazards for some 

residents and visitors. There would also be some new risk associated with new or relocated recreational 

facilities along the Stehekin River and at Bullion Camp. Construction of new visitor facilities near the 

river mouth in Alternative 2 would also present a minor increase in risk during high flow periods on the 

river. 

Impacts from Alternative 4 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, plus Alternative 4 would reduce slope hazard at Milepost 

8.0, a localized minor to moderate long-term beneficial effect on geologic hazards. As in Alternative 2, 

there would be long-term minor to moderate adverse effects from exposure to geologic hazards from 

recreational facilities at Rainbow Falls and Bullion Camp and the raft takeout near the river mouth. 

Cumulative Impacts: A variety of potential minor to moderate adverse effects from geologic hazards 

would continue to exist. Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute additional negligible to minor adverse 

impacts. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would result in minor increases from exposure to geologic hazards. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce roadway flooding hazards along the reroute sections. Alternatives 2 - 4 

would have long-term minor beneficial impacts from stabilizing the slope at Milepost 8.0. 

There would be no impairment associated with geologic hazards because impacts would continue to be 

moderate. 

5. HYDRAULICS AND STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS IMPACTS 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: The alternative would result in a change in streamflow conditions, but the change 

would not be measurable or perceptible at the reach scale or the lower valley scale. 

 Minor: The alternative would result in modification of streamflow and hydraulics within a given 

reach by actions to protect the road at the edge of the channel migration zone. It would increase 

impervious surfacing, and the measurable or anticipated degree of change would be detectable. 

 Moderate: The alternative would result in modification of streamflow and hydraulics within a 

given reach by actions to protect the road within the channel migration zone. Some erosion 

protection measures are within the channel migration zone. It would noticeably increase 

impervious surfacing, and the measurable or anticipated degree of change would be readily 

apparent and appreciable. 

 Major: The alternative would result in modification of streamflow and hydraulics within a given 

reach and along a major portion of the river in the lower Stehekin Valley. Most erosion protection 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

284 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

measures are within the channel migration zone, limiting long-term river migration and restricting 

the river from utilizing its floodplain. The measurable or anticipated degree of change would be 

substantial, causing a highly noticeable change. 

Photo 30 – Stehekin River at its Junction with Lake Chelan 

b. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

General Effects of Rock Barbs: Rock barbs have a localized effect by directing the stream away from 

the riverbank and creating eddies or pools, but do not generally change the overall flow regime in the 

river (NPS 1995a). As noted in the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 

(EA), while barbs protect the immediate area by deflecting streamflow away from the bank, the altered 

streamflow can but usually does not result in riverbank erosion farther downstream (NPS 2005a). If the 

erosion problem is pushed downstream and it becomes necessary to construct additional erosion 

protection measures, this would result in additional impacts on the Stehekin River and its banks. When 

located within the channel migration zone, barbs or other structures can limit stream migration and 

potentially increase stream velocity and depth. When located at the edge of the channel migration zone, 

such as against a valley wall or alluvial fan, the impact of erosion protection structures on river processes 

is comparatively small since these topographic features naturally limit river migration. 

Results of computer modeling at a local scale are consistent with field observations of rock barbs in the 

Stehekin River and elsewhere. Water surface elevation increases 1 foot immediately upstream of the 

barbs and is lowered downstream by a similar amount. This is accompanied by a shift of high-velocity 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 285 

flow from the bank toward the mid-channel area. These displacements combine to reduce the energy of 

flow along the affected riverbank. Examination of the effects of rock barbs two channel-widths 

downstream show that the water surface elevation is not affected; however, downstream velocity is 

slightly reduced (NPS 1997). Barbs affect the riverbank and channel for approximately four times their 

length (25 feet), or about 100 feet downstream. 

Barbs also unnaturally increase the diversity of habitats in the Stehekin River at the reach scale by 

increasing the amount of pool habitat compared to the amount of riffle habitat. Pools are less frequently 

observed on the Stehekin River than riffles, which are the most common habitat type in the main channel 

of the Stehekin River (Appendix 4: Stehekin River Reach Analysis). Rock barbs create pool habitat 

(eddies or ―pocket pools‖) upstream and downstream of individual barbs. This effect results in an overall 

change to instream flow characteristics, wherever barbs are inserted. As with other bank-hardening 

measures, barbs also reduce the amount of large woody debris and gravel recruitment from the bank 

where they are located. Because the rate of large woody debris and gravel recruitment is very high in the 

Stehekin River and the areas of bank small in comparison, when it occurs, this impact would be long 

term, minor, and adverse. A summary of the current status of altered stream banks in the four reaches 

impacted by this implementation plan is in Appendix 4 and Table IV-7. 

Figure IV-1: Overall layout of the Stream Reaches Analyzed on the Stehekin River 

Note the Pleistocene moraine (red) along the left bank and the alluvial fans (orange) along the lower valley, which generally defines 

the channel migration zone. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

286 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table IV-7: Percentage of Bank Affected Currently by Erosion Protection Measures and Proposed 

under Alternatives1 - 4 in Reaches 1 - 4 

Action Bank Currently 

Affected (%)

Alternative 1 (%) Alternative 2

(%)

Alternative 3

(%)

Alternative 4

(%)

Reach 1 10 (304/3,000 m) 0 9 (270 m) 13 (396 m) 15 (436 m)

Reach 2 4 (92/2,400 m) 0 5 (122 m) 5 (122 m) 5 (122 m)

Reach 3 3 (92/3,000 m) 4 (120 m) 4 (122 m) 4 (122 m) 4 (122 m)

Reach 4 22 (884/4,000 m) 0 0 3 (122 m) 6 (244 m)

Note: See Appendix 4: Stehekin River Reach Analysis for location of reaches.

Barbs do not cause increases in flooding of overbank areas because they are designed to be topped by 

high flows. Most of their effect is directed laterally away from the bank, and as a result they do not 

increase floodwater surface elevation in large overbank areas. 

Rock barbs are effective over periods of 5 to 30 years or more, depending on location. In areas of rapid 

gravel accumulation, they may be buried by a single event. In areas where there is less gravel movement, 

they can be effective for several decades. Rock barbs may require repairs after large floods. 

General Effects of Logjams: Constructed logjams are, in general, similar to rock barbs in that they 

deflect and absorb energy to slow bank erosion, and cause local pool formation by creating turbulence 

that erodes a scour hole into the bed of the stream. They are composed of logs, often cabled together, and 

anchored or buried or pinned to the bank. Their installation requires more excavation of the bank over a 

wider area than for barbs. They offer the advantage of being made from native material that is often far 

less costly than imported rock. Logjams also offer the advantage of allowing the beneficial effects of 

large woody debris to be used effectively to create habitat for fish, amphibians, and aquatic insects. 

When placed in the wrong location, logjams can cause unwanted bank erosion when water flows around 

the obstruction. Logjams can also present a hazard to river runners. The use of logjams on the Stehekin 

River can be viewed in two ways. On one hand, there are currently 166 logjams, and adding 2 - 3 more 

would therefore have a negligible to minor effect. On the other hand, adding logjams to locations where 

they do not naturally form may have unforeseen effects and increase hazards. 

General Effects of Levees: Levees are long features along a riverbank that are tall enough not to be 

topped by a given flood event. While they can provide some local relief from flooding, they can cause 

minor to major long-term impacts to flooding and river processes over wide areas. By preventing 

floodwater from occupying major parts of the floodplain, levees raise floodwater levels on the opposite 

side of the river and downstream. By keeping floodwater in the channel, levees also increase water 

velocity, channel and bank erosion, and floodwater elevation downstream. 

The impact of levees is directly related to their height, length, and location. Tall, long levees adjacent to 

the river channel have major long-term adverse impacts to streamflow and hydraulics. Short, low levees 

set back from the river have smaller effects. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Existing Development: The Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads and other Stehekin watershed 

development have constrained the Stehekin River from moving naturally across its floodplain and channel 

migration zone in some areas. In many cases this development lies within or adjacent to the floodplain 

and/or channel migration zone. There would continue to be long-term moderate to major adverse effects 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 287 

from retaining the Company Creek Road and levee, which constrains the Stehekin River from eroding 

into about a third of its channel migration zone in this reach. 

Under all alternatives, parts of the Stehekin Valley Road would be retained adjacent to the Stehekin River 

within the floodplain / channel migration zone because there is not room to move the road due to 

topographic features and/or because of the need for very long reroutes through sensitive resources. 

All alternatives would retain the Stehekin Valley Road within the channel migration zone between 

Milepost 1.0 and 1.5 (from the head of the lake to the Bakery). In this location the road is at grade and 

does not have a large impact on the floodplain. All alternatives would also keep the road at the edge of the 

channel migration zone near Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek), and Milepost 8.0. 

At these sites, the Stehekin Valley Road does not significantly constrict the river within the channel 

migration zone because the road is located at its edge and is naturally constrained by topography. 

About 0.5 mile of the road into McGregor Meadows would remain in the floodplain until no private 

property access was needed (Alternatives 2 and 3). In Alternatives 1 and 4, the road would run for about 

0.75 mile through the floodplain, and would be raised 1 - 3 feet with 5,600 yards of fill. The low elevation 

of the floodplain and deposition of gravel in the channel have led to a long-term trend toward increased 

flooding in this area as the river seeks a new channel. Impacts from keeping a road in this location (either 

the access road or the Stehekin Valley Road) would therefore be moderate to major over time. 

Existing development along the Company Creek Road and most of the road itself would continue to affect 

the ability of the river to migrate laterally within the channel migration zone on the opposite side of the 

river from McGregor Meadows. The retention of the road would continue to result in a long-term minor 

to moderate adverse effect on the natural flow and channel changes in the Stehekin River since the 

Company Creek bank of the river is several feet higher than McGregor Meadows and the right bank 

floodplain is not as wide. 

Road Rehabilitation: Actions that concentrate runoff into culverts or ditches or sediment flows to new, 

unstable areas, including actions such as excavation, importation of fill, placement of fill, loss of 

vegetation, and surfacing existing gravel portions of the Stehekin Valley Road would have a variety of 

localized to minor to moderate adverse effects on hydraulics and streamflow. With surfacing, erosion of 

fill on the roadway during flooding would diminish, a minor long-term beneficial effect. 

Culverts / Side Ditches: Rehabilitation actions for the whole road (Alternatives 1 and 4) and for the area 

before and after the reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3) would affect existing culverts (approximately 19) and 

would substantially increase the number of culverts. Culverts would be extended, removed, or replaced, 

affecting intermittent and perennial streamflows to varying degrees, depending on the location and type of 

culvert. Because sediment barriers and diversion would be employed, as appropriate, and work would be 

done during dry periods, effects on streamflow for small tributaries between Harlequin Bridge and 

Milepost 9.2 would be short term and minor. Similarly, constructing new side ditches in Alternatives 1 

and 4 and additional side ditches over the length of the reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have minor 

adverse effects on streamflow characteristics. Long-term beneficial effects would occur from improved 

drainage along and beneath the Stehekin Valley Road. 

Maintenance Facility and Housing Replacement and Relocation: Replacement and relocating the 

maintenance facility and housing from within the floodplain / channel migration zone and constructing 

new and replacement facilities outside of these areas would have moderate long-term beneficial effects. 

Large Woody Debris: The continued collection of large woody debris floating in the head of Lake 

Chelan after large floods for erosion protection would not affect river hydrology or streamflow 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

288 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

characteristics; however, it would reduce the amount of woody debris available in the lake ecosystem by a 

very small amount. This would be a negligible adverse effect on the ecology of the lake because a 

comparatively small amount of wood would be removed from the lake in contrast to the huge volume of 

material that naturally enters the lake during flooding. Further, much of the wood would be incorporated 

into erosion protection structures on the lakeshore as part of the PUD license. Overall, there is currently 

an abundance of large woody debris on the lower Stehekin River. 

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: Construction of the Lower Valley Trail would result in minor to moderate localized 

long-term effects on flow of the Stehekin River at the proposed foot bridge and negligible to minor 

adverse effects elsewhere. If bank stabilization became necessary to protect the trail bridge, impacts could 

increase locally. 

Removal of Flood-Damaged Structures / Restoration: Ongoing and new removal of unoccupied flooddamaged structures would create long-term negligible to moderate benefits to water resources. 

Bioengineering and riparian restoration would provide added beneficial impacts by slowing floodwater 

and bank erosion and restoring natural floodplain processes. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: Raising the level of the road through McGregor Meadows in the floodplain with 

5,600 cubic yards of fill would further obstruct floodwater and potentially augment flood damage on both 

sides of the road by unnaturally affecting the river hydraulics during flood stage. Over time, the road 

would also constrain and limit the width of the channel migration zone. Taken together, raising the 

roadbed and constraining the river would cause a localized long-term moderate to major adverse effect on 

Stehekin River floodwater levels and flow in the vicinity of McGregor Meadows. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Implementing the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project with 

installation of clusters of rip-rap and log-cribbing at the toe of the slope at Wilson Creek would have 

moderate adverse effects on streamflow characteristics because rip-rap has a tendency to increase 

downstream bank erosion and to require supplementation of rock (see Table IV-8: Alternative 1 Flood 

and Erosion Protection Measures). The impact of this action, however, would be greater if not for the 

location of this area on the edge of the channel migration zone. 

Table IV-8: Alternative 1 Flood and Erosion Protection Measures 

Action Location Area Impact to Streamflow

Wilson Creek clusters of 

rip-rap and large woody 

debris

Edge of CMZ River km 8

400 ft

(0.3 acre)

Minor localized adverse. Changes in 

way water moves along and 

downstream from the bank.

Maintain Company Creek 

Road / levee

Within floodplain / CMZ River km 7.5

400 ft

(0.4 acre)

Moderate to major localized adverse.

Changes water movement along and 

downstream from bank.

1995 Land Protection Plan Implementation: Ongoing actions to implement the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b) 

would continue to focus on protecting the scenic qualities along the Stehekin Valley Road and on 

removing development from the 100-year floodplain of the Stehekin River. These would continue to be 

the highest priorities for acquisition and exchange, but would not consider the recent changes to the 

Stehekin River floodplain. Changes wrought by the 1995, 2003, and 2006 floods have put several 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 289 

structures on the verge of being incorporated into the river. As a result, there would continue to be 

ongoing major adverse impacts to streamflow from the effects of development within the floodplain and 

channel migration zone in this alternative that would not be resolved. Combined, these effects would 

continue to be long-term and minor to moderate, with occasional moderate to major localized impacts 

when destroyed cabins, drain fields, and effluent from septic tanks are incorporated into the river. 

Development within the 100-year floodplain would continue to be moved, a long-term beneficial effect; 

however, because the 100-year floodplain has changed and some developments now threatened are not 

listed as high priority for acquisition, the benefit would be minor. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 - 4 

Boulder Creek Logjam and Avulsion Sill: There would be no effect on floodwater elevation or 

floodwater depth from the location of a logjam and grade-control structure (avulsion sill) on the bank 

between the Stehekin River and the Boulder Creek alluvial fan. The logjam, however, would affect flood 

flow conditions by slowing water as it approached the nearby developed area and the sill would prevent 

head-cutting from forming a large channel directed toward the developed area. Because these structures 

would be located near the edge of the floodplain / channel migration zone, they would not prevent lateral 

river migration, which is limited naturally by the Boulder Creek alluvial fan. 

Milepost 8.0 Slope Stabilization: As in Alternative 1, the road would be retained at this location. In 

Alternatives 2 - 4, laying back the upper one-quarter to one-third of the slope and scaling rocks would 

allow for revegetation and gradual slope stabilization. Slope modification would not affect the river since 

it would be done well above the 100-year flood elevation. Actions would have short-term minor adverse 

and long-term moderate beneficial effects. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Combined restoration and bioengineering would increase riparian 

bank cover alongside the Stehekin River, a long-term localized minor to moderate beneficial effect on 

hydraulics and streamflow characteristics by restoring more natural rates of bank erosion. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Road Reroute: Constructing the reroute around McGregor Meadows and Lower Field would move the 

road outside the channel migration zone, away from frequent flooding and road erosion, creating a longterm moderate to major beneficial effect that allows natural river processes, floodplain storage of 

floodwater, wood, and gravel, and lateral migration of the channel. Additional culverts would be added 

for the road reroute, affecting seven intermittent side streams, but these would not directly impact the 

Stehekin River. These would be crossed using a series of 60-inch pipe culverts. They could affect local 

streamflow characteristics from scouring and erosion of the road and ditches during floods, a long-term 

minor adverse effect. 

McGregor Meadows Access Road: Impacts of retaining 0.8 mile of McGregor Meadows Access Road 

would be much less than impacts of raising this section of roadway in Alternatives 1 or 4 because the road 

grade would not be raised or realigned and it would comprise a shorter segment. On this section, road 

material would continue to be eroded and transported downstream as floodwaters rise and flow through 

this area, but the amount of gravel would be reduced compared to Alternatives 1 and 4, and is relatively 

insignificant compared to gravel transport on the river. As a result, there would be minor impacts (less 

than Alternative 1), depending on how much material was dislodged and/or needs to be replaced 

following future flooding. Retention of grade-control structures beneath the road between Mileposts 6.5 

and 6.8 would slow cutting of new channels and result in short term moderate impacts to stream 

processes. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

290 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Erosion Protection Measures: In addition to maintaining the Company Creek levee, modifying the road 

at Wilson Creek, and constructing the Boulder Creek logjam, proposed erosion protection measures and 

impacts are shown in Table IV-9: Alternative 2 Erosion Protection Measures. The barbs, bioengineering, 

logjams, and grade-control structures proposed in this alternative would have varying impacts to Stehekin 

River flow due to their location with respect to the channel migration zone. Those on the edge of the 

channel migration zone would have less impact because they would not limit the ability of the river to 

migrate through its floodplain. Those within the channel migration zone would have greater effects 

because they would limit the river from occupying parts of its floodplain / channel migration zone. 

Table IV-9: Alternative 2 Erosion Protection Measures 

Action Location Area Impact on Streamflow

Boulder Creek logjam and 

avulsion sill

Edge of CMZ River km 2.4

400 ft

0.02 acre

Minor localized adverse. Would prevent 

head-cutting toward nearby developed 

area.

Stehekin River mouth barbs 

(3)

Within CMZ River km 1

600 ft

0.21 acre

Moderate localized adverse. Conversion of 

riffle habitat to pool habitat (6,000 square 

feet). Redirects flow from alongside bank 

to middle of channel.

Frog Island barbs (1 - 2) Edge of CMZ River km 5.5

200 - 400 ft

0.07 - 0.14 

acre

Minor localized adverse. Conversion of 

riffle habitat to pool habitat (2,000 - 4,000 

square feet). Redirects flow from 

alongside bank to middle of channel.

Wilson Creek barbs (2 - 3) Edge of CMZ River km 8

400 ft

0.14 acre

Minor localized adverse effects.

Conversion of riffle habitat to pool habitat 

(4,000 - 6,000 square feet). Redirects flow 

from alongside bank to middle of channel.

Maintain Company Creek 

Road / levee

Within floodplain / 

CMZ

River km 7.5

400 ft

(0.4 acre)

Moderate to major localized adverse.

Changes water movement along and 

downstream from bank.

Combined, effects from Alternative 2 erosion protection measures would affect up to 2,150 feet of 

Stehekin River riverbank. This represents about 1.7 percent of the total linear feet of riverbank on the 

lower Stehekin River, a minor to moderate long-term adverse effect. This would be in addition to the 

8,211 linear feet (6.5 percent) of bank currently affected in the lower 12 miles of the Stehekin River (see 

Table IV-10: Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin River Shoreline Erosion Protection Measures). The 

increase in bank hardening at the scale of the lower valley by implementing Alternative 2 would be 

considered minor to moderate. 

At the reach scale, the largest impacts from Alternative 2 would be in Reach 1 (Appendix 4). Installation 

of barbs and a logjam at the Stehekin River mouth would represent a 9 percent increase in the length of 

hardened banks in Reach 1, and would increase total affected streambank in Reach 1 from 10 to 19 

percent. It is anticipated that this increase would result in a long-term moderate impact to streamflow at 

the reach scale because of location within the channel migration zone. Impacts would be greater if not for 

the restoration of 100 feet of bank at the site by removal of rip-rap, and if this reach of the river were not 

strongly influenced by the backwater from Lake Chelan. 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 291 

Table IV-10: Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin River Shoreline 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Number of

Sites

Number of Structures Feet of Shoreline* Added and 

Total

Percentage of 

Shoreline

Affected**

Shoreline currently

affected by erosion 

protection structures

46 Estimated 64 

(including levee, riprap, cabled logs and 

barbs)

8,211 6.5%

Alternative 1 1 Rip-rap 400 WC 6.8% total

0.3% added

Alternative 2 4 6 - 8 barbs

2 logjams

Removal of 100 ft riprap

up to 1,600

(100 SRM,150 BC 400 

WC, −100 SRM)

8.3% total

1.7% added

Alternative 3 6 4 barbs

5 logjams

Removal of 100 ft riprap

800

(150 WP, 500 SRM,150 

BC, 200 FI, 400 WC, 

−100 SRM)

8.3% total

1.7% added

Alternative 4 9 16 - 17 barbs

3 logjams

Removal of 100 ft riprap

up to 3,400

(150 WP,100 SRM, 150 

BC,−100 SRM)

9.5% total

3.0% added

Total Alternative 1: 47

Alternative 2: 50

Alternative 3: 52

Alternative 4: 54

Alternative 1:1

Alternative 2:8 - 10

Alternative 3:9

Alternative 4:19 - 20

Alternative 1: 8,611

Alternative 2: 10,361

Alternative 3: 10,311

Alternative 4: 11,911

N/A

Note: Total estimated shoreline in Lake Chelan NRA (left and right bank) is 124,847 feet.

*Key: WC = Wilson Creek, SRM= Stehekin River Mouth, BC = Boulder Creek, WP = Weaver Point, FI = Frog Island.

**All numbers preliminary. 

In Reach 2, installation of rock barbs to protect the road at Frog Island would add minor to moderate 

long-term impacts by increasing the amount of hardened banks by 5 percent from the 4 percent currently 

modified at Harlequin Bridge. Impacts would be higher except that the barbs and bioengineering would 

be at the edge of the channel migration zone. 

In Reach 3, installation of rock barbs to protect the road at Wilson Creek (Milepost 5.3) would add minor 

to moderate long-term impacts by increasing the amount of hardened banks by 4 percent from the 3 

percent currently modified. Impacts would be higher except that the barbs and bioengineering would be 

located at the edge of the channel migration zone. 

Revised Land Protection Plan: With the revision to the LPP, the focus of land acquisition and exchange 

would be on protecting sensitive resources and removing private development from not just the 100-year 

floodplain but also from within the channel migration zone. Over time, as properties are acquired or 

exchanged, fewer would remain in the channel migration zone. As a result, there would be long-term 

beneficial effects on the ability of the Stehekin River to move within the channel migration zone. Because 

it is uncertain how many or which properties would be exchanged or acquired, the beneficial effects 

would be long term and minor to major. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

292 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The focus would be on federal acquisition of properties that would most affect the ability of the Stehekin 

River to migrate within its channel migration zone. Based on the new LPP, there would be 12 properties 

in the vicinity of McGregor Meadows that require motor vehicle access via the McGregor Meadows 

Access Road. All of these would be high priority for acquisition in the new ranking except three that 

would be of medium priority because either they do not contain development or the development 

footprint is very small and therefore if flooding occurred, additional adverse effects would be minor. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Among the additional actions that would affect hydrology and streamflow characteristics of the Stehekin 

River in Alternative 3 would be the construction of the road reroute around only McGregor Meadows and 

construction of different erosion protection measures. Surfacing, culverts, and side ditches would also 

vary slightly under Alternative 3.

Road Reroute: As with the reroute in Alternative 2, constructing the 1.6-mile reroute around McGregor 

Meadows would relocate most of the road out of the floodplain and channel migration zone. Because the 

reroute would not be as long, some areas within the channel migration zone adjacent to the Lower Field 

would remain part of the road. This would require placement of fill within the channel migration zone, a 

long-term moderate adverse impact. Still, natural river processes, including lateral migration of the 

channel and head-cutting, would be allowed to occur in parts of McGregor Meadows. This would be an 

improvement over Alternative 1, but less of one than in Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, the reroute 

would reduce the potential for future erosion management measures. As a whole, rerouting the road 

would enable natural processes within the Stehekin River 100-year floodplain and/or channel migration 

zone to continue. This would have long-term moderate beneficial effects to river flows. 

McGregor Meadows Access Road Retention / Milepost 8.0 Slope Stabilization: Actions and impacts 

would be the same as described in Alternative 2.

Erosion Protection Measures: Effects from building logjams at the Stehekin River mouth, near Boulder 

Creek, at Frog Island, and at Wilson Creek, combined with installation of two barbs at Weaver Point and 

two at the Lower Field, would be long term, localized, and minor to moderate (see Table IV-11: 

Alternative 3 Erosion Protection Measures). The construction of the 150-foot logjam at Weaver Point 

(0.02 acre) would have negligible to minor localized adverse effects on streamflow characteristics 

because it would be located adjacent to the river near the edge of the channel migration zone. It would 

also allow floodwater to pass through the structures and would not raise the floodwater elevation. 

Combined effects from adding erosion protection measures at six locations in Alternative 3 would add up 

to 2,100 feet of hardening to the Stehekin River riverbank. This represents about a 1.7 percent increase in 

the total linear feet of hardened riverbank on the lower 12 miles above Lake Chelan, a minor to moderate 

long-term adverse effect on hydraulics and streamflow (Table IV-10: Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin 

River Shoreline Erosion Protection Measures). This would be in addition to the 8,211 linear feet (6.5 

percent) of bank currently affected in the lower valley. 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 293 

Table IV-11: Alternative 3 Erosion Protection Measures 

Action Location Area Impact on Streamflow

Weaver Point logjam Edge of Channel 

Migration Zone (CMZ)

River km 0

130 ft

0.12 acre

Minor localized adverse. Deflects and

absorbs flow, creating slowing of water 

and pool and scour hole formation.

Weaver Point barbs (2) Edge of CMZ River km 0

400 ft

0.14 acre

Minor localized adverse. Conversion of 

riffle habitat to pool habitat (4,000 square 

feet). Redirects flow from alongside bank 

to center of channel.

Stehekin River mouth 

logjam

Within CMZ River km 1

500 ft

0.17 acres

Minor to moderate localized adverse.

Deflects and absorbs flow, creating 

slowing of water and pool and scour hole 

formation.

Boulder Creek logjam 

and avulsion sill

Edge of CMZ River km 2.4

400 ft

0.02 acre

Minor, localized adverse. Would prevent 

head-cutting toward nearby developed 

area.

Frog Island logjam Edge of CMZ River km 5.5

200 - 400 ft

0.09 acre

Minor localized adverse. Deflects and 

absorbs flow, creating slowing of water 

and pool and scour hole formation.

Wilson Creek logjam Edge of CMZ River km 8

400 ft

0.14 acre

Minor localized adverse. Deflects and 

absorbs flow, creating slowing of water 

and pool and scour hole formation.

Lower Field barbs (2) Within CMZ River km 9.5

400 ft

0.14 acre

Moderate localized adverse. Conversion 

of riffle habitat to pool habitat (4,000 

square feet). Redirects flow from 

alongside bank to center of channel.

Maintain Company 

Creek Road / levee

Within floodplain / CMZ River km 7.5

400 ft

(0.4 acre)

Moderate to major localized adverse.

Changes water movement along and 

downstream from bank.

At the reach scale, Alternative 3 would add 13 percent more hardened bank in Reach 1 by actions at 

Weaver Point and the Stehekin River mouth. This would bring the total affected area in Reach 1 to 23 

percent, and would be a moderate adverse impact on streamflow and hydraulics, primarily by reducing 

river migration and increasing stream velocity. In Reaches 2 and 3, actions at Frog Island and Wilson 

Creek would affect the same 5 percent of the bank as under Alternative 2, and would have a minor to 

moderate impact on streamflow because the sites are located at the edge of the channel migration zone. In 

Reach 4, Alternative 3 actions at the Lower Field would add about 3 percent to the total linear feet of 

hardened banks, and would have a moderate impact since the site is within the channel migration zone. 

Revised Land Protection Plan: Actions and impacts would be the same as those described above in 

Alternative 2.

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Road Grade Raise: Action and impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 1.

Erosion Protection Measures: Actions and impacts at Weaver Point and Lower Field would be the same 

as in Alternative 3; Stehekin River mouth, Boulder Creek, Frog Island, and Wilson Creek (except for an 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

294 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

additional barb) actions would be the same as Alternative 2. In addition, two barbs would be added near 

Milepost 7.0 and three near Milepost 9.2 (Table IV-12: Alternative 4 Erosion Protection Measures).

Table IV-12: Alternative 4 Erosion Protection Measures 

Action Location Area Impact on Streamflow

Weaver Point 

logjam

Edge of CMZ River km 0

130 ft

0.12 ac

Minor localized adverse. Deflects and absorbs flow, 

creating slowing of water and pool and scour hole 

formation.

Weaver Point barbs 

(2)

Edge of CMZ River km 0

400 ft

0.14 ac

Minor localized adverse. Conversion of riffle habitat 

to pool habitat (4,000 sq ft). Redirects flow from 

alongside bank to center of channel.

Stehekin River 

mouth barbs (3)

Within CMZ River km 1

600 ft

0.21 ac

Moderate localized adverse. Conversion of riffle 

habitat to pool habitat (6,000 sq ft). Redirects flow 

from alongside bank to middle of channel.

Boulder Creek 

logjam and avulsion 

sill

Edge of CMZ River km 2.4

400 ft

0.02 acre

Minor, localized adverse. Would prevent headcutting toward nearby developed area.

Frog Island barbs 

(1 - 2)

Edge of CMZ River km 5.5

200 - 400 ft

0.07 - 0.14 ac

Minor localized adverse. Conversion of riffle habitat 

to pool habitat (2,000 - 4,000 sq ft). Redirects flow 

from alongside bank to middle of channel.

Wilson Creek barbs 

(2 - 3)

Edge of CMZ River km 8

400 ft

0.14 ac

Same as above except 6,000 sq ft of riffle to pool 

habitat.

Lower Field barbs 

(2)

Within CMZ River km 9.5

400 ft

0.14 ac

Moderate localized adverse. Conversion of riffle 

habitat to pool habitat (4,000 sq ft). Redirects flow 

from alongside bank to center of channel.

Milepost 7.0 barbs 

(2)

Within CMZ River km 11

400 ft

0.14 ac

Same impact as above.

Milepost 9.2 barbs 

(3)

Within CMZ River km 11.5

600 ft

0.21 ac

Moderate localized adverse. Conversion of riffle 

habitat to pool habitat (6,000 sq ft). Redirects flow 

from alongside bank to center of channel.

Maintain Company 

Creek Road / levee

Within floodplain 

/ CMZ

River km 7.5

400 ft

0.4 ac

Moderate to major localized adverse. Changes 

water movement along and downstream from bank.

Effects from installation of 16 - 17 new barbs and two logjams at nine sites under Alternative 4 would 

affect approximately 3,500 - 3,700 feet of Stehekin River riverbank, or about 3 percent of the total in the 

lower 12 miles of the river (Table IV-10: Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin River Shoreline Erosion 

Protection Measures). This would be in addition to the 6.5 percent of bank currently affected. This level 

of riverbank manipulation would have a moderate to major long-term adverse effect, in part because of 

the number of structures, but also because five of seven sites are within the channel migration zone. 

In Reach 1, bank stabilization at three sites would affect 15 percent of the total riverbank, in addition to 

the 10 percent currently affected by bank hardening. This would represent a moderate to major impact to 

streamflow and hydraulics in Reach 1 because of the amount of bank that would be hardened, as well as 

the fact that the Weaver Point and River Mouth sites are within the channel migration zone. Impacts in 

Reaches 2 and 3 under this alternative would be the same as in Alternative 3. At the reach scale near 

McGregor Meadows, construction of rock barbs at Milepost 7 on the Stehekin Valley Road and the 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 295 

Lower Field would add about 6 percent more hardened banks, in addition to the 22 percent already 

modified in Reach 4, a moderate adverse impact on hydraulics and streamflow. 

In addition, three barbs would be built near Milepost 9.2 on the Stehekin Valley Road. These would be 

located near the edge of the channel migration zone, and would cause a moderate impact to stream 

processes in this reach. There are currently four other rock barbs on private land just downstream. 

Revised Land Protection Plan Implementation: As in Alternatives 2 and 3, with the revision to the 

LPP, the focus of land acquisition and exchange would be on protecting sensitive resources and removing 

private development from the floodplain and channel migration zone. In Alternative 4, however, actions 

would contribute to protecting the Stehekin Valley Road in place where possible. 

As in Alternatives 2 and 3, over time, as properties are acquired or exchanged, fewer would remain in the 

channel migration zone; however, the priorities for acquisition and exchange would be focused on 

obtaining those properties that helped to maintain the Stehekin Valley Road over those that were within 

the channel migration zone. As a result, although there would be long-term beneficial effects on the 

ability of the Stehekin River to migrate within its floodplain and channel migration zone, these would be 

fewer because most of the road would be retained in place. Because it is uncertain how many or which 

properties would be exchanged or acquired and whether these would benefit the channel migration zone 

or just the road, the beneficial effects would be long term and minor to major. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to water resources (including hydraulics and streamflow characteristics, water quality, wetlands, and 

floodplains) include: 

 Locating staging and stockpiling areas located away from the Stehekin River. 

 Delineating staging areas to prevent incremental expansion of the staging area. 

 Covering stockpiled fine-grained soil and rock near surface water and, if overwintered, with a 

breathable, water-repellent fabric, such as silt fence, anchored around the perimeter. 

 Using temporary sediment-control devices such as filter fabric fences, sediment traps, or check 

dams as needed during culvert replacement. 

 Identifying the area to be cleared to define the extent and clearing only those areas necessary for 

construction. 

 Minimizing the amount of disturbed earth area and the duration of soil exposure to rainfall. 

 Using bioengineering to stabilize riverbanks where erosion protection measures are employed. 

 Minimizing soil disturbance, and reseeding or revegetating disturbed areas as soon as practical. 

 Using topsoil and duff from the reroute areas to rehabilitate (recreate habitat) the obliterated road 

segments and road shoulders where reroutes occur. 

 Scarifying slopes, if necessary, to slow erosion. 

 Retaining silt fencing in disturbed areas until stabilization (by reseeding or revegetation). 

 Constructing temporary diversion devices such as swales, trenches, culverts, or drains to divert 

stormwater runoff away from disturbed areas, including exposed slopes. 

 Using native duff and topsoil to cover exposed soil as soon as practical. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

296 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Installing protective construction fencing around, adjacent to, or near wetland and/or riparian 

areas that are to be protected, or using other erosion protection measures to protect water 

resources in the project area. 

 Avoiding machinery use below the wetted perimeter of water bodies where possible (work would 

be done from the bank). 

 Using equipment excavators from the bank to place rock below the ordinary high water mark for 

rock barbs, to reduce the potential for introducing pollutants, including possible leaks of 

hydraulic fluid or other substances from heavy equipment. 

 Using vegetable-based hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment. 

 Limiting the duration of the instream work as much as possible. 

 Timing instream work to occur at lower-flow periods (i.e., work would not occur during heavy 

river flows). 

 Minimizing creation of impervious surface. 

 Using a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction activities to control surface 

runoff, reduce erosion, and prevent sedimentation from entering water bodies during construction. 

 Developing and implementing a comprehensive Spill Prevention/Response Plan that complies 

with federal and state regulations and addresses all aspects of spill prevention, notification, 

emergency spill response strategies for spills occurring on land and water, reporting requirements, 

monitoring requirements, personnel responsibilities, response equipment type and location, and 

drills and training requirements. 

 Use work area isolation techniques when water is present in adjacent streams (not the Stehekin 

River itself). 

Prevention of Fuel Spills: The following BMPs to control adverse impacts of fuel spills would also be 

used: 

 Refueling activities would be done at least 100 feet from the river and its tributaries or other 

surface water. 

 Areas where refueling or maintenance of equipment would occur would be identified and would 

have containment devices such as temporary earth berms. 

 Absorbent pads would be available to clean up spills. 

 Restrictions on the location of fueling sites, requirements for spill containment, and other 

measures to safeguard aquatic and terrestrial habitat from construction-related contaminants 

would be identified. 

Cumulative Impacts: There have been a series of actions that have affected hydraulics and streamflow 

characteristics, including development and bank stabilization within the floodplain and channel migration 

zone. This includes existing hardened surfaces, such as roads and buildings, as well as the creation of 

Lake Chelan Dam. All alternatives would add to these by increasing the number of control structures and 

continuing the long-term trend toward constraining the lower reaches of the Stehekin River (where flow is 

already affected by the presence of the dam and erosion protection at 46 sites). Implementation of the 

alternatives would result in additional cumulative minor to major long-term adverse impacts by 

preventing the Stehekin River from moving within part of its channel migration zone. There would be no 

changes to side channels or tributaries entering the Stehekin River. Large sections of the channel 
5. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 297 

migration zone on the right bank of the river below and above Harlequin Bridge would be available to 

store floodwater, large wood, and gravel, and for future river migration. 

Over time, instream structures, including rock barbs, rip-rap, and other channel modifications, have 

increased. Past projects have resulted in a total of 30 barbs and up to 50 other erosion protection 

structures (i.e., cabled logs, rip-rap, or a combination of structures) at 46 sites on the lower Stehekin River 

(Table IV-13: Lower Stehekin River Shoreline Affected by Erosion Protection or Flood-Control 

Structures). Most of these are concentrated in sediment deposition zones at McGregor Meadows and at 

the Stehekin River mouth (Figure III-9). Large parts of the river and valley remain unaltered. 

Table IV-13: Lower Stehekin River Shoreline Affected by Erosion Protection or Flood-Control 

Structures 

Erosion Protection 

Structures

1993 2001 - 2002 2009

Number of Sites 28 35 (with 80 structures) 46a

Length 4,861 ft 6,965 ft 8,211 ftb

Number of Barbs 0 10 30c

Percentage of Bank 3.9 5.6 6.5

Note: Total shoreline length (estimated left and right banks) is 124,847 feet.

a

Sites added since 2001 - 2002 are upper Company Creek Road (2007), Courtney Ranch (2007), Scutt (2007), and 

Leader Levee (2008).

b

Added 427 feet to upper Company Creek Road, 427 feet to Milepost 8.0, and 328 feet to Leader.

cNPS added 6 barbs at Milepost 8.0 (1993, 2008), 10 barbs at Company Creek Road (1997, 2007), and 4 barbs near the 

orchard (1999). Private owners added 2 barbs on Leader (1997), 4 barbs at Stehekin Valley Ranch (2007), 1 barb at 

Company Creek Road (1997), and 3 barbs near the River Resort Road (1997).

Long-term minor beneficial effects would be contributed under all alternatives from replacement and 

relocation of the housing and maintenance areas. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, where an attempt would be 

made to hold the Stehekin Valley Road in place in McGregor Meadows, there would be an increase in the 

number of these erosion protection measures either initially (Alternative 4) or over time (Alternative 1). 

Although Alternative 1 would be limited in its current contribution to cumulative effects, over time it 

would likely result in a contribution to cumulative effects, similar to Alternative 4, from inhibiting the 

Stehekin River from occupying parts of its channel migration zone. Alternative 4 proposes the most 

erosion protection measures and would add the most to cumulative effects. In contrast, the reroute in 

Alternative 3 would allow for this channel migration in McGregor Meadows, whereas it would prevent it 

alongside the Lower Field. Alternative 2 would contribute the least to cumulative impacts by relocating 

the road away from both of these areas and by proposing erosion protection measures at the fewest 

number of sites compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Thus, combining Alternative 1 with other past and future projects would result in the construction of 

additional structures to control erosion. Alternative 1 would add additional rip-rap at one site on the lower 

river (Wilson Creek). Alternative 2 would add six to eight rock barbs, two logjams, and an avulsion sill at 

four sites. Alternative 3 would add four rock barbs, five logjams, and an avulsion sill at six sites, and 

Alternative 4 would add 16 - 17 rock barbs, three logjams, and an avulsion sill at eight sites on the lower 

Stehekin River. Together, these structures would cause changes in streamflow that would be measurable 

and would have consequences on channel-forming processes and downstream erosion processes. 

Therefore, the cumulative adverse impacts under all alternatives would be moderate and long term. As 

noted, these would be potentially greatest, in sequence, under Alternatives 4, 1, 3, and 2 (see Table IV-10: 

Cumulative Impacts of Stehekin River Shoreline Erosion Protection Measures). 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

298 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Conclusion: Effects of erosion protection measures are summarized in Table IV-10: Cumulative Impacts 

of Stehekin River Shoreline Erosion Protection Measures. In Alternative 1, one measure would be located 

within the floodplain / channel migration zone and one outside of it. Under Alternative 2, one new 

measure would be within the channel migration zone and three outside of it. In Alternative 3, there would 

be three new inside and four outside the channel migration zone. If implemented, Alternative 4 would 

have five new measures inside and five outside. There would be minor to moderate beneficial effects 

from restoration and bioengineering in all alternatives. 

Total impervious areas could be up to 5 - 8 acres for the maintenance and housing areas plus additional 

area for the rehabilitated road (Alternatives 1 and 4), or for the rehabilitated/rerouted road (Alternatives 2 

and 3). New impervious surfaces could also cover an additional 5 - 8 acres of the 37 acres available for 

exchange in the 1995 LPP and Alternative 1, and approximately 7 of the 24 acres available for exchange 

in Alternatives 2 - 4. Impervious surfaces would result in faster runoff. In Alternatives 2 and 3, relocating 

the road away from the eroding banks would have a long-term beneficial effect because it would diminish 

the need for additional erosion protection structures and allow natural river processes to predominate in 

more areas. 

Alternative 2 would have the fewest adverse effects on hydraulics / streamflow characteristics (minor to 

moderate), followed by Alternative 3 (moderate adverse), and finally Alternatives 4 and 1. All 

alternatives would result in long-term moderate beneficial effects from relocation of the maintenance 

area. Ultimately, Alternative 1 would likely have greater adverse effects (moderate to major) on 

hydraulics / streamflow characteristics (similar to Alternative 4) because of the long-term need to 

continue to maintain the road and to install additional erosion protection measures that would help 

achieve this. Effects from Alternative 1 could eventually increase beyond those described in this 

SRCIP/DEIS if bank stabilization measures continue to increase over time. 

Because there would be no significant adverse impacts to streamflow characteristics or channel-forming 

processes, there would be no impairment of park resources or values. 

6. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 

a. Water Quality Methodology 

For water quality methodology, see ―a. Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics Methodology.‖

Type of Impact: The following characteristics of water would be affected by the proposed actions 

described in the alternatives: temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment, nutrients, and chemical 

pollutants. The concentrations and interactions of these elements not only affect the ability of organisms 

to survive but exhibit a great degree of natural variation among water resources. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Chemical, physical, or biological effects would not be detectable, would be well 

below water quality standards or criteria, and would be within historic or desired water quality 

conditions. 

 Minor: Chemical, physical, or biological effects would be detectable, but would be well below 

water quality standards or criteria and within historical or desired water quality conditions. 

 Moderate: Chemical, physical, or biological effects would be detectable but would be at or 

below water quality standards or criteria; however, historical baseline or desired water quality 

conditions would be temporarily altered. 
6. Water Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 299 

 Major: Chemical, physical, or biological effects would be detectable and would be frequently 

altered from the historical baseline or desired water quality conditions. Chemical, physical, or 

biological water quality standards or criteria could temporarily be exceeded. 

b. Water Quality Impacts 

Impacts of Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Most of the same actions that would affect hydraulics and streamflow characteristics, vegetation, and soils 

would also potentially affect water quality from the introduction of sediments and pollutants (e.g., from 

septic systems). Multiple recent large floods have increased scouring of the Stehekin Valley Road and 

have contributed to a relatively small amount of road gravel being moved into riparian areas downstream, 

however, most of the sediment in the river channel is being produced naturally by tributary streams and 

by bank erosion upstream and is not a direct result of human activity. These events have also led to the 

proliferation of erosion protection structures. 

Ongoing Maintenance and Operations: Existing impacts on water resources would continue. The 

ongoing effects of development located in the channel migration zone would continue to have localized 

negligible to moderate long-term adverse effects by continuing to alter the passage and quality of 

overland water flow through these areas. These development effects include ongoing maintenance and 

repair of the Stehekin Valley Road and the Company Creek Road, including gravel inputs for the 

Company Creek Road (under all alternatives), which may erode during stormwater runoff or floods. The 

gravel would likely enter creeks and the Stehekin River and affect water quality by contributing oil and 

other hydrocarbons. 

Contaminants in stormwater from hardened or surfaced and gravel roads can also affect several water 

quality conditions, including the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, turbidity, and pH, which can 

adversely affect biological resources. Traffic on the Stehekin Valley Road is relatively low, the road is 

well separated from the river in most places, and there is a relatively high volume of water in the river; 

therefore, it is likely that these contaminants would have long-term but negligible to minor adverse 

impacts. 

Gravel roads generate dust during dry periods and the dust coats vegetation next to the roads and washes 

away into the surrounding area, including the river, during storms. In Alternatives 1 - 4, overall impacts 

related to the use and procurement of gravel would be fewer since more areas of the Stehekin Valley 

Road would be surfaced and raised or relocated. Use of the unsurfaced Company Creek Road (all 

alternatives) and McGregor Meadows Access Road (Alternatives 2 and 3), however, would continue to 

contribute a small amount of road fill during flooding. 

Localized flooding due to undersized, damaged, or clogged culverts and poor drainage conditions under 

affected roads would also cause sedimentation. Poorly located or plugged culverts would continue to 

cause rapid erosion of road fill during floods and contribute to road failure resulting in disturbed soil 

being carried into nearby streams, which could adversely impact water quality. Adverse impacts would 

include minor to moderate short-term localized impacts and long-term minor impacts, since most material 

is sand and gravel, not silt or clay. 

Road Rehabilitation: Because less gravel would be needed over time from the Company Creek Pit due 

to surfacing of the Stehekin Valley Road, there would be less dust generated both from transport of this 

material and from driving over unpaved surfaces. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

300 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Surfacing: This would affect water quality by contributing faster runoff of dirt and oil and other roadway 

contaminants, generated from vehicle travel over hardened surfaces, into the Stehekin River. These would 

cause short-term negligible to minor effects on water quality. Flushes of runoff during storms would also 

contribute to long-term minor to moderate adverse effects to the extent that these pollutants persisted in 

the river and/or Lake Chelan. Petroleum products and metals would be deposited onto road and parking 

lot surfaces from vehicles and picked up during rain, snowmelt, and carried into water sources. These 

contaminants would also indirectly affect water resources through infiltration into groundwater over time. 

Culverts: Most culverts affected by the proposed project do not contain perennial or intermittent streams: 

rather, they are used to convey rain and snowmelt in season and are known as ―ditch relief‖ culverts. 

Coupled with work along the Stehekin River, at Wilson Creek and Thimbleberry Creek, and work in 

water to place barbs or logjams (Alternatives 2 - 4), work on existing culverts and installation of new and 

replacement culverts would have the potential to contribute sediment directly and indirectly to the 

Stehekin River, during low-flow period, a negligible to minor localized short-term effect on water quality. 

Construction: Actions and impacts from construction, including excavation, grading, importing fill, loss 

of vegetation, and potential spills, would occur from rehabilitation of the road and from the 

implementation of erosion protection measures (different measures, but similar impacts, under all 

alternatives). Impacts would also be associated with construction of the maintenance and housing areas 

and construction of the Lower Valley Trail. Construction activities such as refueling and use of heavy 

equipment may result in spills of oil or fuel that could enter the river during stormwater runoff. 

Accidental release of hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products during construction is also 

possible if mitigation measures fail. Small amounts of these contaminants could also enter the river in 

stormwater runoff, causing short-term adverse negligible to minor effects to water quality. 

Stockpiled earth and other materials in staging areas within the project area are also susceptible to erosion 

from stormwater. Potential erosion-generated sediment associated with construction is likely to be 

undetectable because most of the work would not occur close to surface water, mitigation measures can 

largely control erosion and sedimentation, and much of the soil is comprised of sand and gravel, which 

would not easily erode. 

Proposed project actions under the alternatives, including the development of the new maintenance and 

housing area (grading, construction, circulation, and parking) (5 - 8 acres) and the rehabilitation of up to 

4.9 miles of roadway, would have the potential to affect water quality. Impacts would occur from 

excavation (which would loosen soil materials); stockpiling of topsoil and other materials (which could be 

affected by runoff during seasonal rain or snowmelt); vegetation disturbance and modifications (removal 

and grubbing and flush-cutting, which would also open up new areas to erosive action by water once soil 

was disturbed); and drainage improvements such as installation of new culverts (which would affect wet 

soils and would loosen soil materials and temporarily subject them to erosion). 

Combined, short-term effects on water quality would be minor and localized in the area of improvements 

and would depend on weather conditions during construction. Most construction sites are flat and located 

some distance from the river or perennial streams, and most construction activities would be limited to 

later in summer, after snowmelt. The new maintenance area would be located on young, gravelly soils. 

The removal of the fuel storage and maintenance facility from the 100- and 500-year floodplains would 

have a long-term moderate to major beneficial impact on water quality. Moderate-term impacts would be 

related to the period of time between disturbance and rehabilitation or restoration and would be minimal 

from road rehabilitation. 
6. Water Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 301 

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: Construction of the Lower Valley Trail would result in the same kinds of impacts as 

described above for road rehabilitation. Trail impacts, however, would be more localized and much less 

extensive. There could be short- and long-term minor localized impacts on water quality, depending on 

soil moisture, weather conditions, and the effectiveness of BMPs and mitigation measures. Because most 

actions would occur in areas removed from Stehekin River, during the summer dry season, they would 

likely result in fewer and indirect impacts compared to those associated with road rehabilitation. 

Removal of Flood-Affected Structures: Because removal would be conducted during dry periods when 

the structures themselves were out of the water (post-flooding), actions would have a limited effect on 

water quality. If, however, additional flooding occurred before site restoration had taken place, this action 

would contribute short-term minor to moderate localized adverse effects. Because these actions would be 

undertaken intermittently as structures were affected, they would occur spaced widely in time (and 

usually distance) from one another and would also have moderate to major beneficial effects by removing 

potential sources of contaminants from the channel migration zone. 

Table IV-14: Rehabilitation Actions—Alternatives 1 - 4 

Number of 

Pullouts / Acres 

Affected

Number of Culverts* Barbs / 

Bioengineering 

Logjams Other Road 

Stabilization 

Measures

Alternative1 5 existing

Up to 20 new

0.28 acres

Approximately 52 30-inch 

corrugated metal pipe

culverts (every 500 feet on 

main road) plus 4 60-inch 

culverts and 2 additional 

30-inch culverts

Existing Existing Wilson Creek

Alternative 2 Up to 25 new

0.34 acres

Same as above, plus new 

culverts (approximately 30) 

every 300 - 350 feet on the 

reroute, 7 additional 60-

inch culverts, one 72-inch 

culvert and two 36-inch 

culverts plus two low water 

crossings

Stehekin River

mouth

Frog Island

Wilson Creek

Stehekin River 

mouth

Boulder Creek

Wilson Creek

Milepost 8.0

Alternative 3 Up to 23 new

0.30 acres

Same as above, except 

slightly fewer culverts on 

the reroute

Weaver Point

Lower Field

Weaver Point

Stehekin River 

mouth

Boulder Creek

Frog Island

Wilson Creek

Same as 

Alternative 2

Alternative 4 Same as 

Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1 Weaver Point

Stehekin mouth

Frog Island

Wilson Creek

Lower Field

Milepost 7.0

Milepost 9.2

Weaver Point

Stehekin River 

mouth

Boulder Creek

Same as 

Alternative 2

*Affecting an estimated 70 - 350 square feet each.

Maintenance Facility Replacement and Relocation: It is possible that some contamination is present in 

the vicinity of the former maintenance area, which would need to be remediated by removal of soil. If 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

302 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

contamination was found during the proposed project and remediated, it would have a long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial effect on water quality. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: Retaining the Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment within the floodplain, 

including the addition of 5,600 cubic yards of fill material required to raise the height of the road, could 

affect water quality during construction and flooding. Raising the height of the road in some sections and 

realigning other sections through McGregor Meadows would result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts from construction and could result in erosion of road fill by floodwaters, a long-term 

moderate to major localized adverse effect on water quality because this fill could be released into the 

river during a major flood. 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek): Actions to install rip-rap clusters with large wood at Wilson Creek and to 

lower the road and move it laterally away from the river would have both short-term minor localized 

adverse effects on water quality from the potential for sedimentation during construction, especially 

related to accessing the toe of the slope where work would occur, and minor long-term beneficial effects 

from stabilizing this eroding slope, thereby minimizing the potential for sedimentation from slope failure. 

Large Woody Debris: Obtaining large woody debris from the head of Lake Chelan after floods in spring 

and fall would have minimal effect on sedimentation and water quality, because only floating logs would 

be procured using a barge floating on the lake. 

1995 Land Protection Plan Implementation: There would continue to be periodic impacts from 

flooding of buildings and structures, including septic system drain fields, from unchanged implementation 

of the existing priorities for acquisition and exchange from the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b). Depending on the 

degree to which implementation of the 1995 LPP focused on removal of structures from the 100-year 

floodplain of the Stehekin River, there would be long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on water 

quality from the removal of both buildings and their accompanying infrastructure. Compared to 

Alternatives 2 - 4, in Alternative 1 fewer buildings and structures would be removed from the channel 

migration zone because these would not be high priority acquisition and exchange. As a result, there 

would be increasingly adverse effects as the river and flood channels encroached on developments, 

particularly in McGregor Meadows. Because these effects would primarily be associated with flooding 

and not with day-to-day actions, potential effects on water quality would be long term, localized, and 

negligible to moderate. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 - 4 

Erosion Protection Measures: Work in seasonally saturated soils to locate barbs would have the 

potential to contribute a moderate localized short-term adverse impact on water quality, coupled with a 

point source effect that would diminish with the distance downstream from the excavation of these soils 

and the placement of rock and logs, and construction of soil and bioengineering layers. Overall, adverse 

impacts would primarily be short term and minor in Alternatives 1 and 2, with slightly greater impacts 

associated with Alternative 3. All would have fewer impacts than Alternative 4, although anticipated 

future impacts in Alternative 1 could eventually rise to equal or exceed those in Alternative 4.

Similarly, there would be minor to moderate impacts from constructing engineered logjams. Logjams 

require greater excavation than do barbs to ensure that they remain anchored to the bank. Further, much 

of this excavation would be within the wetted perimeter of the Stehekin River. Two logjams would be 
6. Water Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 303 

constructed in Alternative 2 and five in Alternative 3, with impacts greater in Alternative 3 because of the 

much larger size of the logjam near the mouth of the Stehekin River combined with the moderate one at 

Wilson Creek and the small one at Frog Island. Alternative 4 would have three logjams, two small ones at 

Weaver Point and the river mouth and a larger one at Boulder Creek. 

Installation of barbs and logjams would result in retention of key portions of the Stehekin Valley Road, 

thus contributing to long-term beneficial impacts on water quality by decreasing slope instability adjacent 

to the river at Wilson Creek and Milepost 8.0, among other areas. 

Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek), Milepost 8.0: Where reroutes would not occur, 

there would be a long-term potential for catastrophic flooding to erode portions of the road in these areas, 

an effect that would be partially precluded by the installation of barbs or logjams. These would have longterm negligible to moderate beneficial effects, coupled with short-term localized minor to moderate 

adverse effects if erosion from flooding occurred before bank stabilization measures were installed. 

Milepost 9.2: Construction of a parking area and grade raise of 300 feet would have minor localized 

adverse impacts on water quality since this area is not within the floodplain. 

Large Woody Debris: Under Alternatives 2 - 4, because targeted logs would be plucked from the tops of 

some jams, impacts would primarily be related to gaining access to the jams and would be implemented 

only if adverse impacts were negligible to minor short-term and localized. These impacts could include 

future sedimentation during runoff from tracked heavy equipment disturbing vegetation. Access to 

logjams would be only from the tops above the high water mark, in a way that would not affect the 

stability of the jam or conditions downstream. In Alternative 4, wood would be obtained from a larger 

area; therefore, it is likely that impacts would be greater than in Alternative 2 and 3, but they would not 

exceed localized minor adverse impacts from access. 

Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds and Raft Takeout: Construction of the new campgrounds and raft takeout would have the 

potential to contribute negligible to minor localized adverse impacts on water quality, primarily from 

long-term impacts related to vegetation loss and short-term impacts related to runoff from disturbed areas. 

Impacts from the raft takeout, however, would not occur in Alternative 3.

Restoration and Bioengineering: Riparian restoration and/or bioengineering associated with rock barbs 

and logjams would result in long-term localized negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on water 

quality from the ability of vegetation to retain soils along these eroding banks. There would be greater 

beneficial effects in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and fewer in Alternative 1.

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Road Reroute: The loss of vegetation from 1.9 miles of new roadway (3.21 acres) plus the clearing 

needed to construct this road (approximately 18 acres within an overall disturbance area of 28 acres) 

would result in short- and long-term minor impacts on water quality from runoff before restoration of 

vegetation occurred. Most of the reroute would be distant from the river or wetlands, and seven streams 

crossed by the new route run intermittently. During and immediately following construction and until 

stabilization of potential impacts has occurred, BMPs, including sediment barriers and soil cover, would 

remain in place. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

304 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Shooting Range: There is a possibility that soil contamination from lead bullets and shot is present in the 

vicinity of the shooting range, which would need to be remediated by removal of soil. If contamination is 

found during the proposed project, it would be remediated, a long-term beneficial effect on water quality. 

Revised Land Protection Plan: Changing the priorities in the 1995 LPP would result in the potential for 

long-term moderate to major beneficial impacts on water quality by removing buildings and structures, 

including septic system drain fields, from both the floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin 

River. Depending on the degree to which priorities allowed for this removal to occur, there would also be 

a potential for short-term moderate to major adverse effects from buildings and structures that remained 

and were affected by future flooding. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2 for implementation of the revised LPP, 

Milepost 8.0 and 9.2, large woody debris, and similar for erosion protection measures but with a different 

array of logjams and rock barbs at two additional locations. There would also be similar impacts from 

additional barbs at Lower Field (because the road would not be rerouted in this section).

Road Reroute: As in Alternative 2, the loss of vegetation from 1.7 miles of new roadway (about 3.4 

acres) plus the clearing needed to construct the reroute (approximately 18 acres) would result in shortand long-term minor impacts on water quality from runoff before restoration of vegetation occurred. 

During construction and until stabilization, BMPs (including sediment barriers) would remain in place. 

Erosion protection measures would reduce impacts, but these would be greater than in Alternative 2 

because of not rerouting the road adjacent to the Lower Field. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2 for Milepost 8.0 and 9.2, and similar to 

Alternative 3 for erosion protection measures with logjams at Weaver Point, near the river mouth, and 

Boulder Creek and barbs elsewhere, plus additional barbs at Milepost 7.0 and 9.2. Impacts associated 

with the road grade raise / realignment would be the same as in Alternative 1. 

Large Woody Debris: Impacts would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, but because there would be 

additional areas to procure logs from, there would be more areas of impact. 

Land Protection Plan Revision: A revised LPP with different priorities than in Alternatives 2 and 3 

would also result in removal of buildings and structures from the floodplain and channel migration zone 

of the Stehekin River; however, because the focus in this alternative would be on retaining the current 

development pattern, these impacts would be more beneficial in Alternatives 2 and 3 than Alternative 4. 

Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would have long-term minor to major beneficial effects from the removal of 

some buildings and structures, and adverse impacts similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

See ―Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts‖ in ―b. Hydraulics and Streamflow 

Characteristics Impacts.‖

Cumulative Impacts: Past, present, and future actions may have affected, or will affect, water quality. 

For example, construction of the original roads and subsequent maintenance to retain and reconstruct 

them has provided a relatively minor source of erodible material that has frequently been transported by 

floodwaters. Flooding has washed away segments of the road and resulted in minor short-term additions 
6. Water Quality Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 305 

to turbidity during floods. This adverse water quality impact is temporary in nature, and because the river 

already carries a high volume of sediment during flood events, the incremental increase is insignificant. 

Other visitor uses and facilities in the recreation area and project area contribute to sediments and pollutants, 

including from litter, oil, and other contaminants that can enter drainages and affect water quality. Septic 

systems are the primary source of threats to water quality from private development. Some restoration and 

development projects (e.g., addition of new visitor service facilities and restoration of old roads and 

campgrounds or building sites) would continue to occur within the recreation area and would contribute 

both beneficial and adverse impacts to water quality. Given the localized nature of these actions, overall 

effects on recreation area waters would generally be limited to short-term adverse impacts from construction 

coupled with long-term beneficial impacts from removing facilities from floodplains and slowing erosion of 

riverbanks that support the road. Nonhuman-caused factors, such as natural erosion of exposed soils, would 

continue to affect water quality. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would initially contribute minor localized inputs to cumulative impacts, primarily 

from construction of the new maintenance area and housing. If the fill placed in the McGregor Meadows 

section of roadway were to be eroded by future flooding, or if it increased flooding of septic systems, it 

would contribute moderate short-term adverse impacts. In addition, because the road would be retained in 

more areas adjacent to the Stehekin River, there would continue to be periodic inputs of sediment from 

the roadway as future sections failed. These would be fewer in Alternative 4 than in Alternative 1 due to 

the additional erosion protection measures proposed in Alternative 4. Negligible to minor long-term 

beneficial effects from road rehabilitation actions improving drainage conditions would also occur. 

Impacts of past, present, and future actions, combined the impacts of Alternative 1, would continue to result 

in negligible to moderate adverse cumulative effects on water quality. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would also contribute minor localized inputs to cumulative impacts from construction 

of the maintenance and housing areas; however, additional impacts would occur from construction of the 

reroutes. These would be short-term localized minor adverse effects on water resources during 

construction and long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects during operations from the removal of a 

portion of the road from the channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. 

Additional cumulative impacts would result if erosion and sedimentation BMPs and for mitigation 

measures failed following construction. Overall, water resources would benefit as a result of past and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the recreation area as a result of the proposed plan, especially through 

the relocation of some administrative facilities (including the road in Alternatives 2 and 3). 

Revision of the LPP, particularly in Alternatives 2 and 3, would contribute a moderate beneficial effect on 

water quality by creating the framework for removal of private cabins and drain fields. Combined with 

relocating hazardous-materials storage and heavy equipment from the floodplain in all alternatives (with 

the relocation of the maintenance area), there would be long-term moderate to major beneficial effects on 

water quality. 

Conclusion: Excavation, grading, importing fill, loss of vegetation, and the addition of impervious 

surfacing or developed areas would be present in all alternatives and would affect or have the potential to 

affect local water quality for short periods. Alternatives 1 and 4 would result in the greatest amount of 

additional fill placed in the floodplain. The amount of excavation and vegetation loss would also be lower 

in Alternatives 1 and 4 than in other alternatives due to the retention of the existing road in both 

alternatives. As noted in other sections, however, it is likely that erosion protection measures in 

Alternative 1 would eventually need to be similar to those in Alternative 4. 

Restoration of degraded riparian areas would be lowest in Alternative 1, resulting only from the removal 

of the former maintenance area. Alternatives 2 - 4, however, would include additional riparian restoration, 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

306 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

road obliteration, and bioengineering associated with installation of barbs and logjams. Additional 

beneficial impacts would result from road surfacing. Alternative 1 would have the potential for short-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts and localized minor long-term beneficial effects. Alternative 4, in 

comparison, would have short-term moderate adverse impacts; however, beneficial effects would be 

greater and more widespread than in Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would expose the greatest amount of undisturbed soil to runoff because of the reroute 

and would also result in the greatest vegetation loss, from excavation, and fill. These alternatives would 

use the least amount of imported fill since most fill would come from within the reroute. Compared to 

Alternative 1, there would be slightly more impervious surfaces and developed areas from surfacing of 

the reroute sections. 

Acres of direct and indirect impacts and short-term impacts would also be greater in Alternatives 2 and 3 

because of the reroutes. Removing the road from the floodplain in Alternatives 2 and 3, however, 

represents a moderate long-term beneficial effect on water quality. Slightly more restoration and 

bioengineering would occur in Alternative 2 than in Alternative 3, and both alternatives would have more 

restoration and bioengineering overall than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would have more bioengineering 

and less restoration. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 4, there would be both adverse and beneficial effects 

from surfacing. Both adverse and beneficial effects would be greater than in Alternatives 1 and 4 because 

of the greater amount of surfacing (causing more impervious surfacing and less dust and repeated 

transport of loads of gravel for the roadway). Alternatives 2 and 3 would have major long-term benefits 

on water quality because of the Land Protection Plan revision and relocation of the maintenance area. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 provide only the benefit of the maintenance area relocation. 

Alternatives 1 - 4 would have moderate to major beneficial impacts from moving the maintenance area 

out of the floodplain / channel migration zone. Alternatives 2 - 4 would have moderate to major 

beneficial effects from Land Protection Plan actions. All alternatives (1 - 4) would have short-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts from construction, with increasing impacts in Alternatives 2, 3 

and 4 from construction of barbs and logjams. Alternatives 1 and 4 would also have potential long-term 

moderate to major localized adverse effects from adding fill in McGregor Meadows if it was eroded 

during future flooding. 

Because there would be no significant adverse impacts to water quality or water quality values, there 

would be no impairment of water quality or its values under Alternatives 1 - 4. 

7. WETLANDS IMPACTS 

a. Wetlands Methodology 

This analysis considers whether proposed actions would breach applicable federal laws, regulations, or 

executive orders. For the action alternatives, in addition to overall qualitative analysis of impacts to 

wetlands, quantitative analysis was conducted by determining the acreage of wetlands affected by each 

alternative. This analysis relies on the more liberal Cowardin system of wetland classification used by the 

NPS. Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection (NPS 2002a) requires that the NPS use the 

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979) as the 

standard for defining, classifying, and inventorying wetlands. This system generally requires that a 

positive indicator of wetlands be present for only one of the indicators (vegetation, soils, or hydrology) 

rather than for all three parameters as mandated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the CWA. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands based on the 

criteria established by the ACOE and EPA (under the CWA) will be made later to obtain necessary 

permits. 
7. Wetlands Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 307 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts would degrade the size, integrity, or connectivity of wetlands. 

Beneficial impacts would enlarge the size or enhance the integrity and connectivity of wetlands. 

Intensity of Impact: Three primary measures were used to evaluate the intensity of impacts on wetlands: 

the size and type of the wetland, the integrity of the wetland, and the connectivity of the wetland to 

adjacent habitats. 

 Negligible impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. 

 Minor impacts would be slightly detectable, localized within a small area, and would not affect 

the overall viability of wetlands in the recreation area. 

 Moderate impacts would be apparent and would have the potential to become major impacts if 

they persisted. 

 Major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and permanent.

b. Wetlands Impacts 

Impacts of Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Wetlands are identified by wet soil characteristics, wetland-dependent vegetation, and/or the presence of 

water. Wetlands, which overlap with riparian areas, covered approximately 444 acres within Lake Chelan 

NRA in 1995. Wetlands are classified as palustrine (forested or scrub/shrub), riverine (open water or 

unconsolidated shore), and lacustrine (open water). Actions under the alternatives that occur in or near 

water would affect wetlands. 

With many of the proposed actions, there would be short-term localized negligible to minor adverse 

effects on wetlands during construction and long-term negligible to moderate or major beneficial effects 

once implementation is complete. These impacts would be associated with specific areas and are 

described below, but would generally include adverse impacts from excavation for culverts and 

installation of erosion protection measures, and beneficial impacts from riparian restoration. 

Maintenance and Housing Replacement and Relocation: Removal of the maintenance facility and 

three houses from the floodplain near Harlequin Bridge would have long-term localized moderate to 

major beneficial effects on wetlands in the vicinity of the maintenance area. The parking areas, road 

surfaces, fuel storage, and septic systems would be relocated from their current location, adjacent to a 

wetland, to an upland area that would not affect wetlands. 

Road Rehabilitation 

Culverts: For the rehabilitation of the Stehekin Valley Road between Harlequin Bridge and the beginning 

of the proposed reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3), which would be common to all alternatives, 

rehabilitation/reroute actions would include ditch relief culverts (spaced approximately every 500 feet on 

the existing road and every 300 - 350 feet on the reroute) as well as culverts for perennial or intermittent 

streams. Actions affecting existing culverts would include replacing or extending them. Excavation near 

the exposed ends of the culverts for rip-rap rundowns and ongoing maintenance could affect palustrine 

forested wetlands where these were located at perennial or intermittent drainages (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

Approximately seven perennial or intermittent drainages occur in the project area along the proposed 

reroute. Except for Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek), Milepost 8.5, Milepost 9.2, and Thimbleberry Creek, 

most culverts are or would be designed for snowmelt rather than for intermittent or perennial streams. 

Actions associated with culverts would have short-term minor adverse effects from construction, coupled 

with long-term negligible adverse effects from periodically cleaning out the culverts to maintain them. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

308 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Ongoing repair of flood damage on the road would have minor long-term adverse impacts from 

introducing gravel into the river and adjacent wetlands. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Approximately 1.5 acres of palustrine forested wetland in the former 

maintenance area would be restored after the removal of the maintenance functions, a localized long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effect from increasing wetland acreage and function near the Stehekin River. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: Retaining the road in its current alignment and raising it through McGregor 

Meadows would result in fewer opportunities for the river to create new wetlands and replenish existing 

ones in its channel migration zone, including natural palustrine forested and scrub-shrub wetlands in old 

flood channels in McGregor Meadows and in the Company Creek area. As a result, there would continue 

to be long-term localized moderate adverse impacts on wetlands at this location. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Erosion Protection Measures: There would be minor to moderate adverse and beneficial impacts from 

implementing erosion protection measures (Table IV-15: Impacts to Wetlands). Some of the affected 

areas are riverine wetlands, including Frog Island and Boulder Creek. Stehekin River mouth and Wilson 

Creek sites, where steep river cut-banks intersect upland forest, have no riparian zone. Adverse effects 

from initial construction of the barbs and logjams would be minimized over time by restoration and 

bioengineering associated with barbs and would result in short-term localized minor adverse impacts 

where located at the edge of the channel migration zone (three sites), and moderate adverse effects where 

located within the channel migration zone (one site). 

Large Woody Debris: Collection of large woody debris would affect some riverine wetland (riparian) 

areas adjacent to the Stehekin River through compaction and potential vegetation disturbance and 

sedimentation when logs are obtained from the tops of logjams below Boulder Creek. Depending on the 

type of equipment used, success of mitigation measures, and the site, effects would be short term and 

negligible to minor. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Riparian restoration would occur along the Stehekin River at two 

locations that have been previously disturbed by human activities. At Buckner Homestead hayfield and 

pasture, a riparian area was converted to pasture and has recently been subjected to rapid erosion due to 

lack of native vegetation and sandy soils along the bank of the river. At Lower Field, native vegetation 

was removed and bank erosion is also proceeding at an unnaturally high rate. Riparian restoration 

associated with dense dogwood and willow plantings at Weaver Point, Frog Island, and the Stehekin 

River mouth would also have minor beneficial effects. Riparian restoration at Buckner Homestead 

hayfield and pasture and the Lower Field would have moderate beneficial effects. Not raising the road 

through McGregor Meadows would also allow old flood channels to be reoccupied. This would result in 

localized long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects on riverine wetlands, particularly at McGregor 

Meadows and Milepost 7.0. 

Road Reroutes / Priorities for Land Acquisition and Exchange: With the road reroute around 

McGregor Meadows and Lower Field, combined with the modified priorities for acquisition and 

exchange focusing on removing development from the floodplain and channel migration zone, there 

would be long-term beneficial impacts. These benefits would be associated with restoring natural river 

processes that allow the river to flood this area, renewing wetland areas. Approximately 1.5 acres of old 

road would be restored in the channel migration zone. At Milepost 7.0, the road currently cuts through a 
7. Wetlands Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 309 

riparian wetland, and removal of the road fill would allow the wetland to function naturally. These actions 

would result in localized long-term negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on wetlands. 

Table IV-15: Impacts to Wetlands 

Site Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Culvert installation 

perennial and 

intermittent creeks

Two 60 inch 

culverts (Wilson 

Creek)

Two 30 inch 

culverts (Milepost

8.5)

Same as Alternative 1 

plus

seven 60 inch culverts for 

reroute

One 72-inch culvert and 

two 36-inch culverts

Low-water crossing 

(Milepost 8.5)

Low-water crossing 

(Milepost 9.2)

Same as Alternative

2

Same as Alternative 1

Wilson Creek Log-cribbing 0.21

acres

Rock barbs (see below) Logjam (see below) Rock barbs (see 

below)

McGregor 

Meadows Grade 

Raise

0.2 acres N/A N/A 0.2 acres

Milepost 8.5 culvert 0.02 acres 0.02 acres 0.02 acres 0.02 acres

Barbs / Logjams 

(adverse)

0 6 - 8 barbs

0.45 - 0.59 acres

Barbs

0.21 River mouth 

0.07 - 0.14 Frog Island 

0.14 - 0.21 Wilson Creek 

Logjams

0.01 River mouth

0.02 Boulder Creek

4 barbs

0.58 acres

Barbs

0.14 Weaver Point

0.14 Lower Field

Logjams

0.02 Weaver Point

0.17 River mouth

0.02 Boulder Creek

0.03 Frog Island

0.06 Wilson Creek

16 - 17 barbs

1.17 - 1.24 acres

Barbs

0.14 Weaver Point 

0.21 River mouth 

0.07 - 0.14 Frog Island 

0.21 Wilson Creek

0.14 Lower Field 

0.14 Milepost 7.0 

0.21 Milepost 9.2 

Logjams

0.02 Weaver Point

0.01 River mouth

0.02 Boulder Creek

Total Adverse 0.43 acres 0.5 acres 0.6 acres 1.4 acres

Bioengineering 

Barbs and Logjams 

(beneficial)

0 0.5 acres 0.6 acres 1.17 - 1.31 acres

Riparian 

Restoration 

(beneficial)

1.5 acres

Restoration

Maintenance 

area: 1.5 acres

4.1 acres

Restoration 

Maintenance area: 1.5 

acres

Road reroute 1.46 acres

River mouth: 0.07 acres

Wilson Creek: 0.21 acres

Buckner: 0.34 acres

Lower Field:0.36 acres

Frog Island:0.21 acres

3.9 acres

Restoration 

Same as Alternative

2 except:

Road reroute: 1.0

acres

Weaver Point: 0.18 

acres

2.9 acres

Restoration 

Same as Alternative 2 

except for road reroute

Total Beneficial 

(Bioengineering 

plus Restoration)

1.5 acres 4.6 acres 4.5 acres 4.1 acres
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

310 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Erosion Protection Measures: Adverse and beneficial effects are shown in Table IV-15: Impacts to 

Wetlands. Impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, with additional impacts from the barbs at Lower 

Field, plus logjams instead of barbs in some locations. As in Alternative 2, adverse effects would occur 

from initial construction of the barbs and logjams but would be minimized over time by restoration and 

bioengineering. At these sites, short-term localized minor adverse effects would occur where actions are 

located at the edge of the channel migration zone (five sites), and moderate adverse effects where located 

within the channel migration zone (two sites). Long-term minor beneficial effects would occur at all six 

sites as a result of bioengineering. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Actions and impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2, 

but there would be fewer acres restored (due to the shorter reroute) and ongoing impacts from location of 

the road next to the Lower Field. This would result in short-term negligible adverse effects from planting 

and other actions, coupled with long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects. 

Large Woody Debris: Actions and impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2.

Road Reroutes / Priorities for Land Acquisition and Exchange: Actions and impacts would be similar 

to Alternative 2; however, because the reroute would be shorter, there would be less opportunity for the 

river adjacent to the Lower Field to migrate into its channel migration zone. Therefore, in Alternative 3 

because of the reroute, there would be a slight decrease in available area for the river to create wetlands, a 

minor adverse effect. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Road Grade Raise / Land Protection Plan: Actions and impacts would be similar to those described in 

Alternative 1; however, there would be additional opportunities to allow the river to migrate within its 

channel migration zone associated with new priorities for land acquisition and exchange, particularly near 

McGregor Meadows. This alternative would therefore have a minor to moderate beneficial effects not 

part of Alternative 1.

Erosion Protection Measures: Effects would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, with minor beneficial 

and minor to moderate effects, but more moderate adverse effects would occur from placement of more 

structures. This alternative would have four new measures in the channel migration zone and five outside 

it.

Large Woody Debris: Actions and impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2 except that 

because large woody debris would be procured from a larger area below Bullion Raft Launch to Lake 

Chelan, there would be additional localized short-term minor adverse effects. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Actions and impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2, 

except that there would be no reroute therefore, fewer riparian areas (not including bioengineering) would 

be restored. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

See ―Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts‖ in ―b. Hydraulics and Streamflow 

Characteristics Impacts.‖
7. Wetlands Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 311 

Cumulative Impacts: Of the approximately 2,300 acres in the lower Stehekin Valley affected by human 

activities, an estimated 188 acres of riparian areas (of the 283 acres of development) have been affected 

by development. This development in riparian areas (riverine wetlands) includes roads, houses, 

campgrounds, trails, and administrative facilities. Overall, the alternatives would contribute localized 

long-term negligible to major beneficial effects from the removal of the road, maintenance area, and 

housing from the floodplain. Negligible to moderate adverse effects on wetlands would occur during 

installation of erosion protection measures. Alternative 1 would contribute both fewer beneficial and more 

adverse impacts. Alternative 4 would contribute slightly more beneficial impacts from restoration, 

bioengineering, and potential acquisition of lands within the channel migration zone than Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have similar beneficial and adverse effects, although Alternative 2 would 

contribute slightly fewer adverse effects due to the longer reroute. Because all alternatives would include 

wetland restoration at the maintenance area and would not include additional development of wetlands 

(with the exception of barbs) their contribution to cumulative impacts on wetlands would be small in 

comparison to the number of acres where development currently exists and affects riverine wetlands / 

riparian areas in the Stehekin Valley.

Actions proposed within the GMP and by other plans, including the Lake Chelan hydropower relicensing 

EIS, would result in additional long-term beneficial effects and would not contribute to increased 

degradation of existing wetlands. For example, the GMP called for approximately 26 acres of habitat in or 

near wetlands to be restored where possible and another 63 to be protected by acquiring interests. The 

acquisition of wetlands would continue to be a high priority based on the LPP revision in Alternatives 2 - 

4.

Conclusion: Overall, impacts from rehabilitation of old and installation of new culverts would be similar 

across the alternatives, with most impacts being short term, localized, and related to construction. In 

Alternatives 1 and 4, where the river would be more confined, it would move at higher velocities through 

constricted areas, indirectly resulting in less potential creation and nourishment of wetlands from 

floodwaters reoccupying the floodplain and the river cutting new channels. In contrast, Alternatives 2 and 

3 would allow for some potential expansion of wetland areas as the river continues to migrate within its 

floodplain in areas where the road was rerouted or in areas where lands were acquired. 

Alternative 1: In Alternative 1, there would be the potential for additional loss of portions of the road and 

long-term localized moderate adverse impacts to wetlands from trying to maintain the road in its current 

alignment in McGregor Meadows. Actions at Wilson Creek would have long-term minor adverse effects 

on wetlands from installation of log-cribbing along the riverbank. Bioengineering and slope stabilization 

at Wilson Creek would also have long-term minor beneficial effects. Culvert replacement at Milepost 8.5 

would have short-term negligible to minor impacts. Because less than 1 acre of wetlands would be 

affected and restoration would comprise an area greater than the area impacted (in the same vicinity and 

elsewhere), no wetlands statement of findings would be required. 

Alternative 2: In comparison, Alternative 2 would result in similar short-term minor adverse impacts from 

installation of more culverts coupled with more (negligible to moderate or major) localized beneficial 

effects from additional restoration of riparian areas, removal of the road, and acquisition of property in the 

floodplain / channel migration zone. Because less than 1 acre of wetlands would be affected and 

restoration would comprise an area greater than the area impacted (in the same vicinity and elsewhere), 

no wetlands statement of findings would be required. 

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 would have very similar effects on wetlands with the same riparian 

restoration impacts (negligible to moderate or major) from Alternative 2, and additional negligible 

beneficial impacts from additional bioengineering, coupled with minor adverse impacts from the 

construction of barbs or logjams in two more locations. Because less than one acre of wetlands would be 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

312 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

affected and restoration would comprise an area greater than the area impacted (in the same vicinity and 

elsewhere), no wetlands statement of findings would be required. 

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 would result in the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives 2 and 3, but would 

have additional adverse impacts from trying to maintain the Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment 

in McGregor Meadows. Similar to Alternative 1, impacts would range from negligible to moderate. 

Because potential riverine wetland impacts would occur over an area greater than one acre, a wetlands 

statement of findings would be required, but adequate mitigation would be in place from the associated 

bioengineering and riparian restoration. 

Because there would be no widespread major adverse impacts on wetlands there would be no impairment 

of park resources or values from the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4.

8. FLOODPLAINS IMPACTS 

a. Floodplains Methodology 

A draft floodplains statement of findings has been included as Appendix 17 to analyze the impacts from 

installation of additional erosion protection measures, from changing policy associated with large woody 

debris, and from occupation of high-flood-hazard areas on debris cones. 

The impact analysis for floodplains was conducted based on site visits, analysis of Geographic 

Information System data layers of the floodplain landforms and side channels of the Stehekin River, a 

1993 floodplain study (NPS 1993), a statement of findings for the Stehekin floodplain prepared by NPS 

staff (Riedel 2004), personal observations by NPS staff, and professional judgment.

Type of Impact: The removal of roads or structures from the 100- or 500-year floodplain would be 

considered a beneficial impact to human life or property and to natural floodplain values and functions. 

Development of new facilities in the 100- or 500-year floodplain would be considered an adverse impact 

to floodplain values. Class I actions include administrative, residential, warehouse, and maintenance 

buildings and overnight parking facilities. NPS policy is not to have these facilities in the 100 year 

floodplain. Class II actions include schools, hospitals, fuel-storage facilities, and emergency services. 

Based on the NPS Floodplain Management Guideline class II actions be should be located out of the 500-

year floodplain. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: There would be no ongoing impacts or change in floodplain values and function. The 

alternative would not contribute to increased severity or duration of flooding. 

 Minor: Ongoing impacts or changes in floodplain values and functions, as described above, 

would be barely measurable and local. The alternative would not contribute to the severity and/or 

duration of flooding, and most new erosion protection measures would be on the edge of the 

channel migration zone, where they would not limit channel migration (the area within which the 

Stehekin River has migrated during the past 1,000 years). 

 Moderate: Ongoing impacts or changes in floodplain values and functions would be measurable 

and local. The alternative would contribute to the severity or duration of flooding. New erosion 

protection structures may be within the channel migration zone, where they would limit channel 

movement and creation or recharge of floodplains. 
8. Floodplains Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 313 

 Major: There would be ongoing impacts or changes in floodplain values and functions that 

would be measurable and widespread. The alternative would contribute to the severity or duration 

of flooding. New erosion protection measures may be within the channel migration zone on low 

banks. 

b. Floodplains Impacts 

Impacts of Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Ongoing Impacts: The Stehekin Valley Road is within the 100-year and 500-year floodplain and/or the 

channel migration zone (extreme floodplain) in two main locations, McGregor Meadows for 

approximately 1 mile and from the Bakery to Lake Chelan (see Figure III-3: Lower Stehekin Valley 

Landforms below Harlequin Bridge). Most of the Company Creek Road near Harlequin Bridge and above 

Company Creek is also within the 100-year floodplain. Both of these roads would continue to have longterm moderate to major adverse effects on floodplain values and functions, with effects in Alternatives 2 

and 3 from continued maintenance of the McGregor Meadows Access Road, rather than the Stehekin 

Valley Road, and effects in Alternatives 1 and 4 from retention of the road in its current alignment. 

Numerous private homes and some administrative facilities are also located both within the 100-year 

floodplain and within the channel migration zone. Bank erosion, sediment, and large woody debris 

deposition during big floods have caused changes in the Stehekin River floodplain boundaries over time. 

Future floods are expected to continue to alter floodplain boundaries and to create conflicts with public 

and private development, particularly in developed deposition zones McGregor Meadows and the 

Stehekin River mouth (Figure I-4). Administrative facilities that would continue to remain within 

floodplains or the channel migration zone would include recreational facilities such as campgrounds and 

trails, actions that are excluded from compliance with the Floodplain Management Guideline. The 

presence of these facilities within the floodplain would continue to have negligible to minor adverse 

effects.

Under all alternatives, the Stehekin Valley Road would continue to remain adjacent to the floodplain 

and/or channel migration zone where reroutes cannot be undertaken, including at Mileposts 3.8 (Frog 

Island), 5.3 (Wilson Creek), and 8.0, a long-term minor to moderate adverse effect on floodplains because 

these areas are on the edge of the channel migration zone, the barbs or logjams, and do not raise flood 

elevations. Relocating maintenance and housing facilities would remove most park facilities from the 

regulatory floodplain, a long-term major beneficial effect. 

In all alternatives floodwaters would be able to overtop riverbanks, a minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial effect, except in the vicinity of the existing 400-foot-long Company Creek levee. The current 

height of the levee along the Company Creek Road is four to six feet above the road. The levee continues 

to take pressure off the lower section of the upper Company Creek Road by keeping floodwater from a 

small part of the floodplain and has a minor long-term impact on the floodplain in this area. The primary 

area where past road-protection actions have restricted the river is along the right bank of the river 

adjacent to the upper Company Creek Road, where 11 rock barbs have been installed since 1995. These 

structures restrict the river from about a third of the channel migration zone (see Table IV-12: Lower 

Stehekin Shoreline Affected by Erosion Protection or Flood Control Structures). There would continue to 

be a long-term moderate to major adverse effect in this reach. In addition, about 400 linear feet of rip-rap 

on the left bank near the river mouth, installed between 1960 and 1983 to protect private development, is 

within the channel migration zone and continues to have a moderate long-term adverse impact on 

floodplains. Most other reaches of the river are unaltered, allowing the river to utilize its floodplain and to 

store water gravel and large wood. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

314 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Erosion Protection Measures: Existing rock barbs and other structures would continue to restrict the 

river from some parts of the channel migration zone but would not raise floodwater elevation, because 

they are designed to be overtopped during high flows. Therefore, these erosion protection measures would 

have a negligible to minor short-term adverse effect on flood elevation and a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse effect on channel migration, depending on how long they last and whether they are within gravel 

deposition or channel migration zones. 

Maintenance Facility Replacement and Relocation: Because the maintenance facility has remained

within the regulatory100-year floodplain and fuel storage within the 500-year regulatory floodplain, the 

maintenance area has continued to have localized moderate to major adverse effects on the Stehekin River 

floodplain. Replacement and relocation of the facilities from this 5-acre site would result in long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effects from the restoration of a large area in the floodplain and reduced 

potential for adverse effects from pollution from fuel storage, vehicles, and other maintenance area 

objects and functions. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: Retention of the Stehekin Valley Road through McGregor Meadows would continue 

to result in the road restricting the flow of water into the floodplain. Floodwater typically overtops the 

road by 1 - 3 feet. The elevated roadbed would likely affect river meandering and floodwater elevation 

over a wide area in McGregor Meadows. Localized moderate to major adverse impacts in the floodplain 

would result from placement of 5,600 cubic yards of fill to elevate the roadbed within the 100-year 

floodplain and the channel migration zone. Effects could include loss of this fill during future flooding. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Road Reroute: Rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road around the floodplain in McGregor Meadows and 

the Lower Field would have long-term moderate to major beneficial effects on the floodplain from 

restoring natural hydrologic and ecological processes. Benefits would be provided by slightly increasing 

the flood storage capacity of the floodplain, reducing the potential for erosion of the road, allowing the 

river more room to meander in these areas over time, and reducing the potential to restrict or channel 

flood flows. Retaining the McGregor Meadows Access Road, however, would contribute some localized 

long-term minor to moderate adverse effects. Keeping the road at grade over the short term and 

acquisition of private properties over the long term would reduce this impact. 

Erosion Protection Measures: In Alternative 2, new erosion protection measures would be installed at 

three sites: near the river mouth, at Frog Island, and at Wilson Creek. Impacts to floodplains at Frog 

Island, Boulder Creek, and Wilson Creek would be minor because they are located at the edge of the 

channel migration zone. Adverse impacts to floodplains at the river mouth bank stabilization site would 

be moderate and long term because it is located within the channel migration zone. There would also be 

long-term minor to moderate adverse effects from creating the access road to the raft takeout site near the 

river mouth. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Restoration of riparian vegetation at Lower Field and Buckner 

Homestead lower hayfield and pasture would restore natural floodplain function by reestablishing a 

riparian buffer zone of native forest vegetation where none currently exists. This would have long-term 

minor beneficial effects on the floodplain / channel migration zone in the general vicinity of these areas, 

which would likely increase as the vegetation matured and bank erosion slowed. 

Removal of Flood-Affected Structures: Demolition and removal of flood-affected structures from the 

floodplain, including septic tanks and drain fields, would result in localized long-term moderate to major 
8. Floodplains Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 315 

beneficial effects. These developments continue to be long-term threats to the integrity of the Stehekin 

River floodplain, water quality, and other floodplain values. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: With the modified priorities for acquisition and exchange focusing 

on removing development from not only the 100-year floodplain, but also the channel migration zone of 

the Stehekin River, there would be long-term moderate to major beneficial effects on floodplains and/or 

the channel migration zone, depending on which properties were acquired or exchanged, how long it took, 

and whether these contained development within the floodplain or channel migration zone. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Actions would be similar and impacts would be the same as described in Alternative 2 for restoration and 

bioengineering, removal of flood-affected structures, and LPP modifications. 

Road Reroute: Rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road around McGregor Meadows would have long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects on the floodplain; however, these would be fewer in Alternative 3 

than in Alternative 2 because more of the road (approximately 1.2 acres) would remain within the channel 

migration zone. Less of the roadway would also be restored within the floodplain / channel migration 

zone, compared to Alternative 2. As in Alternative 2, retaining the McGregor Meadows Access Road 

would continue to contribute some long-term minor to moderate adverse effects, depending on river 

changes and the frequency and severity of floods. A portion of the road reroute would remain within the 

channel migration zone would be where it connects to the existing road within the Lower Field. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Actions and impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, with logjams 

instead of barbs constructed at most locations, plus two additional barbs at the Lower Field and barbs and 

a logjam at Weaver Point. Because three of the sites are in the channel migration zone, there would be 

additional long-term minor to moderate adverse effects on floodplains from their construction, 

particularly at the river mouth. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

All alternatives would continue to have moderate to major adverse effects from retaining parts of the 

Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Actions and impacts would be similar to Alternative 3, with barbs 

constructed at all locations, plus two near Milepost 7.0 and three near Milepost 9.2. Because both new 

locations are at high banks in the channel migration zone, there would be additional long-term minor to 

moderate adverse effects on floodplains from their construction. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: As in Alternatives 2 and 3, the modified priorities for acquisition 

and exchange would focus on protection of key resources, although to a lesser extent regarding removing 

development from the floodplain and channel migration zone. These actions would contribute minor to 

moderate beneficial effects on floodplains, depending on which properties were acquired or exchanged 

and how long it took. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

See ―Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts‖ in ―b. Hydraulics and Streamflow 

Characteristics Impacts.‖
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

316 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Cumulative Impacts: Past transportation development, erosion protection and flood-control projects 

have had minor to moderate adverse effects on how water spreads across the floodplain and how water is 

conveyed downstream. These projects have also affected the ability of the floodplain to store water and to 

flush wetlands and side channels. Past actions included construction of the Stehekin Valley Road, the 

Company Creek Road and levee, and Harlequin Bridge; the placement of fill at various locations in the 

floodplain; and channelization of the Stehekin River with bank hardening that changed the natural 

evolution of the floodplain. The levee and maintenance of the Company Creek Road have resulted in the 

construction of log-cribbing, 11 rock barbs, and several grade-control structures in an effort to keep the 

river from destroying the road. These features have reduced the beneficial processes of off-channel 

flooding and channel migration, wetland formation, sediment and woody debris transport, and formation / 

renewal of plant and animal habitats in the riparian zone. In the McGregor Meadows reach, these actions 

have had a moderate to major long-term impact on floodplains. 

The placement of fill within a floodplain blocks the flow of floodwaters until they rise to overtop it. 

Where vegetation is removed and the road is within the floodplain, the road has often served as a conduit 

for floodwaters, which have removed road fill during floods. Where the road remains in the floodplain, 

there is the potential for the river to create a new channel along or down the road. 

Under the proposed plan, large parts of the Stehekin River floodplain would remain in a natural state. 

This includes most areas above McGregor Meadows and most of the right bank below Harlequin Bridge. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute additional moderate adverse cumulative effects from the placement 

of additional fill within the floodplain to raise the section of roadway through McGregor Meadows. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would not place additional fill in this area, but would retain a portion of Stehekin 

Valley Road in the floodplain, contributing some continued minor adverse effects. Maintenance of the 

grade-control structure at Milepost 6.8, at the north end of McGregor Meadows, would also impede 

channel migration (avulsion) into a portion of McGregor Meadows. At the same time, there would be a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial effect from the reroute(s). There would be an additional 

contribution of localized minor to moderate adverse effects from all alternatives from the placement of 

barbs within the Stehekin River channel / floodplain where the road either cannot be moved (Alternatives 

1 and 4) or where reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3) are not possible. Long-term moderate to major 

beneficial effects would be contributed in Alternatives 2 and 3 from the changed priorities for land 

acquisition and exchange that could allow for removal of more development from the channel migration 

zone. All action Alternatives (2 - 4) would move toward less development within the floodplain, a longterm minor to major beneficial effect, depending on the alternative. 

Conclusion: All alternatives would continue to have moderate to major adverse effects from retaining 

parts of the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Road. The combined effects of the actions in 

Alternative 1 would result in a series of localized long-term negligible to major adverse effects from 

several actions. These include retaining the road, levee, and existing and additional erosion protection 

measures. In addition, there would be long-term localized major beneficial effects from the replacement 

and relocation and restoration of the maintenance facilities and housing outside the floodplain and the 

channel migration zone. 

Alternative 2 would result in similar negligible to moderate adverse effects from additional erosion 

protection measures and from maintaining the McGregor Meadows Access Road, while it would have 

more long-term moderate to major beneficial effects from the road reroute, restoration, and LPP priority 

changes that could lead to removal of structures and septic systems from the floodplain. There would be 

improvements to floodplain function from restoration of the former maintenance area, road reroute 

(McGregor Meadows and Lower Field), riparian restoration, and bioengineering. 
9. Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 317 

Alternative 3 would have effects similar to Alternative 2, including a range of negligible to moderate 

adverse and beneficial impacts from many of the same actions. In Alternative 3, however, these would 

include fewer beneficial effects from the shorter reroute and from the implementation of additional 

erosion protection measures in areas where the road is within the floodplain / channel migration zone, 

such as at Weaver Point and the Lower Field. As in Alternative 2, there would be improvements primarily 

within the floodplain from removal of the maintenance area, road reroute (Lower Field), riparian 

restoration, and bioengineering. 

Alternative 4 would retain the Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment, a long-term moderate to 

major adverse effect on floodplains. These impacts would be combined with the erosion protection and 

restoration measures in Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in some long-term negligible to moderate 

beneficial effects. While overall adverse effects would be less than in Alternative 1, they would be greater 

than in Alternatives 2 and 3, primarily as a result of installing 16 - 17 new rock barbs to retain the road in 

its current location and because of different LPP priorities. There would be moderate beneficial impacts 

within the floodplain from the replacement and relocation of the maintenance facility, riparian restoration, 

and bioengineering. 

Because there would be no widespread major adverse impacts on floodplains, there would be no 

impairment of park resources or values. 

9. WILDLIFE IMPACTS 

Impacts on wildlife are assessed in terms of changes in the amount and distribution of wildlife habitat, the 

size and connectivity of habitat, the integrity of the site (including past disturbance), the potential for 

habituation of wildlife to humans, and the relative importance of habitats. 

a. Wildlife Methodology 

Habitat types were based on the Tanimoto vegetation classification (Tanimoto 1991), the Washington 

State Gap Analysis for vertebrate animals, Kuntz and Glesne (1993), the Chelan PUD Lake Chelan 

vertebrate inventory (Chelan PUD 2002), the North Cascades National Park Service Complex Wildlife 

Database, and best professional knowledge. 

Wildlife analysis was based on a qualitative assessment of wildlife that could occur in the project area and 

the effects anticipated as a result of ongoing activities, new activities, and rehabilitation, and/or 

construction. Actions were also assessed as to their potential for causing human/wildlife conflicts 

resulting from increased recreation disturbance in sensitive habitats and the introduction of unnatural food 

sources. Recreational impacts can result in changes in animal behavior, increased mortality, and altered 

habitat use. 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts would reduce the size, continuity, or diminish the quality or integrity 

of wildlife habitat, or result in unnatural changes in the abundance, diversity, or distribution of wildlife 

species. Adverse impacts also include those that directly remove, relocate, or affect wildlife or wildlife 

habitat or that indirectly affect wildlife or wildlife habitat through increased disturbance. Disturbance, 

including noise, can adversely affect wildlife foraging, mating, and nesting behavior. Construction 

activity can also directly interfere with normal animal movement patterns. Beneficial impacts would 

result from restoration of wildlife habitat (size, continuity, or integrity). 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

318 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Intensity

 Negligible: These impacts would not be measurable or perceptible. 

 Minor impacts would be measurable or perceptible and would be localized within a relatively 

small area; however, the overall viability of wildlife would not be affected. Without further 

impacts wildlife populations or species would recover. 

 Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a change in the abundance, distribution, quantity, 

or quality of wildlife or wildlife habitat; however, the impact would remain localized. The change 

would be measurable and perceptible. 

 Major: These Impacts would be substantial and highly noticeable, and could cause widespread 

changes in species or populations. 

b. Wildlife Impacts 

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives (1 - 4)

The following general impacts (noise and activity during construction, habitat modification, sediment and 

fill and other impacts) would occur under all alternatives (differences are noted). 

General Impacts 

Noise and Activity during Construction: Above ambient noise and activity would occur during project 

implementation. Road rehabilitation (Alternatives 1 - 4) and reroute construction (Alternatives 2 and 3) 

would coincide with the peak visitor use season, when some of the heaviest visitor use and traffic occurs. 

The noise and activity associated with the construction would be in addition to the noise and disruption of 

wildlife caused by visitor use. Because construction noise and activity would be concentrated in various 

locations throughout the visitor use season, wildlife, particularly medium and large mammals, would tend 

to avoid construction areas during daylight hours when project work was occurring. In the evening and on 

weekends when work would generally cease, wildlife would be expected to return to the project areas. 

Some species, such as birds, deer, and squirrels, might also be seen throughout the day. Road 

rehabilitation impacts would be localized alongside an already highly modified road corridor whereas 

reroute construction would occur in an area once disturbed by a wagon road and would have greater 

impacts on disturbing wildlife unused to noise and activity from visitors or construction. Because a great 

deal of suitable habitat for wildlife would continue to be present in the vicinity, most wildlife disturbance 

impacts would be short term, localized, and negligible to minor in the context of the lower valley.

Habitat Modification: Staging of machinery and construction materials would cause some vegetation to 

be removed, trampled, or run over. These activities would affect wildlife habitat until the areas were 

restored. Excavation needed to repair various portions of the road would likely result in disturbance and 

mortality of some small mammals and invertebrates. Habitat modification due to vegetation removal 

varies under all alternatives but would preclude short- and long-term return to the former level of use by 

some species of wildlife. Perching birds, in particular, use trees and shrubs for roosting, nesting, and food 

or to forage for food. Therefore, habitat loss would have long-term localized minor to moderate effects 

from incremental loss of trees and associated habitat that may have been used for perching, nesting, or 

procurement of food for a variety of species. Over time, restoration of habitat along the former road in the 

floodplain could offset some of these impacts. 

Vehicle Travel: In addition, there would continue to be vehicle-wildlife collisions on the road as a result 

of normal use. Vehicle travel speed varies by season and road area. Minor alignment changes would not 

be expected to result in faster speeds. If faster speeds do occur, there would be greater potential for 
9. Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 319 

vehicle-wildlife collisions, resulting in a minor long-term adverse effect on wildlife use in the project 

areas. 

Sediment and Fill: Road work in some areas also has the potential to cause sedimentation in adjacent or 

nearby aquatic habitat, should BMPs fail. Sedimentation can have negative consequences on fish and 

amphibian species occurring in, and downstream of, areas where sedimentation occurs. Because sediment 

barriers would be used and would remain in place during rehabilitation / restoration, however, impacts to 

wildlife from these measures would be minor and short term, having no lasting effects beyond 

construction. The importation of fill materials, including topsoil, combined with compaction from 

construction equipment has the potential to change the soil’s physical and chemical composition and 

therefore its viability for some organisms, a minor impact because of the coarse nature of most valley 

soils. 

Restoration: Restoration of the former maintenance area would have a long-term negligible to moderate 

localized beneficial impact in increasing native plant cover and decreasing invasive nonnative plant 

abundance, improving wetland and edge habitat for a wide-range of local wildlife species. 

Other Impacts from Construction: The following additional impacts from construction would also affect 

wildlife: 

 Dust and light emanating from construction sites would affect the use of surrounding habitats by 

wildlife. 

 Diversion of water flows during construction would result in unnatural drying or wetting of 

habitats adjacent to sites. 

 Wildlife could be killed by traffic or machinery associated with construction. 

 Pits and trenches could entrap and potentially kill wildlife. 

 Although mitigation measures would be used, there is a slight possibility that inadvertent spills of 

fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, and other toxic chemicals could affect wildlife, especially 

where spills were large or unmitigated or where they reached surface water. 

 Construction personnel at recreation area residences or at work sites could provide a source of 

human food to wildlife, resulting in habituation of wildlife and in human/wildlife conflicts that 

adherence to mitigation measures would prevent. 

Combined, these would result in short- and long-term negligible to moderate localized impacts on wildlife 

in the construction area that would be diminished by mitigation measures. 

Maintenance Facility and Housing Replacement and Relocation: Construction would result in longterm loss of habitat for wildlife species, although much of this area near the airstrip has been previously 

disturbed. There would be long-term minor to moderate adverse effects on wildlife, including from 

habitat loss, but also from short-term impacts due to noise and disturbance during construction. 

Road Rehabilitation: Most road rehabilitation actions would result in minimal new disturbance of areas 

outside the existing road surface. In general, these actions would have short-term effects during 

construction from noise and disturbance which would cause wildlife to avoid the area. In some areas, such 

as road pullouts, however, proposed actions would result in long-term effects from the loss of vegetation, 

including wildlife habitat. 

Among the actions in all alternatives which would result in ongoing noise and disturbance to wildlife 

would be road rehabilitation and maintenance and facility maintenance. The road rehabilitation actions 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

320 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

which would remove wildlife habitat would include construction of the new pullouts, new culverts, and 

the winter turnaround, as well as actions at Wilson Creek. Ongoing work to repair the road (including 

crack sealing, asphalt overlays, etc.) would result in periodic noise and human presence that would have 

localized short-term negligible to minor impacts on wildlife presence. 

If a larger flood claimed part of the road and caused the loss of surface and/or subsurface materials, 

wildlife habitat would be altered, water quality in the Stehekin River would be degraded, and longer-term 

noise associated with reconstruction of the roadway would result in short-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on wildlife. 

Surfacing: Road surfacing would minimize sediment runoff from the road, but would also increase 

impervious areas, causing faster runoff. Surfacing would also increase the delivery of contaminants such 

as petroleum products originating from the asphalt, adversely affecting water quality for wildlife. 

Erosion Protection Measures 

Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek): Excavation to lay back the slope and lower the road would have minor 

adverse effects on wildlife from some reduction in habitat. Instream work in Wilson Creek could cause 

potential sedimentation to the creek, and subsequently the Stehekin River downstream of the construction, 

if mitigation measures are unsuccessful. Wilson Creek is an intermittent stream, however, and would 

likely be dry during construction. Additional potential for sedimentation that would affect aquatic wildlife 

would also occur as a result of the lowering of the road surface and its realignment into the new cut. 

These adverse impacts, including noise and disturbance and potential sedimentation, would be short term, 

localized, and minor. 

Recreational Facilities 

Lower Valley Trail: Construction of about half of the trail would result in long-term loss of mostly 

undisturbed habitat for wildlife. However, because the trail would be narrow, impacts would be negligible 

to minor. Localized minor to moderate adverse effects on wildlife would include habitat loss and shortterm impacts due to noise and disturbance during construction. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: Restoration in all alternatives would include approximately 5 acres of 

riparian and upland habitat in the former maintenance area, plus areas of former development associated 

with land purchases and exchanges. Most of these areas are disturbed but could become high-quality 

habitat through restoration. Over time, long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects would occur 

and would increase wildlife habitat. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Road Grade Raise: The road grade raise in McGregor Meadows would potentially cause additional 

sedimentation in the Stehekin River and adjacent wetlands during future flooding from the addition of 

5,600 cubic yards of fill. To some degree, the erosion of this fill would be prevented by its compaction 

and by raising the road in selected areas. If dislodged, sediment from the road would result in short-term 

minor adverse effects on fish and other aquatic species in the Stehekin River, particularly just downstream 

of where the material entered the river. Because most of this material would be imported, there would be 

the potential for long-term minor adverse effects from potential importation of weed seed as well as 

additional minor impacts (noise and activity) from moving this material from Stehekin Landing upvalley 

to McGregor Meadows. Encroachment of the Stehekin River on this low lying section of the road would, 

over the long-term, result in the need for more erosion structures and associated disturbance, a long-term 

moderate adverse impact. 
9. Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 321 

Road Realignment: Construction of the proposed realignment near Milepost 6.0 also has the potential to 

introduce some sediment into the Stehekin River via a small creek within the realignment area. Because 

silt barriers would be used, because this creek flows for about 0.25 mile through a low-gradient meadow 

prior to entering the Stehekin River, and because this stream runs dry for several months in the summer, 

there would be negligible to minor sedimentation impacts. 

Erosion Protection Measures: There would be additional impacts from the placement of rip-rap clusters 

and log-cribbing at the toe of the slope adjacent to the river at Wilson Creek. These structures would 

reduce aquatic habitat and change conditions adjacent to them within the river and alongside the bank, a 

long-term localized moderate adverse effect. 

Large Woody Debris: Continued procurement of large woody debris from the head of Lake Chelan for 

use in erosion protection measures would result in some negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts to 

fish and other aquatic species. 

Implementation of 1995 Land Protection Plan: Continued exchange and acquisition of lands based on 

the priorities of the 1995 LPP would result in the acquisition of lands within the 100-year floodplain of 

the Stehekin River and lands where protection of the scenic qualities along the Stehekin Valley Road 

would be achieved. Removal of structures from flood-affected lands would continue to occur, as would 

removal of structures from lands within the floodplain. These actions would result in some long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial effects on wildlife from protection of additional disturbed habitat that 

would be restored in the riparian zone. Retention of 20 acres at the Lower Field in the lands available for 

exchange could have localized long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts to wildlife. This area of the 

valley is currently undeveloped, and contains valuable habitat for a number of species. As a result, in 

Alternative 1, future revision of the LPP could remove the Lower Field from exchange consideration. 

Adverse effects on wildlife would continue to occur from the development of previously undeveloped 

and/or intact parcels offered for exchange. Depending on the size and features of the parcels, these 

adverse impacts would be negligible to moderate and localized. 

Because the proposed land exchange parcels in the 1995 LPP are over 1 acre (1.33 acres to 7.2 acres) and 

because most of the land associated with the larger parcels would likely remain undeveloped (as a result 

of Chelan County zoning and NPS covenants), development of portions of the 10 - 15 parcels would have 

limited adverse effects on wildlife habitat. These impacts would from conversion of native landscape to 

developed area and from the potential invasion of nonnative species associated with the development. 

Considering these factors and restoration of some developed areas, these impacts would likely remain 

minor to moderate. Specific adverse or beneficial impacts of this plan and its actions, however, are 

currently unknown and would be analyzed as the land exchanges occur. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 2 

Road Reroute: The road reroute would affect approximately 1.9 miles of mostly undisturbed habitat (up 

to 18 acres within an overall disturbance area of 28 acres), including the long-term removal of vegetation 

/ wildlife habitat from the road bed, a long-term localized moderate to major adverse impact. There would 

also be short- to long-term adverse impacts from the loss of habitat in cut and fill areas. Adjacent forest 

would be lost where cuts and fills were constructed, resulting in fewer perches and nest sites for birds and 

less cover for mammals, as well as a change in the microclimate, with fewer trees contributing to changes 

in sunlight and shading, among other impacts. Negligible beneficial effects would result from the creation 

of edge habitat for wildlife. The road would increase the possibility of wildlife mortality along this edge. 

Because the road reroute would result in the removal of vegetation and the conversion of the area from 

native landscape to developed, effects from habitat loss would be long-term and moderate to major. Over 

time, however, it is likely that vegetation would return to many of the cut and fill areas, though not to the 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

322 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

same level, a negligible to minor long-term beneficial effect. Some soil-dwelling organisms would be 

killed during construction, because of the extensive cover of this upland forest habitat, a localized, minor, 

short-term adverse impact. 

Impacts to upland habitat on the reroute would be offset to some degree by removal of 1 mile of road 

from the floodplain in McGregor Meadows. Since the lower valley (and watershed) contain far less 

riparian than upland habitat, the reroute would result in a moderate to major long-term benefit for 

wildlife. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Although the construction of six to eight rock barbs and two logjams 

would result in additional adverse impacts, the barbs would also decrease bank erosion during flooding 

and along the Stehekin River. Construction of the barbs and logjams would include rehabilitating 

riverbanks with bioengineering, contributing long-term, stable vegetation that would eventually spread 

over nearby areas and act as cover overhanging the bank for fish and other aquatic species and increasing 

riverbank cover vegetation for terrestrial species. As riverbank cover increased from bioengineering, 

minor to moderate beneficial effects would occur from shading of aquatic habitat. Pool habitat creation 

(6,000 - 8,000 square feet) from placement of the barbs would add to the diversity of Stehekin River 

habitats. There would be minor effects on gravel recruitment downstream of the barbs; however, eddies 

and pools created by the barbs would enhance local fish habitat for feeding and resting and would provide 

refuges during flooding up to approximately 0.5 acre would be affected by rock barbs and bioengineering, 

and 0.1 acre by logjams, including short-term minor to moderate and long-term minor adverse effects on 

wildlife habitat, (from sedimentation and possible fish passage impacts) and long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial effects from bioengineering. 

Milepost 8.0 Slope Stabilization: There would be negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife from laying back the upper one-fourth to one-third of the slope and rock scaling, from habitat 

changes. Long-term beneficial effects would be contributed from slope stabilization. 

Large Woody Debris: Procurement of large woody debris in the Lake Chelan backwater zone would 

result in some minor short-term adverse impacts from noise and habitat disturbance. Because the 

procurement of the wood below Boulder Creek would be subject to a number of key stipulations, 

including that it be obtained from the tops of logjams well above the ordinary high water mark and in a 

way that did not affect the stability of the logjam, potential adverse effects on aquatic species would be 

minimized. Further, the NPS would control access to these sites, and would not allow disturbance of 

sensitive habitat. Informal surveys would be conducted before pieces were removed to further limit 

adverse impacts. Wood above the ordinary high water mark would be drier than wood below and the 

procurement of a limited number of pieces would have a negligible effect on the recruitment of large 

woody debris within the channel that would be available in the future for wildlife habitat. Based on large 

woody debris surveys over the last 15 years, the presence of wood in the Stehekin River has quadrupled 

since 1982. Most wood was deposited in the 1995, 2003, and 2006 floods. Below Harlequin Bridge the 

dramatic increase could be a return to conditions prior to routine removal of large woody debris by 

settlers and the ACOE for many years or it could be a new occurrence. Minimal use of large woody 

debris, under a set of very specific conditions, would have negligible to minor adverse effects on the 

presence of this key habitat component in the Stehekin River. Use of the large wood instead of imported 

rock in erosion protection designs and restoration of riparian areas would result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on wildlife. 

Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds and Raft Takeout: In addition to the construction of the Lower Valley Trail, there would be 

minor habitat modification from construction of the new campgrounds at Rainbow Falls, new group sites 
9. Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 323 

at Purple Point, a raft takeout, and a new, 300-foot-long access road. This would include changes in noise 

and activity during early morning and late evening hours related to use of the campsites, and changes 

during other times of the day associated with the raft takeout. This disturbance would result in wildlife 

avoidance of campgrounds and the raft takeout during these times. During other times, wildlife may be 

attracted to the smells from food preparation and activity at the sites. Because campers would be required 

to store their food in lockers and would be encouraged to use wildlife-friendly camping practices, the 

effects of campsite use on wildlife would be minimized. Overall effects would be intermittent, localized, 

and negligible to moderate from noise and disturbance and long term with negligible to minor impacts 

from habitat modification. 

Restoration and Bioengineering: In addition to beneficial impacts from restoration of the former 

maintenance area and from lands acquired or exchanged, long-term beneficial effects would occur from 

the road reroute because of obliteration and restoration of the abandoned roadbed in the channel migration 

(including riparian) zone, where biodiversity would be restored, creating new habitat and rehabilitating 

degraded habitat for wildlife. In addition, riparian restoration at Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture 

lower hayfield and pasture and Lower Field would also contribute to beneficial effects. Birds, insects, and 

mammals would benefit from the reestablished vegetation, soils, and diverse habitat offered by restored 

riparian and floodplain ecosystems. More of the Stehekin River channel migration zone would be 

available for fish, insect, bird, and mammal use. Natural river processes would continue to allow for fish 

spawning, rearing, resting, and foraging. Amphibians and reptiles would gain high-value habitat in the 

restored floodplain / channel migration zone and riparian areas. Although there would be short- and longterm moderate adverse impacts on wildlife from the road reroute, restoring high-value floodplain and 

riparian zones would also create moderate beneficial long-term impacts for fish and wildlife. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: With the potential development of additional home sites on 10 - 

15 parcels for proposed exchange lands, and the subsequent rehabilitation or restoration of a similar area 

from exchanged or acquired lands, effects would be somewhat balanced. Because much of the acquisition 

and exchange would occur in more sensitive riparian wildlife habitats, and because most of the lands 

proposed for exchange are located in more common upland habitat types, there could be some long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects on some wildlife species. Removal of the Lower Field area from 

consideration for exchange would have a long-term localized moderate beneficial effect because there is 

currently no development on this large, diverse parcel of key importance to wildlife. Exchange would 

primarily result in NPS acquisition of wildlife habitats nearer to the Stehekin River in trade for areas 

farther away. As noted in the ―Soils and Vegetation‖ section above, covenants and other stipulations on 

the development of exchanged lands would result in additional protection of key characteristics important 

to wildlife, a long-term negligible to minor beneficial effect on wildlife. 

Because the proposed land exchange parcels are larger than 1 acre (1.33 acres to 7.2 acres) and because 

most of the land on the larger parcels would likely remain undeveloped (as a result of Chelan County 

zoning and NPS covenants), development of portions of these 13 parcels would have adverse effects on 

wildlife habitat. These impacts include conversion of native landscape to developed area and potential 

invasion of nonnative species. With restoration of some developed areas, these adverse impacts would 

likely remain minor to moderate. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 3 

Road Reroute: The road reroute would affect approximately 1.7 miles of mostly undisturbed habitat 

(18 acres within an overall disturbance area of 28 acres). Because the road reroute would result in the 

removal of vegetation and the conversion of the area from native landscape to developed, adverse effects 

on wildlife from habitat loss would be the same as Alternative 2, based on the number of acres. Impacts 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

324 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

would occur over most of the same areas, but would result from a shorter overall length of road. Effects 

from Alternative 3 would be long term and moderate to major. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Instead of six to eight barbs and two logjams, as in Alternative 2, there 

would be four barbs and five logjams in Alternative 3. Overall adverse and beneficial impacts would be 

greater than in Alternative 2, but would be similar, including rehabilitating riverbanks with 

bioengineering, contributing long-term stable vegetation, and increasing the availability of pool habitat in 

the Stehekin River by 4,000 square feet. Approximately 0.6 acre would be affected by erosion protection 

measures, resulting in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse effects, coupled with negligible to 

minor beneficial effects from bioengineering. 

Milepost 8.0 / Large Woody Debris / Land Protection Plan Modifications / Restoration: Actions and 

impacts would be similar to Alternative 2 except that there would be less restoration of the former 

Stehekin Valley Road alignment bypassed by the reroute 

Recreational Facilities 

Campgrounds: There would be a small additional area affected by the construction of another 

campground near Company Creek but no area affected by addition of a raft takeout. When combined with 

impacts from other recreational facility improvements similar to Alternative 2, overall adverse effects on 

wildlife would be intermittent and negligible to moderate from noise and disturbance and long term and 

minor from habitat modification. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Some impacts would be similar to Alternatives 1 and 3. As in Alternative 1, the Stehekin Valley Road 

would be maintained in its current alignment and its grade would be raised. As in Alternative 3, there 

would be beneficial and adverse impacts from Milepost 8.0 actions and restoration and bioengineering. 

Road Grade Raise / Realignment: Road grade raise and realignment actions and impacts would be the 

same as in Alternative 1. There would be short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

wildlife, including aquatic species, especially if new road fill was released during future flooding. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Construction of 16 - 17 barbs would result in additional adverse impacts 

to riverbanks from hardening (1.2 acres) and would affect up to 17,000 square feet within the river by

changes from riffle to pool habitat. Additional locations with barbs include Milepost 7.0 and Milepost 9.2. 

Other effects would be the same as described in Alternative 3. The barbs would have a long-term mostly 

moderate adverse effects on wildlife but would also have some negligible to minor beneficial effects from 

bank-erosion prevention and retention/restoration of plants along the riverbank, which would provide 

habitat for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. 

Large Woody Debris: Effects of the procurement and use of large woody debris would be greater than 

described in Alternatives 2 and 3 because it would occur over a much larger area, up to Bullion Raft 

Launch. There would be minor localized adverse effects on sedimentation, potentially affecting aquatic 

species and other wildlife (from disturbance), and there would be a negligible adverse impact on wildlife 

habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: Although priorities would be different, impacts would be similar 

to Alternatives 2 and 3 because the same lands would be available for exchange. Because there would 

continue to be lands within the channel migration zone that would be developed, potentially to protect the 

alignment of the Stehekin Valley Road, adverse impacts from development would be greater due to the 
9. Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 325 

overall greater sensitivity of lands, including lands within riparian areas, to be developed. Overall impacts 

on wildlife would be mixed, and would be long term, adverse, and minor to moderate, with fewer 

beneficial effects than Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts Measures included in the proposed project (as 

appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts to wildlife would include the following: 

 Scheduling construction activities with seasonal consideration of wildlife lifecycles to minimize 

impacts during sensitive periods (e.g., bird nesting and breeding seasons). The timing of the 

construction of rock barbs and other channel- or bank stabilization measures as well as extraction 

of large woody debris could be limited to avoid spawning and other sensitive periods for fish and 

aquatic wildlife. 

 Minimizing the degree of habitat removal (vegetation clearing) by delineating construction limits. 

 Limiting the effects of light and noise on wildlife habitat through controls on construction 

equipment and timing of construction activities, such as limiting construction to daylight hours. 

 Maintaining escape routes for animals that might fall into excavated pits and trenches. If erosion 

control matting is used, only tightly woven fiber netting or nonbound materials (e.g., rice straw) 

would be used to ensure that small animals would not be trapped. No plastic netted materials 

would be used. 

 Using spill-prevention measures to prevent inadvertent spills of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, 

antifreeze, and other toxic chemicals that could affect wildlife. 

 Discouraging construction personnel at work sites from providing a source of human food to 

wildlife, avoiding habituating of wildlife and increased human/wildlife conflicts. (Title 36, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Section 2.10(d) prohibits anyone from leaving food unattended 

or stored improperly where it could attract or otherwise be available to wildlife. Title 36, CFR, 

Chapter 1, Section 2.14(a) prohibits the disposal of refuse in other than refuse receptacles. Title 

36, CFR, Chapter 1, Section 2.2(a)(2) prohibits the feeding and molesting of wildlife.) 

 Maintaining proper food storage, disposing of all food waste and food-related waste promptly in a 

bear-resistant receptacle, and removing all garbage off site at the end of each working day. 

 Placing rock barbs from outside the wetted channel. Rock would be placed in the channel using 

heavy equipment from the road or bank above the ordinary high water mark. 

 Conducting informal inspections for aquatic species prior to removal of large woody debris from 

the tops of logjams. 

 Obtaining single pieces of large woody debris only from above the high water mark in a manner 

that would not destabilize the logjam. 

Cumulative Impacts: Similar to other protected areas, the combined effects of development in the 

recreation area and in the surrounding area over time coupled with the purposeful eradication of predators 

through the mid-1900s have contributed to low-level or extirpated wildlife populations of some key 

species in the recreation area. The North Cascades region as a whole, however, contains most of its 

historic species, although in diminished numbers. Past and reasonably foreseeable development projects 

planned for the recreation area, such as additional construction of visitor and administrative facilities, 

would result in additional negligible to minor cumulative effects to wildlife. The effects of existing 

development and hunting continue to take a toll on wildlife. Development within the lower 12 miles of 

the Stehekin River has remained at a relatively low level. Because extensive wilderness areas surround 

Lake Chelan NRA on neighboring federal lands, the recreation area contributes to a large protected area 

of mostly intact habitat. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

326 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The existence and continued maintenance of the road and public and private developed areas under 

Alternatives 1 - 4 would continue to contribute to long-term minor to moderate cumulative adverse effects 

on wildlife, increasing some species while decreasing the presence of others. Other recreation area 

projects would also continue to have primarily short-term negligible to moderate impacts, with some 

minor to moderate long-term impacts, on wildlife where the new development occurs. Because the 

proposed action under Alternatives 1 and 4 would not result in major changes to the road location or 

width, these would contribute localized negligible to moderate short-term adverse effects from noise and 

activity, negligible to minor beneficial effects from habitat restoration (Alternative 4), and localized 

negligible to minor short- and long-term adverse effects from construction in undisturbed areas along the 

road or in areas that have recovered from the disturbance associated with original road construction. By 

contrast, Alternatives 2 and 3 would disturb a new area for the road reroutes and would have both greater 

adverse impacts from habitat modification and greater beneficial effects from restoration than Alternative 

1. Restoration benefits would be similar among all action alternatives (2 - 4), primarily because of 

replacement and relocation of the housing and maintenance complex and actions at Lower Field and 

Buckner Homestead lower hayfield and pasture. These benefits would be greater under Alternatives 2 and 

3 because more rerouted road would be restored; however, adverse effects from construction of the 

reroute(s) would also be greater under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Other past, present, or future actions have the potential to cause additional impacts to wildlife. In the 

Stehekin Valley, these impacts are mostly the result of construction-related activities (principally 

associated with roads in the project area) and from the Forest Fuels Reduction Program. The Forest Fuels 

Reduction Program would continue to have short- and long-term adverse impacts on wildlife, including 

from the presence of fire, smoke, and human activity. Wildlife is likely to avoid areas while fires are 

occurring, and some species may relocate permanently following habitat changes after fires. Long-term 

benefits of from the reintroduction of fire and selective thinning would include a reduction in tree diseases 

and insect infestation, prevention of crown (tree canopy) fires, understory growth enhancement by 

reducing shade, and improvement to the overall structure of the forest (i.e., maintaining a late 

successional stage forest). In the short term, habitat is changed, which can adversely impact some wildlife 

species, while benefitting others. In the long term, however, fire can create a more diverse vegetation 

pattern that supports greater wildlife diversity, and protects habitat stability by reducing the potential for a 

very hot and destructive fire. 

The increase in the number of barbs and other erosion protection structures over time in the Stehekin 

River has contributed to minor to moderate localized adverse effects on the diversity, abundance, 

distribution, and quality of aquatic habitat in the Stehekin River. Negligible to minor adverse effects have 

been contributed by snowmelt culverts and side-channel culverts. Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute 

localized negligible to minor beneficial and adverse effects on wildlife, with Alternative 4 having 

comparatively the greatest contribution to adverse impacts from the largest number of bank structures. 

When added to the impacts of other development in the lower Stehekin Valley, Alternative 1 would 

contribute short- and long-term minor cumulative adverse effects on wildlife, primarily from habitat 

disturbance, while Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse 

effects, primarily from habitat removal due to the reroutes, and Alternative 4 would contribute short- and 

long-term minor to moderate cumulative adverse effects, again primarily due to habitat disturbance. 

Long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects would occur from the restoration of wildlife habitat in all 

alternatives.

Conclusion: Impacts on wildlife from Alternative 1 would be minor to moderate, short and long term, 

and both beneficial and adverse from rehabilitation of the Stehekin Valley Road, implementation of 

portions of the Road Improvement Project and construction of the Lower Valley Trail, and replacement 

and relocation of the maintenance facility and housing. In Alternative 2, adverse impacts would range 
10. Special Status Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 327 

from short term to long term and negligible, while beneficial impacts associated with removal of the road 

from the floodplain would be moderate and would somewhat balance impacts from the reroute. 

Alternative 2 would contribute localized moderate to major adverse cumulative impacts and localized 

minor beneficial impacts on wildlife. Alternative 3 impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2, 

with negligible to major adverse impacts (primarily related to wildlife disturbance and habitat loss) and 

long-term negligible to moderate localized beneficial effects from restoration. Compared to Alternative 2, 

both adverse and beneficial effects would be somewhat less due to shorter reroute and less potential 

restoration at Lower Field. In Alternative 4, fewer overall beneficial effects would occur compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 3 because the road would be retained in the channel migration zone and it is likely that 

over time, additional erosion protection measures and/or eventual relocation would be needed that would 

cause long-term adverse effects on wildlife. Adverse effects from Alternative 4 would be short and long 

term and minor to moderate. 

Although localized impacts would range to major in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the disturbance of 

approximately 18 acres of wildlife habitat from the construction of the reroutes, no species loss would 

occur and displaced species could use other nearby intact areas and future restored areas for habitat. As a 

result, there would be no impairment of wildlife or its values from the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 

4.

10. SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE IMPACTS 

a. Special Status Wildlife Methodology 

 Special status wildlife impact determinations are formally determined under the Endangered Species Act 

(Section 7). Analysis was based on the known or likely occurrence of the species in the vicinity of the 

project area and the potential loss or alteration of habitat and potential effects to the species. 

Context of Impact: Special status wildlife impacts were considered in the lower Stehekin Valley within 

the nonwilderness portion of Lake Chelan NRA and within the region. 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts are those that would alter the range, location, number, or population of 

a species and/or its habitat. Beneficial impacts would expand, improve, or protect one or more of these 

characteristics. 

Intensity of Impact for Special Status Wildlife 

 No Effect: The project (or action) is located outside suitable habitat and there would be no 

disturbance or other direct or indirect impacts on the species. The action will not affect the listed 

species or its designated critical habitat. 

 May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect: The project (or action) occurs in suitable habitat or 

results in indirect impacts on the species, but the effect on the species is likely to be entirely 

beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. The action may pose effects on listed species or 

designated critical habitat but given circumstances or mitigation conditions, the effects may be 

discounted, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Insignificant effects would not result in take. 

Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person 

would not (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects or (2) 

expect discountable effects to occur. 

 May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect: The project (or action) would have an adverse effect on 

a listed species as a result of direct, indirect, interrelated, or interdependent actions. An adverse 

effect on a listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

328 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

interrelated or interdependent actions and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or 

beneficial (USFWS 1998). 

b. Special Status Wildlife Impacts 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Most special status wildlife would remain unaffected by proposed actions. Because there would be habitat 

loss, however, analysis has resulted in the following determinations of effect (in compliance with Section 

7 of the ESA) for listed and proposed species for Alternatives 1 - 4. Some adverse impacts would be 

mitigated by restoration of riparian areas. Where impacts would be different among alternatives, these are 

noted below. In addition to specific effect analyses below, the general impacts identified in the ―Wildlife 

Impacts‖ section would also affect special status species and are the basis for the summary of impacts in 

this section. 

Federally Listed and Proposed Species 

Gray Wolf: Since wolves tend to avoid human activity areas and because habitat for gray wolves is 

common in the surrounding area, adverse impacts on gray wolves would be short term and negligible and 

related to noise and activity from construction. There would be no major increase in the amount or type of 

human activity following construction. Because no denning or foraging habitat would be removed, there 

would be no cumulative effects on gray wolves. Proposed actions under Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect, but 

would be not likely to adversely affect gray wolves. 

Grizzly Bear: Adverse impacts to grizzly bears would be short term and negligible, since the area of 

disturbance is small and grizzly bears tend to use higher elevations in summer (during the period when 

construction is planned) and are less likely to be in the area at that time. There would be no major 

increase in the amount or type of human activity following construction. Proposed actions under 

Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect grizzly bears. 

Canada Lynx: Although project area lands generally do not comprise suitable habitat, Canada lynx may 

occur in the area, but would tend to avoid the area during construction. Since the area of disturbance is 

small compared to the available habitat beyond the project area in surrounding national forests and North 

Cascades National Park, adverse impacts would be minor. There would be no major increase in the 

amount or type of human activity following construction. Proposed actions under Alternatives 1 - 4 may 

affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. 

Pacific Fisher: Fishers have not been found in the Stehekin Valley since 1980. Prior to that, fishers were 

found in North Cascades National Park Service Complex in areas of Douglas-fir and grand fir above 

1,800 feet amsl. Because the project area is entirely below the 1,640-foot contour in the lower Stehekin 

Valley, proposed actions in Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect this 

species. Negligible beneficial effects would occur from removing a portion of the Stehekin Valley Road 

away from riparian habitat (including the channel migration zone) in Alternatives 2 and 3 and from longterm actions that could protect lands within McGregor Meadows if exchanges occurred. Long-term minor 

adverse effects coupled with long-term negligible beneficial effects would occur. Alternatives 1 and 4 

would be more likely to contribute adverse effects and less likely to contribute beneficial effects due to 

the retention of the road. 

California Wolverine: Similar to lynx, there have been unconfirmed observations of wolverines in the 

lower Stehekin Valley, but not since 1984. Data obtained from radio-collared wolverines show the 

Stehekin Watershed to be a part of at least three separate animals’ home ranges (Raley, pers. comm., 
10. Special Status Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 329 

2009; Rohrer et al. 2008). Wolverines likely move through the valley; however, they prefer more remote 

mountainous areas of higher elevation (the project area is entirely below the 1,640-foot wilderness 

contour in the lower Stehekin Valley). Proposed actions would affect a relatively small area under the 

Alternatives (1 - 4), compared to larger areas of better-quality wolverine habitat surrounding the Stehekin 

Valley. Proposed actions under Alternatives 1 - 4, may affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect 

wolverine. 

Bald Eagle: Because most project actions would occur in summer, outside the eagle nesting period, and 

would occur more than 300 feet from known nesting areas near the head of Lake Chelan, there would be 

minor disturbance effects to nesting eagles and to eagles that forage along the Stehekin River during the 

late summer and early fall (when the construction and repair work would occur). Actions at Weaver Point 

and near the river mouth would have the greatest potential to affect bald eagles through noise and activity. 

Potential eagle disturbance could also occur anywhere along the Stehekin River where construction 

actions are proposed, including at Boulder Creek, Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), and Milepost 5.3 (Wilson 

Creek) and along the Company Creek Road. Because there would be few large trees removed and because 

eagles are not known to nest in other areas along the river, there would be a potential for negligible to 

minor short-term adverse impacts on bald eagles. Proposed actions may affect, but would be not likely to 

adversely affect Bald Eagles. 

Northern Spotted Owl: The proposed project area in all alternatives is within the activity area of a pair 

of northern spotted owls whose nest was first detected in 1998. This nest produced at least five young in 

10 years. The nest activity area was occupied by barred owls during the 2008 and 2009 nesting seasons, 

but in spring 2010 a single male northern spotted owl was detected, but no nest or female owl were 

observed. 

Construction of a portion of the proposed action under all alternatives would occur within the activity area 

where the most recent nesting activity occurred (in 2007). As a result, proposed actions affecting this area 

would be scheduled to occur outside of the nesting period (from March 1 to at least September 6) if 

nesting activity was found. If nesting activity is not found, work could begin as soon as July 1. 

Regardless, there would continue to be the potential to disturb foraging northern spotted owls before and 

after the nesting season. As a result, short-term adverse impacts from disturbing the birds during 

construction could occur at other times. 

As part of the road rehabilitation design, no pullouts or tree removal would occur within the area along 

the road immediately adjacent to the current northern spotted owl activity area. This is to reduce the 

potential that recreation area visitors would notice the nesting owls (i.e., potentially harass the birds) or 

that the owls would be attracted to people or vehicles. No pullouts are to be located within the line of 

sight (0.25 miles) adjacent to the current spotted owl nest activity area. 

Adverse effects would occur in Alternatives 1 and 4 with disturbance and some habitat modification of 

7.5 acres of northern spotted owl habitat. Habitat modification in Alternatives 2 and 3 would affect 

approximately 18 acres of northern spotted owl habitat from the reroute. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates that spotted owls require an average minimum of 

6,657 acres of suitable habitat per nesting pair. Suitable habitat surrounding the nest activity area is

comprised of approximately 978 acres (a 1.82-mile radius), or 176 acres within the 0.7-mile-radius core 

area. As a result, the loss of from 7.5 acres (Alternatives 1 and 4) to 18 acres (Alternatives 2 and 3) and 

disturbance effects comprising a maximum of approximately 28 acres from proposed actions in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 may affect and would be likely to adversely affect this pair of northern spotted owls. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would impact an estimated 1.7 percent of this suitable habitat in the area, including 

areas within 200 - 800 feet of the customary nest activity areas. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

330 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Some long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects on northern spotted owls could occur from creation 

of additional foraging area in restored riparian areas in Alternatives 2 - 4 and restored roadway in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Most effects of the alternatives, however, would be long-term moderate to major 

adverse impacts associated with habitat removal and short-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

associated with noise and activity during construction. Edge effects would also likely favor barred owls 

over northern spotted owls. 

Proposed actions under Alternatives 1 and 4 may affect and would be likely to adversely affect northern 

spotted owls. These two alternatives implement the Road Improvement Project actions previously 

analyzed in a Biological Opinion on the EA for that project (see mitigation measures included below). 

Although most vegetation removal would be associated with construction of pullouts and new side 

ditches along the edge of the existing Stehekin Valley Road, these activities would occur within existing 

northern spotted owl habitat, affecting 7.5 acres. Similarly, Alternatives 2 and 3 may affect and would be 

likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls due to the loss of or construction disturbance impacts on 

approximately 18 of 133 acres of northern spotted owl habitat from the reroutes. These impacts are in 

addition to habitat loss due to the construction of new pullouts and additional disturbance related to 

rehabilitation of the Stehekin Valley Road before and after the reroute. 

Bull Trout: The proposed actions under Alternatives 1 - 4 would result in instream work to construct 

barbs and logjams. This would convert up to about 8,000 square feet of riffles to pool habitat in 

Alternative 2, 4,000 square feet in Alternative 3, and up to 17,000 square feet in Alternative 4. In 

addition, two logjams in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have long-term minor to moderate adverse and 

minor beneficial effects on bull trout. Slope stabilization at Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek) and at Milepost 

8.0 would occur above the ordinary high water mark. Work in or near water includes constructing bank 

barbs, logjams, slope stabilization, bioengineering, and riparian restoration. In addition to clearing and 

grading, these activities would have the potential to cause a short-term increase in the amount of sediment 

in the water. Increased sediment load and short-term turbidity can adversely affect fish, as described in 

the ―Wildlife‖ section above. 

To reduce or eliminate impacts on bull trout, BMPs such as temporary erosion and sediment control, 

including silt fencing, would be used. Revegetation of disturbed areas would protect soils from erosion 

and reduce the potential for erosion of and long-term impacts to stream habitat. In addition, moving the 

Stehekin Valley Road away from the river in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have long-term beneficial effects 

by allowing additional area for natural river processes within the 100-year floodplain and channel 

migration zone, which could improve local habitat for fish. Because bull trout have not been found in the 

Stehekin River since the 1950s, and because their extirpation is not well documented, proposed actions 

under all alternatives may affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect bull trout. Future potential 

beneficial effects could be realized from proposals to restore native cutthroat and bull trout populations in 

part of their historic habitat within the Stehekin drainage. 

Other Federal Sensitive Species and State-listed, Proposed and Sensitive Species 

Northern Goshawk: Potential and occupied goshawk nesting sites would be adversely affected due to 

the removal of approximately 18 acres of presently undisturbed forest habitat from construction of a road 

reroute in Alternatives 2 and 3. This proposed action under these alternatives may affect, but would be not 

likely to adversely affect goshawks, because a large amount of suitable goshawk habitat would remain 

nearby. Removal of forested edge area adjacent to the Stehekin Valley Road in Alternatives 1 and 4 

would have no effect on nesting goshawks, because goshawks nest within contiguous forest canopy areas. 

Goshawks flying through these areas to forage would, however, have fewer trees where these were 

removed for pullout construction or to realign parts of the road in McGregor Meadows under Alternatives 

1 and 4. 
10. Special Status Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 331 

Western Gray Squirrel: Western gray squirrels have been documented in the lower valley. The road 

reroute may affect their upland forest habitat; however the riparian zone restoration would add preferable 

mixed forest habitat in this area. While no specific adverse effects have been identified, the loss of 

additional vegetation from construction of new areas associated with road rehabilitation (Alternatives 1 - 

4) and from reroute construction (Alternatives 2 and 3) as well as general loss of vegetation from 

construction of the housing and maintenance areas could affect squirrel habitat. In general, areas where 

they are found would likely be avoided by project impacts under all alternatives. Because some minor 

beneficial and adverse impacts are possible, project actions under all alternatives may affect, but would be 

not likely to adversely affect squirrels. 

Western Toad, Cascades Frog, and Columbia Spotted Frog: Actions that would occur in water, 

including placement of barbs and logjams, would occur outside of the breeding season for these species; 

therefore, they would not be affected. Long-term beneficial effects, including a long-term potential 

improvement in frog and toad breeding habitat, could occur as a consequence of streambank revegetation. 

Construction of the in-water erosion protection structures would also have some beneficial effect on frogs 

and toads because it would create pool habitat and areas of slower-moving water. These would be greatest 

in Alternatives 3 and 4, moderate in Alternative 2, and least in Alternative 1. Overall, the alternatives 

would result in short-term negligible adverse effects from sedimentation and long-term beneficial effects 

from reduced erosion and may affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect proposed frogs. 

Other State-listed, Proposed, and Sensitive Species: Proposed actions under Alternatives 1 - 4 would 

have no effect on the following species: Keen’s myotis, sandhill crane, golden eagle, merlin, black swift, 

Vaux’s swift, Lewis’s woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, common loon, and 

western grebe. 

Generally, the rehabilitation of the Stehekin Valley Road and construction of housing and the new 

maintenance area would not affect birds and bats during the nesting season because it would primarily 

occur during nonnesting or late nesting periods (in summer) (Alternatives 1 - 4). Removal of trees from 

the reroute area, however, would likely commence prior to the end of the nesting season for some species 

(Alternatives 2 and 3). As a result, depending on the species, there could be some adverse impacts. To 

avoid these impacts, forested reroute areas in these alternatives would be surveyed prior to tree removal to 

determine the presence of nesting behavior. In addition, there would be greater short-term disturbance 

from construction noise and human activities associated with construction in Alternatives 2 and 3 because 

of the reroute construction. Because the potential disturbance area is small relative to the availability of 

nearby foraging areas in adjacent undisturbed habitat, these impacts would be localized and minor to 

moderate. Restoration impacts, primarily under Alternatives 2 - 4, would include obliteration of some 

former roadway (more in Alternatives 2 and 3) and restoration of some former riparian areas (Lower Field 

and Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture). These actions would result in long-term negligible to 

moderate beneficial effects on birds from the new trees and shrubs, providing new resting and nesting 

areas where habitats have been affected by human activities. 

Harlequin Duck: Where construction would occur in or near the Stehekin River, there could be adverse 

effects on harlequin ducks. Construction-related impacts include increased noise, dust, and human activity 

and temporary disturbance to riverbank habitat. Most work, however, would occur outside the breeding 

and nesting season for harlequin ducks so that adverse effects during these sensitive times would be 

minimized. Slight adverse impacts on foraging harlequin ducks could occur; however, there is an 

abundant supply of foraging habitat for this species, and they tend to start leaving the area near the end of 

July to return to the coast. Beneficial effects would occur from the restoration of riparian habitat in 

Alternatives 2 - 4 and from bioengineering in Alternatives 1 - 4. Overall effects would be minor and 

localized and may affect, but would be not likely to adversely affect harlequin ducks. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

332 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

The following conservation measures that would be included in the proposed project (as appropriate to 

the alternative actions) to minimize impacts to related to northern spotted owls, bull trout, and other 

special status wildlife species: 

 Determining whether northern spotted owls or another special status species are nesting, and then 

whether or not the proposed action will affect the active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior. If 

it is determined that the action will not affect an active nest or disrupt breeding behavior, work 

will proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure. If it is determined that construction 

activities will affect an active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance strategies will 

be implemented. 

 If after protocol surveys have been completed by July 1 in the year work is planned and 

occupancy has not been documented at the site (as determined by NOCA wildlife biologist), work 

may begin after July 1 of that year. If the site is occupied and nesting is occurring, construction 

activities within a 0.7 mile radius of the active nest cannot be conducted from March 1 through 

September 6 or after at least 4 weeks have passed since young fledged. This construction start 

date will be recommended by the NOCA wildlife biologist and approved by NOCA 

Superintendent. 

 Not locating pullouts within line-of-sight (0.25 miles) of the area along the road that is 

immediately adjacent to the current spotted owl nest activity area if one is identified. 

 Placing rock barbs from outside the wetted channel. The rock will be placed in the channel using 

heavy equipment that will be on the road or bank above the ordinary high water line. 

 Storing food and garbage in wildlife-resistant containers during the day and removing all garbage 

off-site from project work areas at the end of each working day. 

 The following reasonable and prudent measures with respect to northern spotted owls (developed 

by the USFWS in the Road Improvement Project Biological Opinion[USFWS 2005]) would also 

be implemented as part of the project by NPS wildlife biologists: 

 Monitoring project implementation to ensure compliance with the conservation measures listed 

above, especially the seasonal timing restrictions and the final placement of the road near the 

spotted owl nest and reporting the results of this monitoring to the USFWS. A North Cascades 

Complex biologist would monitor the spotted owl nest to determine if the spotted owls produce 

young during the year(s) of project implementation. (Note: The biologist would also determine 

whether the spotted owl nest is occupied or has moved.) If young are discovered, then the 

biologist would estimate the age of the fledgling(s) as part of the timing restrictions described 

above. 

 Reporting progress of the proposed action and its impacts on federally threatened and endangered 

species, particularly northern spotted owls to the USFWS as specified in the incidental take 

statement in the biological opinion in accordance with 50 CFR §13.45 and §18.27. 

 Reporting any dead or injured Federally-listed species found in the action area within 24 hours to 

a special agent of the USFWS, Division of Law Enforcement at (360) 753-7764, or to the 

USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife office at (360) 753-9440. 

 Notifying USFWS in writing within 3 working days of the accidental death of, or injury to, a 

northern spotted owl or of the finding of any dead or injured spotted owls during implementation 

of the proposed federal action. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the 

incident or discovery of a dead or injured spotted owl, as well as any pertinent information on 
10. Special Status Wildlife Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 333 

circumstances surround the incident or discovery. The USFWS contact for this written 

information is the Manager for the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife office. 

Cumulative Impacts: Over time, long-term adverse effects to special status species have occurred 

throughout the Cascades and Washington State. Adverse impacts have been associated with development, 

predator control, unnaturally frequent wildland fire, and habitat fragmentation, primarily from 

transportation corridors. Effects from past, present, and future actions occurring within Lake Chelan and 

the surrounding national forests and the NPS complex would continue to be primarily from administrative 

and private development in areas in close proximity to where it has already occurred. Ongoing actions to 

repair and maintain recreation area administrative facilities, including roads, bridges, housing, and visitor 

and maintenance facilities, would continue to occur and would continue to have negligible to minor 

incremental adverse cumulative effects on special status species. As noted in the ―Impacts to Wildlife‖

section above, ongoing impacts from the Forest Fire Fuel Reduction Program would continue to have 

both general wildlife impacts as well as potential impacts on special status species. A biological opinion 

for the program guides its implementation with respect to these impacts, allowing for some adverse 

effects on northern spotted owls. Similarly, a biological opinion covered the actions that would be 

implemented by the Road Improvement Project as part of this plan; however, a separate biological 

opinion is under preparation for this plan and would be part of the final EIS. 

NPS actions would continue to be modified, if possible pending identification of special status species 

through surveys and other analysis, unless potential adverse effects are outweighed by other moderate 

long-term beneficial effects. In the present action, removal of development from the floodplain and 

channel migration zone of the Stehekin River under Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a long-term 

beneficial effect on riparian habitat and habitat diversity. 

Because they would modify nearly 18 acres of the known habitat of a currently listed species that is 

declining throughout its range, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have moderate to major adverse cumulative 

effects on northern spotted owls, particularly within the project area. Alternatives 1 and 4 would modify 

less than 10 acres and would therefore have moderate cumulative adverse effects on northern spotted 

owls. For other species, including other federally listed and proposed species, project actions would result 

in long-term minor cumulative adverse effects, primarily because these species would be indirectly 

affected by project actions; because a comparatively small amount of their overall habitat would be 

affected; or because they are not currently known from the project area. Exceptions would include bald 

eagles, northern goshawks, harlequin ducks, western gray squirrels, and riparian affiliate birds (such as 

the olive-sided flycatcher), where there would be some beneficial and some adverse effects. Some 

additional negligible to minor adverse and beneficial effects would also be contributed to cumulative 

effects on special status species, such as amphibians and fish, from actions which affect water flow within 

the Stehekin River. 

Road improvements may actually result in fewer long-term impacts to some species, such as fish, frogs, 

and toads, particularly where the road is relocated away from the river. Where the road is outside the 

channel migration zone and/or the 100-year floodplain (particularly through rerouting in Alternatives 2 

and 3), fewer road repairs and maintenance would occur in proximity to aquatic species habitat, and there 

would therefore be less potential for disturbance from human activity based on the proximity of the road 

to the habitat. In all alternatives, the installation of barbs and logjams would contribute short-term adverse 

impacts from construction and long-term moderate adverse impacts from changes in river processes 

coupled with long-term negligible to minor beneficial cumulative impacts from the creation of new 

habitat. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect, and would be likely to adversely affect, northern spotted owls. 

Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect, the following listed, proposed, 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

334 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

or candidate species: grizzly bears, gray wolves, Canada lynx, Pacific fishers, bull trout, Dolly Varden, 

Chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, or Columbia spotted frogs. Similarly, the proposed actions 

may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect, the following federal species of concern: 

mammals: California wolverine, western gray squirrel, Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat, small-footed 

(Yuma) myotis, western long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, and long-legged myotis; birds: bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, harlequin duck, and black swift; and 

amphibians: western toad, spotted frog, Cascades frog, and tailed frog. 

As noted above, there would be no known effect on the following state-listed, proposed, and candidate 

species or species of special concern: golden eagle, merlin, Vaux’s swift, black-backed woodpecker, 

Lewis’s woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, common loon, and western grebe. 

Because there would be limited major adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species or species of 

concern, there would be no significant impact to and no impairment of Lake Chelan NRA’s special status 

species resources or values. Northern spotted owls may have become displaced from their existing nest 

site by barred owls prior to project implementation, or the presence of a male in May 2010 may signal 

return to the nest activity area. Other northern spotted owl nest sites within the lower Stehekin Valley 

would likely continue to produce young. Visitors and residents would likely continue to have the 

opportunity to hear or to experience rare glimpses of this threatened species. 

11. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Introduction to Cultural Resources Section: Potential impacts to cultural resources, including 

archeological resources, prehistoric or historic structures, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural 

properties, either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places were identified 

and evaluated. Analyses were in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

(ACHP) regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic 

Properties). Analysis included (1) determining the APE, (2) identifying cultural resources present in the 

APE that are National Register-listed or eligible, (3) applying the criteria of ―adverse effect to affected 

resources,‖ and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

The criteria for characterizing the severity or intensity of impacts to National Register-listed or eligible 

archeological resources, prehistoric or historic structures, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural 

properties are the Section 106 determinations of effect: no historic properties affected, adverse effect, or 

no adverse effect. A Section 106 determination of effect is included in the conclusion section for each 

analysis of impacts to National Register-listed or eligible cultural resources. 

12. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS 

a. Archeological Resources Methodology 

Archeological resources are typically considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places because of the information they contain or may be likely to yield (36 CFR 60.4). Any change in 

the physical attributes of an archeological site is irreparable and considered adverse and of permanent 

duration. Adverse impacts to archeological resources most often occur as a result of earthmoving 

activities within an archeological site, soil compaction or increased erosion, unauthorized surface 

collection, or vandalism. 

Archeological resources impacts were analyzed qualitatively, with respect to whether or not surveys have 

revealed archeological information in the project area (or APE). 
12. Archeological Resources Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 335 

Context of Impact: Archeological resources were considered within the lower Stehekin Valley below 

High Bridge within the nonwilderness portion of Lake Chelan NRA and within the North Cascades 

National Park Complex. 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts would include activities involving ground disturbance (including soil 

compaction) in the presence of an archeological site, or activities that would increase the potential for 

vandalism, illegal collecting of artifacts, or destruction of a site. Beneficial impacts to archeological 

resources can occur when patterns of visitor use or management action are changed near archeological 

resources such that an ongoing impact is reduced or eliminated. Direct impacts can occur as a result of 

grading, trenching, or other activities that damage the structure of an archeological site. Indirect impacts 

can occur as a result of increasing visitor activity or management action near an archeological site, 

leading to effects such as artifact collection, accelerated soil compaction, and erosion. 

Intensity of Impact: The intensity of impacts to an archeological resource would depend upon the 

potential of the resource to yield important information, as well as the extent of the physical disturbance 

or degradation. For example, major earthmoving at an archeological site with low data potential might 

result in a minor adverse impact, whereas major impacts would involve archeological sites with high data 

potential. 

Intensity for Cultural Resources (Archeology, Historic Buildings and Structures, and 

Cultural Landscapes) (Section 106 definitions) 

 No effect: A determination of no historic properties affected means that either there are no 

historic properties present or there are historic properties present in the area of potential effects 

(APE) but the undertaking will have no effect upon them (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)). 

 No adverse effect: A determination of no adverse effect means there is an effect, but the effect 

would not meet the criteria of an adverse effect [36 CFR Part 800.5(a) (1)], i.e. diminish the 

characteristics of the cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register (36 

CFR 800.5(b)). The undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed to avoid or minimize 

adverse effects. This category of effects may have effects that are considered beneficial under 

NEPA, such as restoration, stabilization, rehabilitation, and preservation projects. 

 Adverse effect: An adverse effect occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that qualifies it for inclusion in the National Register, e.g. 

diminishing the integrity (or the extent to which a resource retains its historic appearance) of its 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects also 

include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the alternatives that would occur later in time, 

be farther removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5(a) (1)). An adverse effect may be 

resolved in accordance with the 2008 Programmatic Agreement, or by developing a 

memorandum or program agreement in consultation with the SHPO, ACHP, American Indian 

tribes, other consulting parties, and the public to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects 

(36 CFR Part 800.6(a)). If an impact to National Register historic property cannot be resolved by 

agreement among SHPO, ACHP, American Indian Tribes, other consulting parties and the public 

it would be considered significant. 

Introduction: Numerous cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the proposed APE over 

nearly two decades. The surveys were conducted pursuant to several types of proposed NPS undertakings, 

including road storm damage repair, road realignment, road resurfacing, trail construction, and fire 

management activities. The most recent survey was conducted by Bob Mierendorf, park complex 

archeologist, and Ray DePuydt, Lake Roosevelt NRA archeologist, in July 2008. Consequently, proposed 

road actions have been surveyed for cultural resources (Mierendorf 2009). 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

336 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

b. Archeological Resources Impacts 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

None of the 12 pre-contact period sites identified to date within the project area are located in areas that 

are proposed for undertakings. No pre-contact archeological sites have been recorded in or near proposed 

Company Creek Road actions. As additional detailed plans and APEs for each undertaking are developed, 

however, the recreation area would ensure that no known prehistoric or historic archeological resources 

are affected and that it continues to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in analyzing effects to cultural 

resources. 

Routine, ongoing maintenance of the road prism (area affected by previous road construction activities) 

would not result in major changes to existing areas of disturbance. Future road failure related to flooding 

would have the potential to disturb previously unknown or undiscovered archeological resources, as 

would replacement or modification of culverts, expansion of existing developed areas, and other actions. 

Continued encroachment from parking in undeveloped pullouts would also have the potential to affect 

previously unidentified archeological resources as erosion of bare soil continued. 

Approximately 5 to 8 acres of previously disturbed land near the airstrip would also undergo soil 

disturbance as part of the housing and maintenance area replacement and relocation out of the floodplain. 

Because archeological resources have been surveyed for within the proposed project area, because 

archeological resources found were outside the project area, and because the discovery potential for 

buried archeological resources would employ mitigation measures noted below, there would be no 

historic properties affected. 

Impacts from Alternative 2 

As in Alternative 1, none of the 12 pre-contact period archeological sites is within an area proposed to be 

affected by the implementation of this alternative. There are two historic period sites within the project 

area, the Weaver Point Historic Site (45CH452) and the Stehekin Wagon Road (45CH429). 

The Weaver Point Historic Site (45CH452) is near proposed actions but would not be affected by the 

implementation of Alternative 2. It is located at Weaver Point well away from the shoreline of either Lake 

Chelan or the mouth of the Stehekin River. This site is being tested as part of the Chelan PUD relicensing 

for the Lake Chelan hydroelectric project. The results of testing will determine appropriate management 

action as part of the FERC relicensing agreement. In the erosion protection component of the license, the 

southwest-facing area would be treated with a logjam and rock wall along approximately 500 feet at

Weaver Point to prevent shoreline erosion from occurring where the lake intersects the bank. Access to 

the area (from the water) to implement these actions would not affect the archeological site. Since neither 

access nor implementation of proposed actions would occur near the historic archeological site and would 

occur along the edge of the lake / mouth of the Stehekin River outside the site’s boundary, there would be 

no historic properties affected. 

Construction of the reroute would likely not affect three closely spaced rock wall segments built on the 

downhill side of an abandoned roadbed (Stehekin Wagon Road) where it traverses the sloping toe of a 

large boulder-strewn debris cone. These rock walls would be retained. This portion of the Stehekin 

Wagon Road affected by Alternative 2 has been determined to be ineligible for the National Register. 

Based on archeological analysis, the features appear to lack integrity of association and workmanship; 

their age and affiliation with an original or early Stehekin Valley Road cannot be demonstrated; and they 

do not represent the best example of early road design and construction techniques in the lower valley 
12. Archeological Resources Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 337 

(Mierendorf 2009). Nonetheless, as a historic archeological feature, they would be documented using 

Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) criteria if they would be affected by road construction, 

and concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding their proposed disposition 

would be sought as required by the NPS programmatic agreement (NPS et al. 2008).

As noted above in Alternative 1, archeological surveys have been conducted in areas associated with 

proposed actions in Alternative 1 and/or would be conducted and/or soil-disturbance activities would be 

monitored. In addition, archeological surveys of the proposed land exchange properties were also 

conducted (Mierendorf 2009). With the exception of the McGregor Meadows actions, those actions 

identified above would also be part of Alternative 2. Therefore, in addition to those areas identified 

above, soil disturbance would occur in the following areas: below Boulder Creek; along the Stehekin 

Valley Road at Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), Milepost 8.0, and Milepost 9.2; for the McGregor Meadows / 

Lower Field reroute and McGregor Meadows Access Road; at Purple Point, Rainbow Falls, and near 

Bullion Raft Launch; near the mouth of the Stehekin River; at Lower Field and Buckner Homestead 

hayfield and pasture; and on proposed land exchange properties. Approximately 5 acres of previously 

disturbed land near the airstrip would also undergo some soil disturbance as part of the housing and 

maintenance facility replacement and relocation out of the floodplain. 

Because no known National Register eligible archeological resources are found in these areas, because 

known archeological resources are outside the proposed areas that would be affected by the 

implementation of this alternative, because mitigation measures to document the ineligible rock wall 

features found along the reroute areas would be employed, and because the discovery of potential buried 

archeological resources would employ mitigation measures noted below, there would be no (known 

eligible) historic properties affected. 

Impacts from Alternative 3 

Although Alternative 3 would include one additional erosion protection measure (at Lower Field) and one 

additional camp, along with shorter reroute, effects on archeological resources would be the same as 

described in Alternative 2: no historic properties affected. 

Impacts from Alternative 4 

Impacts from Alternative 4 on archeological resources would be the same as described in Alternative 1: 

no historic properties affected. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Based on the NPS Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement with the Association of State Historic 

Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council (NPS et al. 2008), the following measures would be 

included in the proposed project to minimize impacts to archeological resources: 

 Documenting the rock walls along the reroute (Alternative 2) using HAER criteria if these would 

be affected by proposed road construction. 

 Stopping work in the area of identification and nearby areas if archeological resources are 

discovered at any point during the project work (as directed by the park) until the find is 

evaluated and action taken to avoid or mitigate the impact. 

 When it is necessary to stop work due to archeological resources discovery, the contractor would 

cease all activities in the area of discovery, allow the archeologist to complete investigations, and 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

338 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

take measures to protect the resources discovered as directed by the park. (During this time, work 

may proceed in unaffected areas.) 

 Determining if a monitoring plan is needed pending final construction plans, the cultural material 

that might be encountered, important archeological questions that could be addressed, and 

identifying a range of treatment options (e.g., avoidance, data recovery) for any findings. 

 Avoiding further impact by modifying project implementation as needed at the site if 

archeological resources are discovered during implementation. If this is not possible, as much 

information as possible would be collected about the site in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations and additional consultation with applicable agencies and tribes would occur as 

specified in the implementing regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA. 

 Monitoring ground-disturbing actions as appropriate during construction to ascertain 

presence/absence of archeological materials within the proposed construction zone. Monitoring 

would be focused where buried historical deposits might be present beneath existing 

development. The NPS archeologist would identify sites prior to construction. Evaluating the 

eligibility of the site under National Register of Historic Places criteria if monitoring results in the 

discovery of archeological materials. 

 Following procedures outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 

the unlikely event that human remains or any objects protected under Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act are exposed. This would include the potential need to stop work 

for a minimum of 30 calendar days. (During that time, work may resume in nonsensitive areas.) 

Cumulative Impacts: Archeological resources in the lower Stehekin Valley and elsewhere in the 

recreation area and park complex have likely been adversely impacted to varying degrees from past 

construction-related disturbances (prior to the advent of archeological resources protection laws), visitor 

impacts, vandalism, and erosion and other natural processes. Because mitigation measures would be 

employed to minimize impacts to potentially unidentified cultural resources in other proposed and future 

recreation area projects, it is likely that these measures would protect archeological resources from 

additional impacts. There would be no construction-related contributions that would affect known eligible 

archeological resources and therefore no cumulative impacts from Alternatives 1 - 4. There is a slight 

possibility, however, that future proposed work would affect currently unidentified cultural resources. 

Because mitigation measures would be implemented as noted above, Alternatives 1 - 4 would not be 

expected to contribute to cumulative effects on archeological resources. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have no effect on known eligible archeological resources. Because 

there would be no historic properties affected, there would be no impairment of National Register eligible 

archeological resources or values. 

13. CULTURAL RESOURCES: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IMPACTS 

a. Cultural Landscapes Methodology 

Historic buildings and structures and cultural landscape impacts were analyzed qualitatively, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800 criteria of effect, based on their presence in the project area and the 

modifications that would be made to character-defining features (features that qualify the structures or 

landscapes for inclusion in the National Register). Historic structures and landscapes for which a 

determination of eligibility has not been completed were considered eligible. 

Type of Impact: Impacts to cultural landscapes result from physical changes to contributing 

characteristics of a resource or its setting. Adverse impacts result when effects of the proposed action 
13. Cultural Resources: Cultural Landscapes Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 339 

diminish the characteristics which make the structure or landscape eligible for the National Register or 

which diminish the overall integrity of the landscape (see ―Methodology‖ section for more information). 

Beneficial impacts can occur as a result of restoration or rehabilitation of resources or removal of 

incompatible or noncontributing facilities. Direct adverse impacts generally occur as a result of modifying 

a significant characteristic of a historic structure or landscape resource; removal of a significant structure 

or landscape resource; or addition of new, incompatible facilities in proximity to a historic site or 

structure. Indirect adverse impacts can also occur following project completion. These impacts are 

generally associated with changes in historic vegetation or continued deterioration of historic structures. 

Photo 31 – Lower Stehekin River Valley in 1921 before Water Level of Lake Chelan was Raised 

(Note historic Field Hotel near left-center of the image) 

Duration of Impact: Impacts to historic structures and cultural landscapes are considered short term if 

they involve activities such as temporary removal of vegetation or other contributing resources, road 

closures, or prescribed burns, where the impacts are noticeable for a period of 1 to 5 years. Other shortterm impacts to historic structures include constructing scaffolding surrounding a building during 

rehabilitation work, or minor deterioration in historic fabric that is repairable as part of routine 

maintenance and upkeep. Long-term impacts usually last longer than 5 years but may include reversible 

changes to a contributing characteristic of a historic structure or landscape, such as alteration of historic 

appearance. Long-term adverse impacts to a historic structure or landscape resource include reversible 

and irreversible changes in contributing characteristics, such as loss or removal of historic fabric; other 

changes to the historic character of a property; demolition of a historic structure; construction of an 

incompatible addition or adjacent facility; or removal of a structure from its historic setting. 

Intensity of Impact: See ―Intensity of Impact‖ Cultural Resources in ―a. Archeological Resources 

Methodology.‖
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

340 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

b. Cultural Landscape Impacts 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

None of the three cultural landscapes within the project area—the Golden West Lodge Historic District, 

Buckner Homestead Historic District, and High Bridge Ranger Station Historic District—would be 

affected by actions proposed in Alternative 1 (no historic properties affected). 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 - 4 

The Buckner Homestead Historic District would be affected by proposed actions in Alternatives 2 - 4 to 

restore natural riparian conditions at the Buckner Homestead lower hayfield and pasture. 

Of the following characteristics associated with cultural landscapes: spatial organization, circulation, 

topography, vegetation, structures, and buildings (see Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences—

Cultural Landscapes), only vegetation would be affected by proposed actions in Alternatives 2 - 4. There 

would be no effect on spatial organization, circulation, topography, structures, or buildings. Vegetation 

restoration, however, would result in long-term beneficial effects from slowing erosion at Buckner 

Homestead Historic District. This action would help to retain not only the hayfield and pasture, but also 

other features associated with the site, including the homestead.

To prevent additional erosion of the Stehekin River bank adjacent to the hayfield and pasture, under 

Alternatives 2 - 4 approximately 500 feet of bank, for a width of about 30 feet (0.34 acre), would be 

planted with native riparian plants. This would have a long-term minor beneficial effect on the cultural 

landscape associated with the Buckner Homestead Historic District because the riparian edge that 

formerly existed along the hayfield and pasture has been lost due to erosion of the Stehekin River bank. 

Restoration would help to retain land that is protecting other features associated with the cultural 

landscape. As a result, Alternatives 2 - 4 would have no adverse effect on the Buckner Homestead 

Historic District. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to cultural landscapes would include the following: 

 Implementing appropriate measures under ―Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources.‖

 Ensuring that access to the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture would be via existing roads 

and paths. 

Cumulative Effects: Although over time, portions of the recreation area’s cultural landscapes have likely 

been lost, such as some historic homes, NPS actions to identify and to designate these areas has had a 

long-term beneficial effect on preserving the intact characteristics associated with them. For each of the 

cultural landscapes, a cultural landscape inventory has identified remaining features and whether they 

continue to contribute to the historic significance of the area. As a result, preservation techniques have 

become focused on those character-defining features which contribute to the area’s significance. 

Although all three cultural landscapes are historically based, some of their components are related to 

prehistoric resources. In time, additional cultural landscapes may be designated within the lower Stehekin 

Valley and/or the park complex as more information is acquired and lands are evaluated, a long-term 

beneficial effect. Actions in Alternative 1 would have no contribution to cumulative effects on cultural 

landscapes. Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute long-term beneficial effects (no adverse effect).
14. Visitor Experience 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 341 

Conclusion: Under Alternative 1, there would be no historic properties affected. Alternatives 2 - 4 would 

have long-term beneficial effects (no adverse effect) on rehabilitation of the cultural landscape at Buckner 

Homestead Historic District from vegetation restoration of the riparian edge along the pasture and 

hayfield. Vegetation restoration of the riparian area would have no adverse effect on the Buckner 

Homestead Historic District. Because there would be no adverse effect on cultural landscapes, there 

would be no impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes from the 

implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4.

14. VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Visitor Experience Methodology Overview 

Impacts on visitor experience have been assessed using professional judgment to analyze the effects of 

actions on the activities of different visitor populations and different aspects of visitor use. 

Type of Impact: Impacts on visitor experience may occur as a result of changes in road circulation, 

interpretation, interpretive media, campgrounds, trails, and other facilities and resources that contribute to 

the type and quality of visitor experience in Lake Chelan NRA. Impacts may also occur from direct 

actions altering the availability of a specific experience or activity. Visitor experience is also directly 

affected by actions influencing natural resources, such as air quality, scenic resources, and cultural 

resources. For example, the experience of a scenic view that is lost on a cloudy or hazy day may diminish 

the overall experience of a visit to an area that focuses on the view, such as from a wayside exhibit or a 

vista point. The extent of enhancement or degradation of natural and cultural resources, including air and 

water quality, the presence of vegetation (such as flowers in spring) or wildlife, and other resources (such 

as the experience of an excavated and interpreted archeological site or intact historic structure), also 

enhances or degrades the quality of the visitor experience. Beneficial impacts would enhance visitor 

participation and visitors’ ability to connect with recreation area resources, the quality of visitor 

experience, and the kinds of opportunities available for recreation area visitors, including scenic resources 

and safety. Adverse impacts would reduce the number and quality of these experiences. 

Intensity of Impact: This is identified separately below for each of the following categories of visitor 

experience: access and transportation, interpretation and education, visitor use opportunities, safety, and 

scenic resources. 

15. VISITOR EXPERIENCE: ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION 

IMPACTS 

a. Access and Transportation Methodology 

Methodology would be the same as ―Visitor Experience.‖

Type of Impact: Same as ―Visitor Experience.‖

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. 

 Minor: Impacts would be slightly detectable or localized within a relatively small area. 

 Moderate: Impacts would be readily apparent over a large area. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

342 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Major: Impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable changes in ease of access and 

transportation. 

b. Access and Transportation Impacts 

Impacts of Alternatives 1 - 4 

Transportation of Materials and Supplies: There would be negligible to minor short-term adverse 

impacts on visitor and resident access and transportation in the lower valley from transportation of 

materials and supplies for proposed projects under all alternatives. Under all alternatives, particularly 

Alternatives 1 and 4, there would be an increase in the number of barge loads for several years following 

approval of proposed actions. These would include transportation of people and construction materials for 

the maintenance and housing areas and surfacing materials for the road. In Alternatives 1 and 4 these 

would also include large amounts of imported fill for the road grade raise in McGregor Meadows that 

would take 300 - 500 truck trips from the Landing. 

In general, it is likely that most visitors would be unaffected by the increase in barge and truck traffic, 

especially because it would occur over time as the proposed projects were implemented. Visitors and 

residents would be impacted by truck traffic on the road during weekday business hours and at other 

times as approved by the superintendent. Road construction would generally occur in summer and fall 

over two years. This would be followed by two to three years of work to relocate the housing and 

maintenance area. Residents, because they frequently come and go, would notice the increase in traffic 

more. In the first one to two years following approval, depending on the selected alternative, work would 

be concentrated on the road improvements and erosion protection measures, while afterwards, work 

would be concentrated on recreational improvements, building construction, and restoration. 

Both residents and visitors would experience localized minor to moderate short-term adverse impacts 

from traffic delays related to construction, particularly from road rehabilitation actions during 

construction. Residents and visitors would notice a substantial increase in the number of dump truck loads 

of materials traveling on the Stehekin Valley Road, especially under Alternative 1. Because of the number 

of dump truck loads that would be required to transport fill materials for the grade raise, these impacts 

would likely be greatest under Alternatives 1 and 4; however, impacts of construction from the removal 

of fill from Wilson Creek (all alternatives) and Milepost 8.0 (Alternatives 2 - 4) would also result in 

impacts and traffic delays. 

As a result of the road rehabilitation, residents and visitors would encounter one-lane road closures with 

construction delays of up to 20 minutes during the week. On weekends and holidays, construction would 

cease, except if it was associated with the reroute (off the main road) or unless approval for work on these 

days was granted by the superintendent. The proposed road rehabilitation under Alternatives 1 and 4 

would take approximately one construction season to complete and would likely begin the year following 

approval of the plan. Road work under Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely take two or more seasons to 

complete. Work that would affect key visitor use areas would be scheduled before or after the main visitor 

use season to avoid impacts to the greatest number of people. Recreation area visitors would be informed 

of construction delays through various means, including press releases to local media, Stehekin 

Community e-mails, notification at visitor and information centers and local businesses, and signs posted 

on bulletin boards in the recreation area, at the boat dock, and on the boat. 

Road Improvements: The rehabilitation of the road would affect visitor access through a variety of 

means, including constructing smoother roadways, providing clearer signs, and creating more pullouts.

Long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on visitor and resident travel on the Stehekin Valley 

Road under the alternatives would include the following: 
15. Visitor Experience: Access and Transportation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 343 

 Improvements in sight distance along the road (all alternatives) 

 Safer passing from adding pullouts to facilitate traffic movement (all alternatives) 

 Improvements in the road that would make it less susceptible to temporary closures and flood 

damage (improvements associated primarily with the reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3, from the 

grade raise in Alternatives 1 and 4, and from erosion protection measures in all alternatives) 

 Reduced probability of complete slope failure by reducing the grade of the slope below the road 

and improving stability of the riverbank (at Milepost 5.3, Wilson Creek) (all alternatives) 

 Fewer rock falls from laying back the steepest upper part of the slope, rock scaling, and 

revegetation at Milepost 8.0 (Alternatives 2 - 4) 

 Diminished dust and potholes and a smoother travel surface from surfacing most of the road (all 

alternatives) 

 Improved conditions from revegetation of disturbed and abandoned sections of road (all 

alternatives) and where reroutes were constructed (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

These actions would also have short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts from traffic delays and 

construction noise and activity. 

Company Creek Road and McGregor Meadows: Access to and through these areas would continue to 

be problematic because of periodic flooding under all alternatives. Because the Company Creek Road 

would not be rerouted and would therefore continue to remain directly adjacent to the right bank of the 

Stehekin River, across from McGregor Meadows, there would continue to be long-term adverse impacts 

to visitors and residents living in and traveling through this area because of the potential increased 

magnitude and frequency of flooding. Most flooding occurs during nonpeak visitation periods, and few 

visitors use the upper Company Creek Road. Actions taken after the 2003 and 2006 floods, including 

installation of three grade-control structures and four rock barbs, have stabilized the area. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, less flooding of the road would occur in the McGregor Meadows area due to 

the grade raise; however, the area would continue to experience periodic flooding that would preclude 

transportation to and through the area. If past trends in rapid gravel deposition in the main channel 

continue, flooding and erosion of the road would get worse. 

McGregor Meadows Access Road: Alternatives 2 - 3 would improve conditions for most visitors and 

some residents because of the reroutes; however, the McGregor Meadows Access Road would continue to 

be flooded and subsequent temporary closures during road repairs would be necessary. Recent 

improvements, including grade-control structures, above this area would continue to be maintained under 

all alternatives to reduce the potential for the river to cut a new channel down the road from the river bed 

at Milepost 6.8. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, residents who live in McGregor Meadows and visitors to 

these areas could also experience more difficulty in access by motor vehicle, due to the reduced road 

maintenance, particularly in the winter. Motor-vehicle access to the river in this area would also become 

slightly more difficult because the road would end at the last private parcel and visitors would no longer 

be able to drive to some parts of the Stehekin River shoreline. Construction of the Lower Valley Trail 

along the roadbed would enable continued pedestrian access to the area and provide the minor benefit of a 

more serene visitor experience along the river, which could include fishing and hiking. Because of a lack 

of through access, residents and visitors continuing up would have to double-back at the end of the access 

road and retrace their path to the rerouted main Stehekin Valley Road. As a result, reduced motor-vehicle 

access into the vicinity of McGregor Meadows could have negligible to minor adverse impacts on some 

visitors. Other visitors would experience beneficial effects from reduced motor-vehicle use and the 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

344 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

opportunity to hike in an area of former roadway. Over time, some impacts would diminish as visitors and 

residents adjusted to the changed road location. 

Rafting: Barbs would continue to be submerged during high flow periods in spring and early summer 

when floating the river is most popular. During late summer and winter, the upper parts of barbs would 

likely protrude above the water surface near the bank, but would minimally affect the rafting experience 

nearby, similar to other natural river obstacles (NPS 1997:34). The number of raft trips decreases 

substantially as river flows drop in late summer. In addition, eddies and pools on the downstream side of 

the barbs could serve as resting areas during raft trips. These effects would be moderate in Alternative 4, 

which has the most barbs, and minor in Alternatives 2 and 3, with less than half as many barbs. Because 

logjams could be a hazard to boaters, final designs for these would be approved in consultation with a 

consortium of river rafting guides modeled after a process used by King County. Construction of a new 

raft takeout in Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in a minor to moderate long-term benefit to access for 

recreational users of the Lower River and head of Lake Chelan. 

Lower Valley Trail: In addition to the trail itself, a variety of new access opportunities would be 

provided by the trail. Access across the river would be shorter and more direct to Weaver Point and the 

River Trail from Stehekin Landing. From the Landing, it is approximately 1 mile on the River Trail to 

Weaver Point, where a walk-in/boat-in campground is available. The footbridge crossing would also 

make it feasible for visitors to hike a loop that included portions of the River Trail and the proposed 

Lower Valley Trail (approximately 12.5 miles long). The Lower Valley Trail’s connection with the 

Stehekin River Trail would also allow for a new loop trail opportunity and would enhance access by 

providing a bridge across the river at Boulder Creek. This would shorten the trail distance from the 

Landing to Weaver Point Campground and provide a minor to moderate long-term beneficial effect for 

some people. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts

to visitor and resident access and transportation, interpretation and education, visitor use opportunities, 

scenic resources, and safety would include the following: 

 Allowing construction delays and one-lane closures to be no longer than 20 minutes per passage 

through the project (longer delays could be approved in advance). 

 Avoiding evening, weekend, and holiday work by requiring approval in advance. Longer 

construction delays or total road closures would also be approved in advance. 

 Distributing press releases to local media, locating signs in the recreation area, and providing 

information on the boat to inform visitors about road conditions in the lower Stehekin Valley 

during the project. 

 Using a public information program to warn of construction-related road closures, delays, and 

road hazards. 

 Keeping a McGregor Meadows and Lower Field route open during reroute construction 

(Alternatives 2 and 3). 

 Providing notice to equestrians (e.g., Stehekin Valley Ranch) regarding conditions that could 

make the road temporarily impassable for horse crossing. 

 Managing vehicle traffic and contractor hauling of materials, supplies, and equipment within the 

construction zone to minimize disruptions in visitor traffic. 
15. Visitor Experience: Access and Transportation Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 345 

 Developing a safety plan prior to the initiation of construction to ensure the safety of recreation 

area visitors, workers, residents, and park staff. 

 Minimizing dust during construction on public roadways (by minimizing soil disturbance, 

spraying water [no chemicals] over disturbed soil areas during dry periods, and revegetating 

disturbed soil areas as soon as practical following construction). 

Cumulative Impacts: Over the long term, visitors and residents have experienced moderate to major 

adverse impacts on access and transportation from the closure of the upper portion of the Stehekin Valley 

Road (above Car Wash Falls). Closure of the road after the 2003 flood initially resulted in a decrease in 

the number of visitors to this area, over time the number of visitors has risen and is now essentially the 

same as it was in the past, based on recent visitor use statistics. Other impacts have occurred from 

periodic closure of the road in the lower valley below High Bridge during and after floods. Alternative 1 

and, to a lesser degree, Alternative 4 would continue to contribute minor adverse impacts to access 

because flooding damage could result in more frequent road closures, primarily during fall floods in 

McGregor Meadows. Although the road through portions of McGregor Meadows would be raised in 

Alternatives 1 and 4, large floods could erode road fill or wash out other sections of roadway, resulting in 

the need for repairs before access could occur. Alternative 4 would contribute fewer adverse impacts 

because erosion protection measures and realignments would help to minimize the areas of future road 

washouts. Access along Company Creek Road would not change and would continue to be affected by 

periodic flooding. Extensive rock barbs, bioengineering, and three grade-control structures already in 

place on the upper Company Creek Road would continue to require maintenance. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts from dependable 

road access past McGregor Meadows, while Alternative 2 would also contribute long-term dependable 

road access to above the Lower Field area. With erosion protection measures, Alternatives 2 - 4 would 

likely result in better access than Alternative 1 from bank stabilization. Drainage improvements at 

Milepost 9.2 should eliminate a problem caused by a debris flow in 2009. Slope stabilization at Milepost 

8.0 would improve safety and access from reducing rock fall hazards. 

All alternatives would contribute short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on transportation during 

construction that would generally affect residents more than visitors. These include traffic delays from 

transport of fill and construction materials and other road construction activities. Similarly, long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effects on transportation would be contributed under Alternatives 1 - 4 from 

rehabilitation of the road (Alternatives 1 - 4) or construction of new segments of road (Alternatives 2 and 

3) and from improved driving conditions, signage, and safety improvements such as increased sight 

distance and pullouts. Elimination of dust from the road surface would have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact above Harlequin Bridge. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have short-term negligible to moderate adverse and negligible to 

moderate beneficial impacts. Additional moderate adverse effects would occur in Alternatives 1 and 4 

related to transportation of fill and flooding of access routes. Alternatives 2 - 4 would add long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects from actions at Milepost 8.0 and from stabilization of the road, 

whether in place or with a reroute. Additional minor adverse impacts would occur from erosion protection 

measures.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

346 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

16. VISITOR EXPERIENCE: INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION 

IMPACTS 

a. Interpretation and Education Methodology 

Methodology would be the same as ―Visitor Experience.‖

Type of Impact: Same as ―Visitor Experience.‖

Intensity of Impact 

 Negligible: Impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. 

 Minor: Impacts would be slightly detectable or localized within a relatively small area. 

 Moderate: Impacts would be readily apparent. 

 Major: Impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and/or result in changing the nature and 

extent of programming. 

b. Interpretation and Education Impacts 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

There would be ongoing minor to moderate beneficial impacts from existing interpretive and educational 

programs. As called for by the GMP, the Lower Valley Trail would provide several new interpretive 

opportunities. One would include opportunities for better interpretation of the Stehekin Wagon Road and 

its extant historic features in the lower valley and the other would include the old Skinny Wilson 

homestead near Wilson Creek, which is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It 

would also provide opportunities to interpret numerous natural features in the lower valley. A relocated 

Bullion Campground would provide some limited additional opportunities to learn about recreation area 

resources from information signs in the camp. Effects on interpretation and education as a result of the 

implementation of Alternative 1 would be negligible to minor and beneficial. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 - 4 

Alternatives 2 - 4 would result in a variety of minor to moderate long-term beneficial effects on 

interpretation and education. Visitors and residents could learn more about the changes in the Stehekin 

River wrought by the increased frequency and magnitude of flooding and how this likely may relate to a 

changing environment. As in Alternative 1, there would be increased opportunities to learn about the 

Stehekin Wagon Road and Skinny Wilson’s homestead from construction of the Lower Valley Trail. New 

campsites at Rainbow Falls and Purple Point Horse Camp, a relocated Bullion Campground (in 

Alternatives 1 - 4) and a new Company Creek Campground (in Alternatives 3 and 4) would provide some 

limited additional opportunities to learn about recreation area resources from information signs placed at 

these locations in association with the camps. 

The enhancement of interpretive and educational programming for the general public, local residents, and 

the media would include an emphasis on the value of large woody debris in the river environment, the 

role of flooding in river ecosystems, and on the value of allowing floodwaters to occupy the floodplain / 

channel migration zone by minimizing human impacts to river processes. These programs would continue 

to include river hazard-related visitor and resident safety messages to ensure meaningful, satisfying, and 

safe recreation area experiences. 
17. Visitor Experience: Visitor Use Opportunities Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 347 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Same as Access and Transportation Impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts: Over time, the recreation area has changed both the number of programs and the 

diversity of interpretive and educational programming and targeted specific programs for different 

audiences. Alternatives 1 - 4 would have minor beneficial effects on interpretation and education. New 

interpretive opportunities would also increase in Alternatives 2 - 4 because of more access opportunities 

to learn about the river environment. Combined with Alternative 1, these impacts would be negligible to 

minor and localized. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have minor to moderate beneficial effects, with slightly more 

beneficial effects in Alternatives 2 - 4. 

17. VISITOR EXPERIENCE: VISITOR USE OPPORTUNITIES IMPACTS 

a. Visitor Use Opportunities Methodology 

Methodology would be the same as ―Visitor Experience.‖ 

Type of Impact: Same as ―Visitor Experience.‖

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Visitors would not be affected or changes in visitor use opportunities would be below 

or at the level of detection. Any effects would be short term. Visitors and residents would likely 

be unaware of the effects associated with the alternative. 

 Minor: Changes in visitor use opportunities would be detectable, although the changes would be 

slight and likely short term. Visitors and residents would be aware of the effects associated with 

the alternative, but the effects would be slight. 

 Moderate: Changes in visitor use opportunities would be readily apparent and likely long term. 

Visitors and residents would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative and would 

likely be able to express an opinion about the changes. 

 Major: Changes in visitor use opportunities would be readily apparent and would have 

substantial long-term consequences. Visitors and residents would be aware of the effects 

associated with the alternative and would likely express a strong opinion about the changes. 

b. Visitor Use Opportunities Impacts 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would primarily continue to offer the current range of visitor use opportunities, including 

hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, rafting, skiing, hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. Interpretive 

and education programs interactions with Stehekin residents, staff, and other visitors, and participation in 

wilderness experiences (solitude and primitive recreation experiences) would also continue. These would 

continue to provide long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

The implementation of proposed actions in this alternative, however, would result in additional moderate 

long-term beneficial effects, including hiking and horseback riding opportunities from the construction of 

the Lower Valley Trail. Other benefits would include a new loop trail experience on the Stehekin River 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

348 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Trail and a safer driving experience on the road, with improved access to pullouts and an improved 

driving and bicycling surface. New parking and a formal, safe winter turnaround area would also benefit 

visitors. Surfacing the roadway would eliminate dust and decrease dust irritation to motorists and 

recreational users, particularly bikes and pedestrians. Overall impacts would be beneficial from 

maintaining access, increasing driver safety, and surfacing the road. There would be more sustainable 

opportunities to camp at the relocated Bullion Campground. 

During and immediately following construction, wildlife viewing opportunities would likely diminish in 

the project areas, a short-term negligible to minor adverse effect on visitor use opportunities. During this 

time, there would be fewer opportunities to encounter natural conditions in the construction areas. Over 

time, as construction activities subsided, these impacts would diminish and most wildlife would return to 

the areas and opportunities would return or even increase, because of the increase in edge habitat in some 

areas. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 - 4 

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 - 4 would offer the same kinds of visitor use opportunities; 

however, these would be expanded, a moderate mostly beneficial long-term impact. There would be more 

opportunities for visitors to learn about the Stehekin River through expanded interpretive programs and 

new interpretive signs at camps and along trails. There would be more camping opportunities from the 

establishment of campgrounds at Purple Point Horse Camp and Rainbow Falls, as well as more 

sustainable opportunities to camp at the relocated Bullion Camp. Alternatives 3 and 4 would also include 

another campground at Company Creek, offering expanded camping opportunities off the main road. 

Although not all visitors would take advantage of all the expanded opportunities, effects would be mostly 

beneficial, but would also result in some negligible to minor adverse impacts on the experience of those 

visitors and residents who would prefer fewer formal camps, recreation facilities, and trails in the valley. 

It is likely that backpackers and groups visiting Stehekin, in particular, would benefit from expanded 

camping opportunities. There would be minor beneficial effects on fishing from creation of pool habitat 

and restoring riparian vegetation by constructing logjams and rock barbs along the Stehekin River. 

In addition, there would be a raft takeout on public land near the mouth of the river in Alternatives 2 and 

4. To the recreating public, this facility would represent a long-term minor to moderate beneficial impact 

by providing a convenient access point at the end of a journey down the river or the beginning of a 

journey to the head of the lake. Moving the entrance to the access road off private land would create a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial impact for nearby landowners and the public. (The current road 

passes within 10 feet of a cabin.) 

Impacts associated with the Lower Valley Trail would be similar to those in Alternative 1; however, in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, the trail would take advantage of more existing road and trail and would require 

fewer constructed miles than in either Alternative 1 or Alternative 4. In both cases, however, the trail 

would be approximately the same length. 

The road reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would add to the diversity of the driving experience along the 

Stehekin Valley Road in a way that would be preferred by some visitors and residents and disliked by 

others. Compared to Alternatives 1 and 4, the driving experience would be well away from the Stehekin 

River for 1.9 or 1.7 miles, depending on which reroute was implemented. Both would result in about 40 

percent of this part of the road (within the project area) moving into a forested area, rather than a 

combination of open and forested landscape. Although visitor use opportunities to see some wildlife 

species could diminish, opportunities to see other species would increase. As noted below in the ―Visitor 

Experience: Scenic Resources‖ section, there would be changes in the visual character of the road that 

would affect the visitor experience of scenic views and vistas along this same section of the road 
17. Visitor Experience: Visitor Use Opportunities Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 349 

(Alternatives 2 and 3). Whether this would be a beneficial or adverse impact would depend on the viewer. 

Rafters and anglers might prefer the removal of the road from next to the river, and although access 

would be via a flat, 0.5-mile-long trail to the east bank, the west bank is accessible from Company Creek 

Road. Alternative 2 would also contribute some enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities in the Lower 

Field area, since there would be less human disturbance in the field along the river, access would continue 

via the Lower Valley Trail, and wildlife sightings could increase. 

All alternatives would result in the same kinds of short-term construction-related impacts to visitor use 

described above under Access and Transportation Impacts and in this section under Alternative 1, as well 

as those related to wildlife viewing described in Alternative 1. There would be fewer overall impacts from 

traffic delays related to the construction of the reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3) because the road through 

McGregor Meadows would remain open. There could be some delays on this route related to materials 

movement and deliveries until the reroute was complete (both alternatives would retain a 0.8-mile portion 

of the old road as the McGregor Meadows Access Road). Most of the adverse impacts to visitor use 

would occur between Company Creek Pit to McGregor Meadows due to construction and would result in 

minor adverse impacts on visitor use by causing increased levels of noise and dust, degraded views, and 

delays in accessing the upper or lower Stehekin Valley via the road. Increased noise and changes in visual 

quality could have short-term negligible adverse impacts on visitors in the wilderness area. 

Since much of the current visitor use would occur well away from the proposed reroute and maintenance 

and housing replacement and relocation project areas, it would not be added to that of the reroute 

disturbance. Most other actions, however, would occur in the vicinity of visitor and residential use, and 

some residences are near the reroute alignment and the construction site for the new raft takeout in 

Alternatives 2 and 4. Those residents and visitors near the road and the reroute construction areas would 

therefore experience short-term moderate adverse impacts from noise and activity related to road 

construction. The same would be true of residents and visitors along lower Company Creek Road and 

near the Stehekin airstrip, where a moderate amount of activity related to relocating the existing and 

constructing the new maintenance facility and housing would occur. Trucks crossing Harlequin Bridge 

would result in short-term disruptions at Harlequin Camp and on access to the Stehekin River Trail. 

Temporary inconveniences related to construction would also occur to visitors and residents not being 

able to take advantage of some opportunities due to road construction delays. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Same as Access and Transportation. 

Cumulative Impacts: Resident and visitor use opportunities have increased gradually over time within 

Lake Chelan from the development of visitor facilities. Effects from the Forest Fuel Reduction Program 

have also likely contributed to increased wildlife viewing opportunities from the opening of thickly 

forested areas surrounding the road and from the creation of edge habitat from fuel-reduction activities, 

including from the ability to see into adjacent forested areas. Most erosion protection projects 

implemented over the last 15 years have not resulted in increases or decreases in resident and visitor use 

opportunities. Some projects, however, have altered the visitor experience on the road (such as the 

extensive Coon Run reroute). Although visitor use activities would remain largely unchanged under 

Alternative 1, this alternative would have long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on visitor use 

opportunities from the construction of the Lower Valley Trail and its linkage to the Stehekin River Trail 

and from improved driving conditions on a surfaced road. Negligible to minor short-term adverse effects 

would be contributed from construction activities, which would diminish wildlife presence in construction 

areas. Alternatives 2 - 4 would have the same effects as Alternative 1 plus would contribute an increasing 

series of minor to moderate long-term beneficial effects from establishing additional or improved camps 

and in Alternatives 2 and 4, a raft takeout. Views and vistas would change on the Stehekin Valley Road in 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

350 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternatives 2 and 3, with more of the road traversing a drier forested area, a minor long-term adverse or 

beneficial effect, depending on the viewer. 

Conclusion: There would be few new opportunities in Alternative 1; however there would be 

improvements in existing opportunities. Compared to the negligible to moderate beneficial effects in 

Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 - 4would have both more opportunities and more improvements (minor to 

beneficial effects) than Alternative 1. 

18. VISITOR EXPERIENCE: SAFETY IMPACTS 

a. Safety Methodology 

Visitor and employee safety impacts were assessed qualitatively based on past studies which identified 

specific problems in the project area. 

Type of Impact: See ―Visitor Experience.‖

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Visitors would not be affected or changes in visitor safety would be below or at the 

level of detection. 

 Minor: Changes in visitor use safety would be detectable, although the changes would be slight 

and likely short term. 

 Moderate: Changes in visitor safety would be readily apparent and likely long term. 

 Major: Changes in visitor safety would be readily apparent and would have substantial long-term 

consequences. 

b. Safety Impacts 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

The following specific actions called for by these alternatives would have negligible to moderate 

improvements (beneficial effects) on visitor, resident, and/or employee safety. These would include 

actions that involve the following: 

Negligible Beneficial Impacts 

 There would be ongoing grading of unsurfaced sections of road or access road (Alternatives 1 - 

4). 

Minor Beneficial Impacts 

 Surfacing the road would reduce the potential for pothole formation and defensive driving 

methods required when they form (Alternatives 1 - 4). 

 Surfacing the road would likely reduce visitor, staff, and resident bicycle accidents caused by 

riding on a gravel surface. 

 Constructing a designated winter turnaround area with parking would improve operations and 

visitor experience (Alternatives 1 - 4). 
18. Visitor Experience: Safety Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 351 

Moderate Beneficial Impacts 

 Improving sight distance along portions of the road, either by slight realignments or by adding 

pullouts (Alternatives 1 - 4), would improve driving conditions. 

 Relocating the maintenance area from the Stehekin River floodplain / channel migration zone 

would reduce the amount of employee time spent in this area and residents’ needs to go there to 

for solid waste disposal as well as allowing access to emergency equipment when needed during 

flooding (Alternatives 1 - 4).

 Surfacing of the road would eliminate dust and improve air quality for residents, visitors 

(particularly bicyclists), and NPS employees (Alternatives 1 - 4).

 There would be reduced employee exposure to cramped conditions and hazardous materials, 

including asbestos, lead-based paint, and rodent infestations from constructing new, buildings 

designed for the maintenance area (Alternatives 1 - 4).

 There would be increased ability to pass safely by more pullouts both on the main road 

(Alternatives 1 - 4) and from adding pullouts to the reroutes (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

 Using barbs or logjams would protect vulnerable sections of the Stehekin Valley Road along 

steep riverbanks (Alternatives 2 - 4). 

 Rock fall hazard would be reduced at Milepost 8.0 (Alternatives 2 - 4).

 Rerouting portions of the road away from the Stehekin River (Alternatives 2 and 3) would 

increase fire protection and emergency access. 

 Changing LPP priorities regarding land acquisition and exchange (Alternatives 2 - 4) would allow 

residents in flood-affected areas to relocate to other parts of the lower Stehekin Valley, if desired. 

Adverse Impacts 

Long-term negligible to moderate adverse effects associated with all alternatives would remain from 

retaining sections of the Stehekin Valley Road in the floodplain / channel migration zone near the head of 

Lake Chelan and from the road’s proximity to rock fall hazards along the lake shore, at Harlequin Bridge, 

and at Frog Island. In Alternatives 1 and 4, an additional 1.8 miles of road would remain vulnerable to 

floods in McGregor Meadows. In Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be long-term negligible to moderate 

adverse effects from relocating the road where it would cross several debris cones formed by small, steep, 

tributary streams. Debris cones are formed, in part, by snow avalanches, debris flows, and flood deposits. 

None of these debris cones along the reroute area has had a recent debris flow; however, a snow 

avalanche occurred in 2008. 

All alternatives would continue to maintain access for emergency services such as emergency medical 

services, search and rescue, and fire suppression. This includes the McGregor Meadows access road in 

Alternative 2, although this section could be temporarily closed by floods and flood damage. These 

services would be more consistent in Alternatives 2 - 4 because the Stehekin Valley Road would be 

rehabilitated or rerouted and available for use during flooding. Comparatively more locations could 

continue to wash out in Alternative 1 and, to a lesser extent, Alternative 4. Regardless, maintaining access 

would continue to be a high priority. Parts of Company Creek Road would continue to be closed by 

periodic flooding. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Same as b. Access and Transportation. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

352 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute a variety of negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts on visitor, resident, and employee safety. Road improvements under all alternatives would 

contribute the greatest number of these effects, while construction of the new maintenance area would 

result in improved operations efficiency and safety from the improved condition of facilities and working 

conditions. While Alternatives 1 and 4 provide minor safety improvements, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

result in long-term moderate beneficial impacts from improving safety conditions related to rerouting the 

road; as a result, Alternative 2 would have slightly greater benefits. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute negligible to minor beneficial impacts on safety, while 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have moderate beneficial impacts because of the reroute and changes in LPP

priorities. There would also continue to be negligible to moderate adverse effects from retaining sections 

of the road in the floodplain / channel migration zone where it cannot be moved (Alternatives 2 and 3) or 

to retain the existing road alignment (Alternatives 1 and 4). 

19. VISITOR EXPERIENCE: SCENIC RESOURCES IMPACTS 

a. Scenic Resources Methodology 

Scenic resources impacts were assessed qualitatively based on how the proposed actions would change 

the appearance of scenery. 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts were considered those that would focus viewing on human-constructed 

modifications, rather than natural scenery; beneficial impacts would enhance a natural scenic view. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. 

 Minor: Impacts would be slightly detectable or localized within a portion of the project area. 

 Moderate: Impacts would be readily apparent. 

 Major: Impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable changes to the character of the landscape. 

b. Scenic Resources Impacts 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 and 4

The scenic driving experience on the Stehekin Valley Road would not undergo major changes as a result 

of the implementation of Alternative 1. The road would continue to be a narrow, curvy, forested roadway, 

with close views of both the forest and the Stehekin River. During construction there would be negligible 

short-term effects on views along the road due to the presence of construction equipment in the project area, 

particularly staging areas, such as the Lower Field. Afterward, because construction would include removal 

of vegetation along the roadside related to ditch construction / reconstruction and pullout construction, there 

would be long-term adverse and beneficial effects. Initially, visitors would perceive that a change had 

occurred and would perhaps notice previously obscured views opened by the removal of some trees. Later, 

as plants began to fill in the open spaces, the road edges would revert to an array of vegetation similar to that 

now present. 

The Stehekin Valley Road has been in place for decades, although minor reroutes have been common 

throughout the past 40 years at a number of sites. The road itself interrupts the scenic values of the 

recreation area, it also provides access and a vantage point. By the same token, NPS and private 
19. Visitor Experience: Scenic Resources Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 353 

development in the valley both facilitate and impede the visitor experience of scenic resources. Actions 

proposed in Alternatives 1 and 4 would not relocate or expand the main alignment of the Stehekin Valley 

Road, but would continue to maintain a park-like setting for the road. In addition, where recreation area 

maintenance facilities are currently impeding the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin 

River near Harlequin Bridge, these would be removed and the area restored, allowing more natural river 

processes to occur, a minor to moderate long-term beneficial impact on scenic resources. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would also have long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects from reducing 

noise and dust along the Stehekin Valley Road by surfacing the road. The extensive amount of roadside 

vegetation covered with dust during the peak visitor use / summer dry season would be eliminated. Where 

new construction would result in loss of vegetation, including from constructing pullouts and the winter 

turnaround, as well as in removal of the eyebrow area in McGregor Meadows in Alternatives 1 - 4, there 

would be variable short- to long-term minor on moderate adverse impacts to visual quality from the loss 

of vegetation and from disturbance. Over time these impacts would diminish as revegetation and natural 

plant establishment occurred on the stabilized slopes. 

Bioengineering associated with barb placement would eventually restore the riparian edge between the 

road and the Stehekin River in some places, possibly obscuring views. This effect would be greatest in 

Alternative 4, where 16 - 17 new barbs are proposed, and least in Alternative 1, where no new barbs are 

currently proposed. Because expansive views of the river are available from numerous locations along the 

road (downvalley from the Stehekin School, Frog Island, Harlequin Bridge, Company Creek, Milepost 

8.0, and above Coon Creek), these adverse impacts on scenic resources would be negligible. 

Construction of the Lower Valley Trail would open up nonroaded views of the Stehekin River from 

numerous observation points, a long-term minor beneficial effect on scenic resources. 

Under Alternative 1, the ongoing impacts from land acquisition and exchange in the lower Stehekin 

Valley by both private residents and the NPS would continue to result in periodic modifications of the 

scenic qualities within the project area. New homes and outbuildings would be developed where none 

were present before, with some houses clustered in areas outside the channel migration zone. Others 

would be removed as lands with undesirable development were acquired. Covenants to protect scenic 

qualities and scenic easements established through the 1995 LPP would continue to limit impacts to 

scenic resources. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 and Additional Impacts from 

Alternative 4 

Although many of the same beneficial and adverse impacts to scenic qualities from Alternative 1 would 

occur in Alternatives 2 - 4, there would be a series of additional beneficial and adverse impacts. These 

would include moderate adverse and beneficial effects from more bioengineering associated with barb 

placement (greatest in Alternatives 3 and 4) and additional long-term moderate beneficial and negligible 

short-term adverse effects from riparian restoration. 

Reroute construction would result in moderate short- to long-term adverse effects (Alternatives 2 and 3) 

due to the major change from a forested plant community to a highly disturbed area with road cuts and 

fills, ranging from disturbing areas just larger than the road width (16 feet) to between 40 and 100 feet 

beyond the road. There would be changes in elevation no greater than 6 percent as the road ascended to 

the reroute area and then descended back to the valley floor. In Alternative 3, the steep descent into the 

Lower Field would be on top of an estimated 8 - 10 feet of fill. This fill section of roadway would not 

appear natural and would not blend into the open landscape of the Lower Field. Rather, it would be 

visible from approaches from the west on the Stehekin Valley Road and from the Lower Field. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

354 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 3 would therefore have moderate long-term adverse effects on scenic resources. Overall, the 

road reroute area (approximately 40 percent of the road within the project area) in Alternatives 2 and 3 

would not have views of the Stehekin River, but would traverse a forested landscape. This would be 

offset by improvements in views toward McGregor Meadows associated with road removal. Where the 

road was moved farther away from the river, views toward the river would contain a more natural 

appearance, with riparian vegetation providing screening and a vegetated, rather than bare, corridor 

alongside the river or a series of cutoff roads as it was gradually relocated. In addition, as in Alternatives 

1 and 4, construction of the Lower Valley Trail would open up numerous nonroaded views of the 

Stehekin River, wildlife, and surrounding landscapes, a long-term minor beneficial effect on scenic 

resources. 

Compared to Alternative 1, there would be similar impacts from land acquisition and exchange because 

many of the key provisions that protect scenic qualities in the current LPP process would be retained in 

the modified priorities that would be implemented in Alternatives 2 - 4. It is likely, however, that 

potentially fewer lands in Alternative 4 would be acquired within the channel migration zone because the 

current development pattern would continue. In Alternatives 2 and 3, development of potential exchange 

lands would result in clustering of some development in the Company and Boulder creek areas, a longterm minor to moderate adverse impact on scenic resources for the road. Emphasis on removal of cabins 

in the channel migration zone would improve scenic views along the river, a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Same as Access and Transportation.

Cumulative Impacts: The effects of past, present, and future actions have resulted in long-term 

beneficial and adverse effects on views and vistas from the Stehekin Valley Road. Past reroutes of the 

Stehekin Valley Road at Coon Run and 7.5 Mile have generally lead to fewer river views of the river 

from the road. Existing covenants and conditions for development of exchanged and adjacent lands 

resulted from the implementation of the 1995 LPP. When combined with these conditions, Alternative 1 

would continue to contribute long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects. Short-term adverse 

effects would continue to occur periodically from construction activities, response to flood damage of 

road, and from prescribed burns. Alternatives 2 - 3 would contribute the same adverse and beneficial 

effects as Alternative 1, plus long-term adverse and beneficial effects from relocating a portion of the 

road from a riparian area near the river to a drier forested area away from the river. While there would be 

fewer opportunities for views and vistas of the Stehekin River from the rerouted section of the road, there 

would be new opportunities to observe upland forest species, and to view the river from a trail instead of 

the road. Long-term beneficial effects noted in Alternative 1 associated with the LPP would continue, but 

would vary slightly since the emphasis in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be on acquiring lands within the 

channel migration zone. Scenic resources qualities along the road, though they would remain important, 

would be of lower priority. Similarly, Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute additional long-term 

negligible to minor adverse effects from the effort to maintain the Stehekin Valley Road, as well as the 

Company Creek Road, in essentially their existing alignments, contributing both minor adverse and minor 

beneficial effects on scenic resources from maintaining views while altering natural topography and 

vegetation. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 and 4 would continue to have long-term negligible to moderate and shortterm negligible to minor adverse effects on scenic resources, and long-term beneficial impacts from 

reducing dust, improving visibility, and removing NPS facilities from the floodplain. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would contribute to the diversity of the Stehekin Valley Road driving experience, a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial or adverse effect, depending on the viewer. 
20. Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 355 

Because there would be no significant impacts to scenic resources, there would be no impairment of 

scenic resources or values from the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4.

20. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IMPACTS 

a. Wild and Scenic Rivers Methodology 

The Stehekin River has been determined eligible as a Wild and Scenic River. The portion within the 

project area has been determined eligible for its recreational characteristics; above High Bridge it is 

eligible for its scenic characteristics; and farther upvalley, near Cottonwood Camp, it is eligible for its 

wild characteristics. (See Chapter III: Affected Environment, ―Wild and Scenic Rivers‖ for definitions of 

these.) 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers analysis assesses potential effects of the proposed alternatives on the 

characteristics of the Stehekin River that contribute to the river’s eligibility for listing as a component of 

the National System. Those characteristics include the free-flowing nature of the river and the outstanding 

remarkable values provided by the river and its immediately surrounding lands. The outstandingly 

remarkable values for the Stehekin River are prehistoric and historic resources, geology, scenic resources, 

wildlife/fish, and recreation. 

Context of Impact: Wild and Scenic Rivers impacts were considered within the project area and 

associated with the Stehekin River as a whole. 

Type of Impact: Beneficial impacts would improve wild and scenic river characteristics compared to 

existing conditions, while adverse impacts would reduce eligibility characteristics.

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: The effect on the values for which the river segment was determined eligible for 

listing as a Wild and Scenic River would be at the lowest levels of detection, barely measurable, 

with no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial. 

 Minor: A perceptible effect would occur to one or more of the values for which the river segment 

was determined eligible for listing as a Wild and Scenic River, but the effect would be localized 

to relatively small areas. Little, if any, loss of value or integrity would occur. 

 Moderate: A readily apparent effect would occur to the values for which the river segment was 

determined eligible for listing as a Wild and Scenic River. The effect would diminish some of the 

values, but not enough to threaten the river’s listing in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

 Major: A readily apparent effect would occur to the values for which the river segment was 

determined eligible for listing as a wild and scenic river. The effect would be severe enough to 

threaten segment 1’s eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

b. Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

As noted in Chapter III: Environmental Consequences, the proposed project area under all alternatives is 

within Segment 1 of the Stehekin River, an area proposed for its recreational values, primarily because of 

existing disturbance to the riverbank, including the presence of roads, houses, businesses, power lines, 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

356 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

and other human development. Segment 1 begins at the mouth of the river on Lake Chelan and extends up 

to High Bridge. As a result, the following discussion is limited to potential effects that would occur 

related to the eligibility of Segment 1 for Wild and Scenic River status. At the time Segment 1 was 

determined eligible for this status, it contained an estimated 80 erosion protection structures, including 

cabled logs, rip-rap, and rock barbs or a combination of these structures at approximately 35 sites, as well 

as one major bridge and other minor bridges over tributaries (NPS 2005). According to the analysis, these 

channel modifications or restriction were considered ―generally unobtrusive and of short length.‖ 

Free-flowing: In Alternative 1, additional riverbank modifications would occur at Milepost 5.3 (Wilson 

Creek). Alternative 2 would include additional actions at Milepost 5.3, plus there would be modifications 

to areas near the river mouth, at Frog Island, and at Boulder Creek. Alternatives 3 and 4 would include 

these same areas but would add additional modifications at the Lower Field at Weaver Point, while 

Alternative 4 would also include modifications (barbs) at Milepost 7.0 and Milepost 9.2. At Wilson Creek 

and Frog Island, the barbs and logjams would be at the edge of the channel migration zone, where their 

impact on the free-flowing nature of the river would be relatively minor. As noted above, these 

modifications would be the same as (barbs) or similar to (logjams) those mentioned in the Wild and 

Scenic River eligibility report. Both the barbs and the logjams would locally redirect streamflow, change 

bank and sediment erosion and channel avulsion processes, and increase the amount of pool vs. riffle 

habitat. Alternatives 2 - 4 would also remove some rip-rap at the Stehekin River mouth, while adding 

other beneficial features, such as riparian restoration and the bioengineering component associated with 

rock barbs and logjams. In Alternatives 2 and 3, relocating the road away from the eroding riverbank 

would have a minor to moderate beneficial effect by eliminating the need for additional erosion protection 

structures and allowing natural river processes, such as the river’s free-flowing characteristics, to be 

enhanced. 

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negligible to moderate beneficial effects 

from relocating part of the road away from the river and from restoration, as well as minor adverse effects 

from rock barbs. Rock barbs would have minimal effects on river recreation. Both beneficial effects and 

adverse effects would be fewer in Alternative 3 from less relocation of the road and from less restoration 

and more logjams. Alternative 4 would have even fewer beneficial effects (no reroute), and there would 

be additional minor to moderate adverse effects from more barbs than in other alternatives. 

Prehistoric and Historic Resources: As noted above in cultural resources, there would be no effect on 

known prehistoric or historic resources from the implementation of Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 - 4 

would have no effect on prehistoric resources. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no adverse effect on 

historic resources. A portion of the Stehekin Wagon Road, which has been determined to be ineligible for 

the National Register, could be affected by the proposed 1. 9-mile reroute through McGregor Meadows 

and the Lower Field. Alternatives 2 - 4 would have beneficial effects on the Buckner Homestead Historic 

District from the restoration of the riparian area alongside the Stehekin River. Since this restoration would 

also have no adverse effect on historic resources and because vegetation is not considered a contributing 

outstandingly remarkable value of the Stehekin River, there would be a negligible beneficial effect 

combined with minor adverse effects on the continued contribution of historic resources to the eligibility 

of the Stehekin River as a Wild and Scenic River in Segment 1 in Alternatives 2 and 3 and a negligible 

beneficial effect in Alternatives 1 and 4.

Geology: Because there would be no effects from the proposed project on glaciers, ice fields, cirques, 

spires, hanging valleys, or bedrock box canyons, there would be no effect on the glacial features which 

contributed to the identification of geology as a contributing outstandingly remarkable value on Segment 

1 of the Stehekin River. Instead, effects would be limited to local surficial landforms that would be 

excavated or otherwise modified for shoreline stabilization measures and road-related infrastructure 

improvements at Milepost 5.3, Wilson Creek (Alternatives 1 - 4), and Milepost 8.0 (Alternatives 2 - 4), as 
20. Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 357 

well as for the proposed maintenance and housing areas (Alternatives 1 - 4) and the reroutes (Alternatives 

2 and 3). The spatial scale of these adverse impacts would be negligible compared to the overall scale of 

the geologic values that would remain unaffected by the proposed actions in the alternatives. Further, 

landforms at those sites are relatively young. 

Scenic Resources: The scenic resources called out in the eligibility report for the Stehekin River include 

the landscape dominated by dramatic, glacially sculpted landforms, diverse vegetation, and exceptionally 

clear, flowing water. As noted in the report, human impacts are few and unobtrusive and allow visitors to 

experience the grandeur of the wilderness and its landscapes. 

As noted above, the glacially sculpted landforms characteristic of this outstandingly remarkable value 

would not be compromised by the proposed project under Alternatives 1 - 4. Although both water and 

vegetation would be affected by the proposed project under all alternatives, the changes to these 

characteristics would not have long-term adverse effects on landforms or the diversity of vegetation. 

The proposed project actions would locally affect the quantity of vegetation in road reroute areas in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. There would not be other than short-term localized effects on the clarity of flowing 

water. Beneficial vegetation effects would be realized from riparian restoration noted above at Weaver 

Point, the Stehekin River mouth, Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, Frog Island, and Lower Field 

in Alternatives 2 - 4. Beneficial impacts would also occur in Alternatives 1 - 4 from restoration of the 

former maintenance area, which is within 0.25 mile of the river. There would be negligible adverse and 

beneficial effects from installation of barbs and accompanying bioengineering in Alternatives 2 - 4, 

particularly at sites on the edge of the channel migration zone. Vegetation effects would be moderate and 

short to long term associated with the reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3, but effects over this area would not 

affect the eligibility of the Stehekin River as a Wild and Scenic River because they would be located more 

than 0.25 mile from the river, outside the potential area of eligibility noted in the report. 

Overall, there would be a variety of short-term effects on scenic resources from the implementation of the 

alternatives. A variety of landscape elements would include long-term alteration, including from clearing 

vegetation, and moving the road farther from the river. Foreground and background views from the road 

would change under all alternatives (related to the winter turnaround and pullouts in Alternatives 1 - 4) 

and would be primarily associated with the road reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3. While these would have 

additional effects on scenic resources, they would not affect the scenic resources characteristics called out 

by the eligibility report because of their distance from the river. 

As a result, the proposed project under Alternatives 1 - 4 would have negligible to minor short-term 

adverse effects, combined with similar beneficial effects, on scenic resources associated with the scenic 

resources outstandingly remarkable value noted in the Stehekin River eligibility report. The adverse 

effects would be primarily short-term adverse impacts to water quality and the beneficial effects would be 

associated with riparian restoration and bioengineering. Potential adverse effects would be present in all 

alternatives (Alternatives 1 - 4), with effects increasing from Alternative 1 to 4, while beneficial effects 

would be greatest in Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, and 1. 

Wildlife/Fish: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have primarily short-term adverse impacts associated with 

construction on some fish and wildlife. Wildlife would be more likely to avoid the construction areas 

during, and potentially for a short time after, construction. There would be several benefits to fish by 

creating pool habitat, which is more scarce than other habitat types (such as riffle habitat), and providing 

additional riparian vegetation along the riverbank (such as willow layering to provide shade and woody 

debris) (NPS 2005) in Alternatives 2 - 4. Once the road was surfaced there would be less sediment 

eroding from the road, and slope-stabilization measures (Alternatives 2 - 4) would also help to reduce the 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

358 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

amount of eroded sediment entering the river. Thus, overall water quality and habitat for fish would be 

improved. 

These impacts would not affect the diversity of game and nongame wildlife and fish and/or threatened 

and endangered species called out as an outstandingly remarkable value and identified in the Stehekin 

River Wild and Scenic River eligibility report. Despite short-term impacts and long-term loss of minor 

portions of upland forested habitat, the diversity of wildlife and fish species present in and near the 

Stehekin River would remain. Species would continue to depend on the Stehekin River for all or part of 

their lifecycle, and the river would remain an important habitat component and migration route despite 

short- and long-term adverse impacts identified here. There would be no effect on the diversity of wildlife 

and fish species related to the proposed project under Alternatives 1 - 4. As a result, this outstandingly 

remarkable value would remain a valuable component of the Stehekin River’s eligibility in Segment 1. 

Recreation: Recreational values in Segment 1 would remain similar in Alternative 1, with some 

enhancement within 0.25 mile of the Stehekin River, including a crossing of the proposed Lower Valley 

Trail connecting to the Stehekin River Trail near Boulder Creek. This would have a negligible to 

moderate beneficial effect on recreation as an outstandingly remarkable value called out by the Stehekin 

Wild and Scenic River eligibility report. Construction of a foot-bridge could result in minor to moderate 

impacts to the river. In Alternatives 2 and 4, a moderate long-term benefit would occur from construction 

of the raft launch. There would also be negligible to minor adverse effects on recreation from the potential 

need for installation of some additional erosion protection structures at the bridge crossing. During most 

of the year, rock barbs would constitute a minor hazard to river rafters by creating an obstruction in the 

channel. The obstruction would be topped during high-flow periods in the spring and early summer, when 

floating the river is most popular. Later in the summer, however, part of the structure would protrude 

above the water surface, although the effects would likely have no greater impact to recreation than other 

obstacles along the river (Allen, pers. comm., 2005 in NPS 2005). Rock barbs would be unobtrusive 

because to be effective, they would be installed generally below the high water mark of the river. This 

makes them compatible with river runners and undetectable to most visitors. Consultation with river 

rafters would occur regarding the placement of logjams. Other features, such as grade-control structures, 

would be hidden (below grade), while logjams would appear natural. Bullion camp within the 0.25 mile 

affected area would be considered a minor beneficial effect that would improve the recreation qualities 

associated with the Stehekin River. 

Alternatives 2 - 4 call for additional enhancement of Stehekin River recreational features within the 0.25-

mile affected area, including some additional camps adjacent to the river (Rainbow and Bullion camps in 

all three action alternatives [Alternatives 2 - 4] and Company Creek Camp in Alternatives 3 and 4). Along 

with the raft take-out in Alternatives 2 and 4, the camps would be considered minor to moderate 

beneficial effects that would improve the recreational qualities associated with the Stehekin River. There 

would be no adverse effect on the desire of visitors from outside the region to visit the Stehekin River, the 

key characteristic of the recreation outstandingly remarkable value called out in the eligibility report for 

the river. Therefore, improvements under Alternatives 1 - 4 would result in enhancement of this value, 

and there would be no adverse effects on it. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to Wild and Scenic Rivers would include mitigation measures listed in the ―Water Resources,‖

―Vegetation,‖ ―Wildlife,‖ and ―Visitor Experience: Scenic Resources‖ sections. 

Cumulative Impacts: Since the eligibility report was written, there have been about 10 new sites with 

erosion protection features along the river in Segment 1. While these have resulted in slight modifications 
20. Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 359 

to the free-flowing nature of the river, the designation of this segment of the river under recreation allows 

for their continued persistence and additions that remain unobtrusive. Because rock barbs and other 

features associated with protecting the riverbanks from erosion either appear natural or would be below 

the ordinary high water mark, they would continue to be unobtrusive. Although additional future 

measures would likely be added, primarily under Alternatives 1 and 4, where the road is essentially 

retained in place, and would be maintained under all Alternatives (1 - 4), these alternatives would 

continue to contribute negligible to minor long-term adverse cumulative impacts. These impacts, 

however, would not affect the eligibility of the river to be nominated as a Wild and Scenic River in 

Segment 1 for recreation and would have no effect on potential designation in segments 2 and 3 as scenic 

or wild, respectively. 

Effects in Segment 1 would continue to be minimal because the same kinds of erosion protection 

measures as currently existing would be added (Alternatives 1 - 4) and because additional portions of the 

river would be released to natural conditions (because of reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3). As a result, 

Alternatives 1 and 4 along with past projects would contribute long-term moderate adverse effects. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would also contribute some moderate beneficial impacts, in addition to negligible 

beneficial effects in Alternatives 1 and 4. Removal of private cabins from within the channel migration 

zone would have a long-term moderate beneficial effect on Wild and Scenic River values. It is likely 

more cabins would be removed in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the LPP focus in the channel migration 

zone. Alternatives 2 and 3 add new bank protection structures at 4 sites (Alternative 2) and 6 sites 

(Alternative 3). 

If the Stehekin River were designated as a National Wild and Scenic River, a 0.25-mile corridor on either 

side of the river would be designated to preserve its wild and scenic values. Because the river was found 

eligible with existing developments in place and because it also contained over 80 erosion protection and 

bank modifications (as noted in the report), there would be no effect on the status of the Stehekin River as 

a Wild and Scenic River from the additional modification of the river or the withdrawal of development 

from its floodplain as described in the action alternatives. All of the outstandingly remarkable values, 

including fish/wildlife, prehistoric resources, historic resources, geology, scenic resources, and recreation 

resources, of the Stehekin River would be maintained regardless of the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 

4. 

Conclusion: There would be no adverse effect on the following outstandingly remarkable values in 

Alternative 1: prehistoric and historic resources, geology, scenic resources, wildlife, or fish. Minor 

beneficial effects would occur from the creation of the Lower Valley Trail and its connection to the 

Stehekin River Trail. Although there would be additional erosion protection measures at Wilson Creek in 

Alternative 1, these would continue to be ―unobtrusive and of short length‖ and would not affect the 

ability of the Segment 1 portion of the Stehekin River to be designated as a Wild and Scenic River for 

recreation. 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on prehistoric resources, geology, scenic resources, wildlife, or fish 

outstandingly remarkable values associated with the Stehekin River. There would be negligible to minor 

beneficial effects on historic resources from riparian restoration along the Buckner Homestead hayfield 

and pasture adjacent to the river. Similarly, there would be minor beneficial effects on recreation from the 

designation of some additional camps and a raft takeout, along with negligible to minor adverse effects 

from additional barbs or logjams near steep sections (at Frog Island, Wilson Creek, and the river mouth), 

as well as some impacts near Boulder Creek. As in Alternative 1, the effects in Alternative 2 would not 

affect the ability of the Segment 1 portion of the Stehekin River to be designated as a Wild and Scenic 

River for recreation. The river would continue to be free flowing, with short, unobtrusive impediments to 

river flow, and would continue to possess more than one outstandingly remarkable value. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

360 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have effects similar effects to Alternative 2, except that there would be 

additional barbs and/or logjams constructed within the Stehekin River. Alternative 4 (and eventually 

Alternative 1) would add erosion management structures at eight sites within the potential 0.25-mile 

eligibility zone for the river. Alternative 4 would not have the same degree of beneficial effects due to 

maintenance of the road in the same location. In addition, there would be one more camp (Company 

Creek) to enhance recreational use in Alternatives 3 and 4. For the same reasons noted in Alternative 2, 

the river would continue to be free flowing, with short, unobtrusive impediments to flow, and would 

continue to possess more than one outstandingly remarkable value. There would be no effect on the 

eligibility of the Stehekin River in Segment 1 to be designated a Wild and Scenic River for recreation. 

There would therefore be no impairment of Wild and Scenic River resources or values from the 

implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4.

21. PARK OPERATIONS IMPACTS 

a. Park Operations Methodology 

Impacts for each action alternative were evaluated by identifying changes to operations outlined in each 

of the action alternatives. These effects were compared to existing operations, staffing, and funding. 

Context of Impact: Park operations impacts were considered within the project area and for the North 

Cascades NPS Complex. 

Impacts on park operations would result from the need for additional staffing or changes in duties for 

current staff, changes in funding levels, changes in facilities, and from cost-saving measures associated 

with new facilities. Planning and implementing projects requires staff time, expertise, and assistance, 

which must be taken from daily duties such as visitor contacts, interpretation, resource protection, and 

safety. 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts would increase staffing, operating costs or fuel consumption. 

Beneficial impacts would decrease these. With beneficial impacts, the efficiency of park operations would 

also be improved and may lower the overall cost of operation. The discussions of impacts are for those 

operations that would be new, undergo major operational change, or show susceptibility to increases or 

decreases in operational activity. For example, old facilities would require additional staff time to operate 

or maintain, whereas replacement of facilities would likely use existing staffing levels. Impacts on park 

operations would result from the need for additional staffing or changes in duties for current staff, 

changes in funding levels, and from cost-saving measures associated with new facilities. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: Park operations would not be affected, or the effects would be at low levels of 

detection and would not have an appreciable effect on park operations. 

 Minor: The effects on park operations would be detectable and would be of a magnitude that 

would not have an appreciable effect on park operations. 

 Moderate: The effects on park operations would be readily apparent and would result in a 

substantial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public. 

 Major: The effects on park operations would be readily apparent, would result in a substantial 

change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public, and would be markedly 

different from existing operations. 
21. Park Operations Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 361 

b. Park Operations Impacts 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

Road Rehabilitation: Typical construction impacts would include temporary delays for recreation area 

staff and related activities such as tour buses moving through the construction area. These produce shortterm, minor adverse impacts on park operations. Some actions associated with road rehabilitation would 

be common to all alternatives, including pullout and winter turnaround construction, culvert installation 

and repair or replacement, and surfacing. These actions would result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on park operations (staffing) from maintaining construction oversight, including contract 

monitoring. After construction, long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts would occur from a 

decreased workload associated with maintaining new road facilities in good condition. 

Rerouting the road to higher ground (Alternatives 2 and 3) or raising the road height (Alternatives 1 and 

4), stabilizing portions of the Stehekin River banks, directing the erosive force of the Stehekin River away 

from the road, and laying back slopes to prevent material from sloughing onto the road would reduce the 

potential for road closures, temporary delays, maintenance activity, and other access problems for park 

staff and recreation area activities. The effectiveness of the road would also be improved by surfacing the 

road, increasing sight distance, and providing pullouts to facilitate traffic movement. Surfacing the road 

would also make snowplowing operations more efficient and reduce the potential for damaging the 

snowplow. Once these improvements were completed it is likely that less staff time and recreation area 

resources would be required to maintain operations on the Stehekin Valley Road. 

Maintenance Facility Replacement and Relocation: Construction of the replacement maintenance 

facility would have a series of beneficial and adverse impacts on park operations. Overall impacts from 

construction of the new facilities would be major and beneficial. Individual impacts would vary from 

negligible to moderate. There would be short-term minor to moderate increases in staff responsibilities for 

construction planning and design oversight, as well as long-term negligible to minor changes in 

operations related to managing the new facilities. Construction of the new facility would initially result in 

fewer maintenance needs associated with the new structures in good condition, a long-term moderate 

beneficial effect. Over time, however, age and deterioration would increase maintenance needs, but would 

not approach the current level because the new facilities, unlike the old, would be designed for their 

designated uses and location (including tolerance for weather conditions, such as snowload). 

Long-term economic benefits would be realized from the new maintenance facility, which is expected to 

save the recreation area approximately $6,000 per year in utility costs alone and more than $71,600 in 

annual maintenance costs. These cost savings would be realized from having the buildings and structures 

consolidated in one area and would result from savings attributed to snow removal and maintenance in 

addition to utility costs. Replacement and relocation would also avoid the potential for more severe 

damages to the facility from flooding. 

Because the new facilities would be centrally located and would consist of a new, more functional 

arrangement of structures, there would be long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects from 

consolidated, efficient operations. Because the new buildings would be designed to be energy efficient, 

there would be long-term minor to moderate cost savings associated with improved efficiency and 

reduced energy consumption. Employees would have regular access to break / restroom facilities within 

appropriate structures and would have some diminished responsibilities in maintaining the new facilities, 

for example because roof pitches would be designed to shed snow load and would not need to be 

shoveled. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

362 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The new maintenance area would have minimal duplication in heating mechanisms. Instead of stocking 

parts related to several different kinds of heating devices (wood, pellet, propane, and diesel devices, 

depending on the building), these would be of the same types and would use the same kinds of parts, 

resulting in operations cost savings. 

There would be short-term increases in staffing or contract oversight to remove the former maintenance 

facility and to relocate, salvage, or deconstruct useable portions of it. Long-term beneficial effects would 

be realized from relocating it out of the floodplain. These beneficial effects would be most apparent 

during future flooding of the area, when the new maintenance area would remain functional rather than 

being located partially within the flooding of the Stehekin River. Instead of equipment access and use 

being hampered by flooding, needed equipment would be readily available for use during emergencies, 

requiring less time to respond to staff, resident, and facility problems. 

Housing Area: As with the maintenance area, construction of new housing would initially result in fewer 

maintenance needs; however, over time maintenance of these facilities would increase as age and 

deterioration occurred. There would be initial moderate long-term beneficial effects from the use of new 

structures outside the floodplain or channel migration zone for housing coupled with short-term 

negligible to minor adverse effects over time. Similar benefits would be realized associated with the 

design and maintenance of the new housing, including cost savings associated with reduced energy use, 

etc. There would also be minor to moderate long-term beneficial effects from the expansion of housing 

for seasonal and concession staff. 

Other Actions: There would be negligible to minor short-term adverse effects on park operations from 

the implementation of additional measures from the Road Improvement Project, including rehabilitation 

of the Stehekin Valley Road near Wilson Creek, installation or replacement of culverts, surfacing of the 

road, and other actions. Long-term beneficial effects would occur from repair of these areas, minimizing 

the need for repeated, more costly maintenance actions, such as fixing portions of the road after each 

major storm. Ongoing maintenance of the road would be similar to existing conditions, with a variety of 

actions performed, depending on the season (see Chapter III: Affected Environment).

Additional Impacts from Alternative 1 

Most actions within Alternative 1 would be a continuation of current management. In addition to those 

actions that would be common to all alternatives; however, Alternative 1 would include retention of / 

improvements to the Stehekin Valley Road in McGregor Meadows and in other places within the 

floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River; ongoing implementation of the 1995 LPP; and 

other actions that would affect park operations. 

Road Grade Raise / Rehabilitation: Initially, there would be oversight and consultation with FHWA to 

procure a contractor to execute road improvements, including the raising of the road and other 

improvements within McGregor Meadows, as well as for other actions associated with the rehabilitation 

of other portions of the roadway noted above. Later there would be park staff impacts from oversight 

related to implementation of the proposed road project. These would constitute short-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts and long-term minor beneficial impacts. 

Under this alternative, the NPS would continually need to make major repairs to the Stehekin Valley 

Road, particularly near McGregor Meadows. These actions would cause moderate adverse impacts on 

park operations, because staff time and park resources would be needed to respond to the flood damage. 

Responding to flood damage would affect park operations at both a local and regional level. These 

circumstances would continue to diminish the ability of the NPS to conduct other operational activities. 
21. Park Operations Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 363 

Reaction to flooding on a case-by-case basis would cause a much greater impact to park operations when 

compared to the comprehensive and integrated strategies presented for each of the action Alternatives 2 - 

4. There would be an ongoing need to make emergency road repairs following flooding to keep the road 

in use. These additional locations where erosion protection measures would be needed have not yet been 

identified, but would likely be similar to Alternative 4. Over time as more portions of the road were 

hardened or moved away from the Stehekin River, the need to harden banks would likely diminish. Until 

then, there would continue to be long-term minor to moderate adverse effects on park operations from 

repeated interruptions due to flood damage impacts and assessment of those impacts and then from 

constructing repairs. 

1995 Land Protection Plan Implementation: Ongoing implementation of the 1995 LPP (NPS 1995b) 

would continue to require park staff to write future EAs for land exchanges and to exercise oversight of 

the land protection program. The program would also continue to require regional office staff oversight to 

work with landowners to orchestrate actions in conjunction with the program and to determine the need 

for appraisals and covenants and to facilitate transfers under real estate law and policy, while protecting 

the resources of the recreation area. These would be both short- and long-term negligible to moderate 

impacts, periodically taking up most of the work of some staff for up to a few months at a time. 

Research and Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring provides a framework for understanding the Stehekin 

River and has been important to understanding how often large floods occur (flow gauge monitoring), a 

long-term moderate beneficial effect. There would be ongoing negligible to moderate impacts to park 

operations to conduct and fund monitoring programs. 

Other Actions: Numerous other actions called for by Alternative 1 would have short-term negligible to 

moderate impacts on park operations to deal with increased responsibilities for some staff related to 

project planning, implementation, and oversight. Among these would include construction of the Lower 

Valley Trail, implementation of erosion protection measures at Wilson Creek, and ongoing park 

operations related to maintaining the Company Creek Road in addition to the Stehekin Valley Road. 

Upon completion these actions would have long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects from 

establishing or returning the road to good condition, thus minimizing future needs for repairs. For many 

actions, repairs would become cyclic, rather than routine, after improvements were made. 

Additional Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

Road Reroute: Negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts, coupled with long-term moderate 

beneficial effects, on park operations would occur from rerouting a portion of the Stehekin Valley Road 

around McGregor Meadows and Lower Field in Alternative 2 or from a reroute around McGregor 

Meadows in Alternative 3. While the longer reroute in Alternative 2 would have more beneficial effects 

from bypassing both portions most subject to future impacts from flooding, and erosion, the shorter 

reroute would also have beneficial effects because it would be coupled with additional erosion protection 

measures at the Lower Field. The short-term adverse impacts would be related to delays of park staff and 

additional responsibilities related to construction oversight and monitoring, while the beneficial effects 

would be from the realignment of the road that would reduce the long-term need to maintain and/or to 

reconstruct this portion(s) following flood impacts. 

There would be minor to moderate adverse effects from the need to maintain a McGregor Meadows 

Access Road under Alternatives 2 and 3. Efforts to maintain this access road to a standard that permits 

resident and visitor access and emergency and utility system access would be required on a regular basis 

and would also require restoring access / repairing this section of the road following flooding. Because 

the road is proposed to be 0.8 mile long, rather than approximately 2 miles long, impacts associated with 

maintaining the road would be more limited than those that occur now after flooding and that would 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

364 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

continue to occur in Alternatives 1 and 4 from maintaining the primary road all the way through these 

areas. 

Erosion Protection Measures: To the extent that park staff is involved in the construction of erosion 

protection measures, there would be effects on staffing and funding as well as effects from potential road 

delays related to these. Short-term effects would be minor to moderate, while long-term beneficial effects 

from the measures working to retain the road (therefore minimizing additional staff time related to 

repairs) would be minor to moderate. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: While priorities would be different than in Alternative 1, the 

duties would remain similar. Initially, however, there would be an increase in impacts on park operations 

until park and regional staff became familiar with the revisions and their implementation became routine. 

Effects would remain intermittent and would be minor to moderate. 

Research and Monitoring: Impacts from Alternative 1 would continue and additional negligible to 

moderate impacts on park staffing and funding would continue to implement additional monitoring 

programs called for by this alternative. 

Additional Impacts from Alternative 4 

Road Grade Raise / Rehabilitation: Impacts from Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Because there would be a similar array of erosion protection measures as in Alternative 3 (plus two 

additional sites), retention of / improvements to the Stehekin Valley Road would be more secure in 

Alternative 4 compared to Alternative 1. Decisions about where to locate erosion protection measures 

have been made in Alternative 4, compared to Alternative 1. Still, because flooding could result in 

additional damage and failure of the road, particularly in vulnerable sections of the Company Creek Road 

where the road was not rerouted, impacts on park staffing and funding to ascertain and repair floodrelated damage would continue to occur and would range from minor to moderate, depending on future 

flood damage. 

Erosion Protection Measures: There would be more impacts from constructing 16 - 17 rock barbs. 

Overall impacts would be adverse and both short- and long-term, while beneficial effects would range 

from minor to moderate. 

Land Protection Plan Modifications: As in Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts would be 

intermittent and minor to moderate. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to park operations would include the following: 

 Providing and maintaining emergency vehicle access through the project area during 

construction. 

 Coordinating work between NPS and FHWA park liaison to minimize disruption to normal park 

activities. 

 Monitoring construction activities to ensure adherence to mitigation measures. 

 Monitoring construction activities to provide recommendations to minimize impacts on park 

resources. 
21. Park Operations Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 365 

 Conducting legal boundary surveys prior to scheduling work that may have the potential to affect 

private property. If necessary, easements would be negotiated. 

 Designing new building construction to be silver or greater LEED certified. 

 Using functional, energy-efficient appliances and heating and cooling systems in new buildings. 

 Designing efficient circulation spaces for new maintenance and housing areas. 

 Using contractors and term employees to facilitate short-term workload increases. 

 Providing emergency vehicle access through the project area during construction. Coordinating 

work with park staff to reduce disruption to normal activities. 

 Informing construction workers about the special sensitivity of park resources and values and 

regulations. 

 Providing orientation on park resources for the contractor(s). 

 Encouraging park resource specialists to be involved in inspections and monitoring and providing 

recommendations during the road rehabilitation and facility construction work. 

Cumulative Impacts: Over time, there have been a series of cumulative impacts on park operations from 

ongoing use of a cluster of old buildings in the floodplain for a maintenance facility, and from continued 

maintenance of the Stehekin Valley Road within the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin 

River. These impacts on park operations have ranged from poor response time to incidents during 

flooding from trying to reach vehicles in flooded areas to ongoing use of buildings that were not designed 

for their current functions. Alternatives 1 - 4 would improve these impacts because they propose 

replacement and relocation of the current maintenance facility and implementation of erosion protection 

measures and/or a series of changes to the Stehekin Valley Road to help better maintain it. 

Road reroutes and raising the road grade have been used to move the road farther away from the river 

and/or to protect the road from flooding. Future projects would have similar goals, which typically 

provide long-term beneficial effects on park operations. Alternative 1 would continue to contribute a 

minor to moderate degree of cumulative impacts to park operations because it would continue to respond 

to most flood-related damage on a case-by-case basis, improving only the retention of the road through 

McGregor Meadows (by raising the road). Alternative 2 would contribute negligible to minor adverse 

cumulative impacts and long-term minor beneficial effects by relocating a portion of the Stehekin Valley 

Road and by improving the ability to retain other parts of the road (including near the mouth of the 

Stehekin River and at Boulder Creek, Frog Island, Wilson Creek, Milepost 8.0, and Milepost 9.2). 

Alternative 3 would contribute the same range of negligible to minor adverse impacts by relocating a 

shorter portion of the road and by instituting additional erosion protection measures (instead of a reroute) 

at Lower Field. Alternative 4 would institute similar erosion protection measures as Alternative 3, plus 

additional rock barbs at Mileposts 7.0 and 9.2, but would retain the road similar to Alternative 1. 

Therefore, it would have negligible beneficial effects on park operations because it is likely that future 

measures would continue to be needed, although not to the degree that they would in Alternative 1. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have some short-term adverse impacts (related to construction) and 

a series of long-term moderate to major beneficial effects on park operations from construction of the new 

energy-efficient, well-designed maintenance facility and housing areas. There would also be a series of 

minor to moderate adverse impacts associated with all alternatives from continued implementation of the 

1995 LPP or from modifying it. 

Impacts that would be different among alternatives on park operations would primarily have to do with 

the changes to the Stehekin Valley Road and from those related to implementation of erosion protection 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

366 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

measures. Among the alternatives, Alternative 2 would have the greatest long-term beneficial effects, 

followed by Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and then Alternative 1. These beneficial effects would primarily 

be related to the ability of the recreation area to maintain the road, with the longer reroute and specific 

erosion protection measures in Alternative 2 contributing to fewer routine and more cyclic maintenance 

operations. Alternative 1 and 4 would have moderate to major adverse impacts on park operation by 

maintain the Stehekin Valley Road through the floodplain at McGregor Meadows. Although Alternatives 

3 and 4 would have the same array of erosion protection measures, moving the road away from the river 

in Alternative 3 would have greater long-term beneficial effects on park operations by relocating the road 

from an area of repeated maintenance needs to one of fewer needs over time. Alternative 4 would have 

fewer long-term impacts on park operations than Alternative 1, because there would be a variety of 

locations where erosion protection measures designed for keeping the road in place would be 

implemented. Although these would likely also occur eventually in Alternative 1, they are not planned 

and would therefore continue to need to undergo separate environmental analysis to implement, an impact 

that would affect future staff time. 

22. SOCIOECONOMICS IMPACTS 

a. Socioeconomics Methodology 

Economic or social impacts for each action alternative were evaluated by identifying changes that would 

potentially affect the socioeconomic environment, related to the local and regional economy, including 

private landowners in the Stehekin Valley. 

Context of Impact: Socioeconomics impacts were considered within Lake Chelan NRA and Chelan 

County. 

Type of Impact: Adverse impacts would decrease economic benefits. Beneficial impacts would increase 

these. 

Intensity of Impact

 Negligible: There would be no measurable effect on the socioeconomic environment. 

 Minor: Only a small sector of the local or regional economy would be affected and this effect 

would not be readily apparent. 

 Moderate: A small sector of the local or regional economy would be affected and this effect 

would be measurable but would not alter basic socioeconomic structure or functions. 

 Major: Changes in the local or regional economy would occur and would be readily apparent in 

shifts in the key economic functions and structure. New economic sectors could be created or 

eliminated. 

b. Socioeconomics Impacts 

Impacts from Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 housing and maintenance area and Lower Valley Trail construction would cost 

approximately $20.47 million. Actions in Alternative 1 would have moderate short-term and minor longterm beneficial effects on income and expenditures for recreation area employees and Chelan County 

residents. The construction of a new maintenance area and new recreation area housing as well as road 

surfacing would provide short-term minor to moderate economic benefits as workers were secured and 
22. Socioeconomics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 367 

materials, supplies, and services were obtained from the local area. Depending on how much of the 

project was implemented at one time, what percentage of employees, materials, and supplies were 

procured locally, and what other projects were being undertaken in the county at the same time, Chelan 

County could see some slight growth in the construction industry economic sector. 

Minor to moderate short-term beneficial effects would occur from the road rehabilitation project, with 

primarily contractor-hired construction staff and procurement of supplies and materials from both within 

Chelan County and from outside areas. It is likely that road rehabilitation under Alternative 1 would take 

approximately one to two construction seasons. 

Additional negligible effects would result from ongoing changes in population related to the acquisition 

of private land in Stehekin. Continued implementation of the 1995 LPP would continue to result in 

incremental changes in the amount of federal and private land in Stehekin and therefore Chelan County. 

These effects would be measurable associated with property tax rolls in Chelan County, but overall, 

would contribute mixed long-term beneficial or adverse effects, depending on when they occurred and the 

nature of the exchanges or purchases. With exchanges, however, it is likely that property owners would 

accrue additional acreage if their existing exchanged property was developed because of the need to 

balance the exchange (either with additional land or payments). Development of this property, away from 

the river would be more sustainable. As a result, there would be a net, albeit minor, increase in property 

for landowners pursuing exchanges, a long-term negligible to minor beneficial effect on Chelan County 

socioeconomics. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternative 2 would cost approximately $27.80 million and Alternative 3 would cost approximately 

$28.46 million. Impacts from actions in Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1; however, there 

would be some additional negligible beneficial effects from the construction of some new visitor 

facilities, such as the Lower Valley Trail and additional camping opportunities, and these would provide 

more recreational experiences for visitors who would otherwise have walked the road, resulting in a small 

number of repeat visitors to the recreation area during the peak season. Based on boat transportation 

figures, visitation over the past 10 years has been relatively flat, showing only a slight increasing trend. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

368 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Photo 32 – Stehekin Community at the Buckner Homestead Hayfield and Pasture Harvest 

Fest 2009 

Impacts associated with the maintenance and housing areas would be the same as described in Alternative 

1. Although there would be increased expenditures associated with the reroutes combined with road 

rehabilitation in these alternatives, the level of impacts would remain minor to moderate and would 

continue to be short term. Instead of the approximate 1 - 2 seasons to implement the road rehabilitation 

project in Alternative 1, however, the combined reroute/rehabilitation project in Alternatives 2 - 3 would 

likely take at least 2 years (two or more construction seasons). Erosion protection measures would be 

implemented over several years. 

Although there would be changes in the implementation of the proposed LPP, the same kinds of effects 

from land acquisition and purchases would occur. It is unlikely that LPP actions would have a major 

increase or decrease on the population of the Stehekin Community, although there would eventually 

likely be some changes in the location of federal and private property due to opportunities for land 

exchanges. Alternatives 2 and 3 may increase some revenue associated with travel to Stehekin because 

the certainty of visits during the spring and fall, when flooding currently precludes some travel on the 

Stehekin Valley Road, would increase. This could result in additional visitors who would book lodging 

and take advantage of other services provided by the Stehekin Community at these times, since travel 

would be on a rerouted facility away from the danger of flood closures. This would have a negligible to 

minor beneficial effect. 
22. Socioeconomics Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 369 

Impacts from Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would cost approximately $25.79 million. Alternative 4 would have the same negligible to 

minor adverse effects as Alternative 1 and the similar negligible to moderate beneficial effects as 

Alternatives 2 and 3; however, the beneficial effects in Alternative 4 would be less related to road 

conditions because, as in Alternative 1, the road would be retained in its existing location. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

to the socioeconomic environment would include the following: 

 Where possible, projects would be combined or phased to allow for cost-saving measures related 

to staging remaining in place, rather than setting up and taking down for sequential 

implementation actions. 

 New buildings would be constructed to silver or greater LEED standards to minimize long-term 

operations costs. 

 New buildings and facilities and other improvements would use recycled or reused materials to 

the extent possible. 

Cumulative Impacts: The presence of the recreation area would continue to generate economic benefits 

to the local and regional economy, including jobs and income. The most recent figures for Lake Chelan in 

fiscal year 2005 (October 2004 - September 2005) show that the recreation area generated 28 jobs, 

$412,000 in income, and $1,176,000 in spending. Local contracts in 2007 were worth approximately 

$400,000. 

While the Alternatives 1 - 4 would likely contribute some measurable economic benefits from the 

construction of new maintenance and housing areas, most impacts would be short term, occurring only 

during construction activities. However, because of reroutes of the road away from the river, Alternatives 

2 and 3 would contribute some long-term negligible economic benefits by minimizing future closures of 

the road related to flooding and thus allowing visitors more access to area amenities. Similarly there 

would be negligible, but slightly increasing, economic benefits from a variety of erosion protection 

measures from Alternative 1 to Alternative 4. Although Alternative 1 would not result in the 

implementation of as many erosion protection measures as Alternatives 2 - 4, it is likely that as flood 

damage continued to affect the road, these measures would continue to be proposed, resulting in a 

different array of realignment, reroutes and bank stabilization measures implemented over a longer period 

of time. There would be long-term minor economic benefits would occur from the implementation of 

Alternatives 1 - 4 from cost savings associated with the construction of the new maintenance and housing 

areas. Other short-term beneficial and adverse impacts would occur from the actions associated with 

changes in the LPP in Alternatives 2 - 4 and from continued implementation of the 1995 LPP. 

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would result in negligible to minor adverse effects and negligible to moderate 

beneficial effects and it is likely that these would be spread out over more years than in Alternatives 2 - 4. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in negligible to minor adverse effects and negligible to moderate 

beneficial effects. Slightly more beneficial effects would occur in Alternatives 2 and 3 than in Alternative 

1 because of the additional incremental number of construction actions and because greater certainty 

associated with road conditions during flooding. Alternative 4 would have the same negligible to minor 

adverse effects as Alternative 1 and the similar negligible to moderate beneficial effects as Alternatives 2 

and 3; however, the beneficial effects in Alternative 4 would be less related to road conditions. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

370 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

23. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS 

a. Hazardous Materials Methodology 

The extent to which hazardous materials are present and would be exposed to visitors, personnel, and the 

environment under each alternative during site preparation, site management, or from any residual 

concentrations of hazardous substances was considered. Areas within the proposed project area that could 

require additional assessment and characterization for potential sources of environmental contamination 

were also identified. 

Type of Impact: Generally, the addition of facilities and infrastructure that require hazardous materials 

that have a potential to expose people to greater levels of risk was considered adverse. Specifically, the 

type of impact would be considered adverse if it increased the quantity or type of hazardous materials 

used on the site or if it increased the frequency of use or number of people required to use these materials. 

Beneficial impacts would have a reduction in the presence or use of hazardous materials. 

Intensity

 Negligible: Impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. There would be no or minimal 

exposure to hazardous materials. 

 Minor: Impacts would be perceptible but localized in a small portion of the project area, without 

the potential to expand if left alone. Exposure to hazardous materials would occur only for those 

used to working with these materials. 

 Moderate: The potential for hazardous materials would be widespread throughout the project 

area or within a specific portion of the project area. Hazardous materials surveys would be 

required before the extent of impacts was known. Professionals would be required to remediate 

potential contamination. 

 Major: The potential for hazardous materials would be widespread throughout the project area. 

Hazardous materials surveys have identified serious problems. Professionals would be required to 

remediate potential contamination. 

b. Impacts from Hazardous Materials 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternative 1 - 4 

Some older buildings that would be demolished as a result of removing structures from the former 

maintenance area and flood-affected structures may contain hazardous building materials. The most 

common hazardous materials found in older buildings are asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

and lead-based paint. Other hazards would result from septic system drain fields and tanks. Potential 

hazards of these materials stem from improper handling or disposal. If any unidentified hazardous 

building materials were to remain in existing buildings, these materials could cause adverse health 

impacts if human exposure were permitted during renovation. Construction workers and future employees 

or visitors could be exposed to contaminants in buildings to be renovated, or they could inadvertently 

expose the public or the environment to those contaminants. Hazardous materials could also be 

inappropriately released to the environment as hazardous waste or contamination. 

In addition to impacts from hazardous materials associated with buildings, additional impacts associated 

with the removal of the former maintenance area have the potential to occur in Alternatives 1 - 4. 

Although recent practices regarding fuel spills and disposal of other hazardous materials have been 
23. Hazardous Materials Impacts 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 371 

improved, past practices may have contributed to the presence of hazardous materials near buildings and 

structures in the maintenance area, a long-term localized negligible to moderate adverse effect. Removal 

of fuel-storage facilities from within the 500-year floodplain would have a major beneficial effect. 

Additional hazardous materials would likely be present from the removal of the shooting range in 

Alternative 2. Potential impacts from hazardous materials would be dealt with according to existing law 

and policy, which govern the need to survey and treat these areas and for personal protective equipment to 

protect NPS and contract employees from exposure hazards. 

Different Impacts from Alternative 2 

Because the existing shooting range would need to be removed in Alternative 2, there could be additional 

potential short-term minor adverse impacts from removal and long-term moderate beneficial impacts from 

mitigation of hazardous materials. These impacts would include the removal of potentially contaminated 

soil from within the shooting range to an appropriate disposal location outside the recreation area. During 

the removal, workers would potentially be exposed to soil contaminated with lead and potentially other 

materials, a minor adverse impact if precautions are taken. There would be long-term minor beneficial 

effects on the recreation area and long-term minor adverse effects at the disposal site from the removal of 

contaminated soil. 

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Impacts 

Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts 

from hazardous materials would include the following BMPs: 

 Conducting formal surveys of the existing maintenance area, including contacting staff to 

determine if any unanticipated spill or disposal areas are present before removal of buildings or 

structures and associated development. 

 Wearing proper personal protective equipment for the nature of the hazardous materials identified 

in the surveys during all work in the affected area. 

 Refueling vehicles and equipment at least 100 feet from the river and its tributaries or other 

bodies of water. 

 Identifying areas where refueling or maintenance of equipment would occur and providing 

containment devices, such as temporary earth berms, surrounding these areas. 

 Ensuring that spill cleanup materials, such as absorbent pads, are present on site where needed. 

 Requiring restrictions on the location of fueling sites, requirements for spill containment, and 

other measures to safeguard aquatic and terrestrial habitat from construction-related contaminants 

in contracts. 

 Locating fuel storage tanks outside of the floodplain / channel migration zone floodplains and 

other sensitive areas. 

Cumulative Impacts: Hazardous materials have the potential to contaminate soil or groundwater or 

expose workers to certain health hazards. Past, present, and future activities in the project area, such as 

storage, use, or generation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, could have produced soil 

contamination. This is particularly true in Alternatives 1 - 4 in the maintenance area and in Alternative 2 

at the shooting range. There may also be areas where the fill and underlying groundwater require 

additional assessment and characterization for potential sources of environmental contamination. These 

sources would include contamination to soil or groundwater that could expose construction workers and 

others to certain health hazards. Unknown locations of underground storage tanks may also be present in 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

372 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

the project vicinity. Residual contamination in the project area could pose health threats to workers or 

future users of the property, and could pose constraints to development. There would be no additional 

long-term contribution to cumulative effects from Alternatives 1 - 4. Contributions would be long-term 

and beneficial from removal of potential areas of hazardous materials in the former maintenance area 

(Alternatives 1 - 4) and at the shooting range (Alternative 2). 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 have the potential to release hazardous materials from construction and 

removal of facilities from the floodplain. There would be negligible to moderate localized short-term 

adverse impacts from these activities. Hazardous materials may be present in proposed buildings and 

structures deconstructed or removed in the maintenance area and within the floodplain and other materials 

used in the proposed projects. Over the long term, removal of hazardous materials from the floodplain 

would have a major long-term beneficial effect. 

24. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as moderate to major impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or 

avoided.

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives 

The presence of development in the lower Stehekin Valley floodplain is an ongoing cumulative 

unavoidable major adverse impact. Under Alternative 1, conditions associated with this development in 

the floodplain of the Stehekin River would improve, primarily associated with NPS administrative 

structures and with the removal of the maintenance area from the floodplain. Nonetheless, private 

development and portions of the Stehekin Valley Road and Company Creek Roads would continue to 

remain within the floodplain / channel migration zone. Although private lands would continue to be 

exchanged and or purchased and some of these acquisitions or exchanges would remove development 

from the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River, it is likely that some development 

could continue to remain within the floodplain / channel migration zone. Aside from the development in 

the floodplain, private development is fully consistent with the intent of the Lake Chelan NRA legislation, 

with the Stehekin Community providing valuable services for visitors to the recreation area. 

Alternative 1 

Ongoing to major moderate adverse impacts associated with the location of the Stehekin Valley Road in 

the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River would remain under Alternative 1. In 

addition, there would be some additional filling of the floodplain from raising the height of a portion of 

the Stehekin Valley Road through McGregor Meadows. Other unavoidable moderate adverse impacts 

would continue to result from the location of existing erosion protection measures, including both 

riverbank and instream structures currently affecting approximately 6.5 percent of the Stehekin River 

bank. Implementation of Alternative 1 would increase this to 6.82 percent. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Moderate to major adverse effects on the floodplain / channel migration zone of the Stehekin River 

associated with the cumulative effects of development in the lower Stehekin Valley as described under 

Alternative 1 would continue. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be some additional potential for 

removal of private development from the floodplain / channel migration zone from the revised LPP

priorities; however, it is likely that some development would remain since exchanges and acquisitions 

would continue to be on a voluntary basis, based on the desire of private landowners to remove their 

existing homes from the future threat of flooding in the floodplain / channel migration zone. In addition, 
25. Relationship between Short-term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term 

Productivity 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 373 

the NPS does not have enough suitable land for exchange to remove all private development from the 

100-year floodplain by this process. 

Ongoing moderate adverse impacts associated with the location of the Stehekin Valley Road in the 

floodplain / channel migration zone would also continue under Alternatives 2 and 3, albeit to a lesser 

extent than in Alternative 1 and 4 because portions of the road (different) would be rerouted. In 

Alternative 3, more of the road (including the area adjacent to the Lower Field) would also remain close 

to the river. Erosion protection measures in Alternative 2 would affect an additional 1.22 percent of the 

Stehekin River bank, while in Alternative 3 they would affect an additional 1.6 percent. 

Alternative 4 

Major adverse effects associated with development in Alternative 1 would continue. Alternative 4, like 

Alternatives 2 and 3, would offer some potential for improvement for private development to be removed 

from the floodplain based on new LPP priorities, however, in Alternative 4, the LPP priorities would be 

affected by retention of the Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment and using erosion protection 

measures along the Stehekin River. Compared to Alternative 1, these would affect an additional 2.6 

percent of the Stehekin River bank. It is likely that fewer private properties within the floodplain / channel 

migration zone would be exchanged under this alternative. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would continue to have moderate to major adverse impacts from 

development remaining within the floodplain / channel migration zone, including private homes, roads 

and the Company Creek levee. Alternatives 2 - 3 would improve conditions by removing a portion of the 

Stehekin Valley Road from the floodplain / channel migration zone and Alternatives 2 - 4 would also 

allow removal of private development from the floodplain / channel migration zone through a revised 

emphasis in the LPP. Ongoing minor to moderate adverse effects would continue from existing 

(Alternatives 1 - 4) and new (Alternatives 2 - 4) erosion protection measures along the banks of the 

Stehekin. 

25. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 and 4 

Major development actions in Alternatives 1 and 4 consist of modifications to the Stehekin Valley Road 

and construction of a replacement maintenance area and new housing area. Impacts from the road 

modifications, while they would affect some additional undeveloped areas (to construct the winter 

turnaround and pullouts), would have negligible impacts on long-term productivity within the lower 

Stehekin Valley. Most lands within Lake Chelan NRA would remain open and unaltered as a result of the 

proposed projects. Even development of the replacement maintenance and housing area would have 

overall minor effects since these impacts would occur in an area that has already lost much of its former 

productivity by being converted to now unused golf course fairways, where the area was graded and its 

native vegetation removed, and under the terms of the transfer maintained as an open area. Although the 

area is now in recovery, its long-term productivity would not be improved without active restoration. 

Because the former maintenance area would be restored in combination with the development of the 

replacement maintenance area and because the existing maintenance area is located within a more 

productive habitat (floodplain area), there would be long-term beneficial effects on long-term productivity 

from the removal of the maintenance area from its current location and its replacement in another, less 

sensitive, environment. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

374 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

In addition to the major development actions identified above as part of Alternatives 1 and 4, major 

development actions in Alternatives 2 and 3 include the construction of the road reroutes, although these 

are different in each alternative. Development of the road reroutes would have direct effects on another 13 

acres and indirect effects on up to 27 - 28 acres of now forested land in Alternatives 2 and 3 but would 

allow the restoration of riparian area now covered by road surface, a long-term moderate beneficial effect 

on productivity since this habitat is located close to the river and has a naturally higher level of 

productivity than upland forest habitat, which is far more abundant in the national recreation area. 

Although the development effects would be removed from these more sensitive riparian habitats, it would 

not compensate for the loss of additional intact forested habitat. As a result, this use of forested habitat 

would result in negligible to minor long-term diminished productivity in the affected area over time, but 

would increase due to beneficial impacts from edge effects introducing an increased diversity of species 

into the area. In addition, there would be additional restoration of 6 acres of degraded riparian area at the 

former maintenance area, Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, the Lower Field, and other areas in 

these alternatives, as well as in Alternative 4. 

Conclusion: New development would affect about 8 acres in Alternative 1, 22 acres in Alternative 2, 

23 acres in Alternative 3, and 10 acres in Alternative 4. In addition, some portion of the 37 acres of 

available exchange lands in Alternative 1 and some portion of the 24 acres of available exchange lands in 

Alternatives 2 - 4 could be developed. Most of this land has been affected by human activities or is 

forested (reroutes). Restoration of more productive riparian areas would compensate for some of this loss, 

accounting for about 5.0 acres in Alternative 1, 7.88 acres in Alternative 2, 7.42 acres in Alternative 3, 

and 6.42 acres in Alternative 4. 

26. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are actions that result in the loss of resources that cannot be 

reversed. Irretrievable commitments are actions that result in the loss of resources but only for a limited 

time. 

Impacts from Actions Common to Alternatives 1 - 4 

While development effects would be long-term, effects from development are to some degree reversible 

and could, if desired, be removed, and the areas returned to natural landscape. It is likely that effects, 

however, would remain visible on the landscape for decades. Old roads and trails that have been left are 

often still visible for more than 50 years. If active restoration, however, is conducted and contours are 

restored, it is possible to diminish the effects of development; however, when this occurs in a forest of old 

trees, then the effects remain visible as a younger band of trees for decades. 

Actions taken that would ―use up‖ resources in a way that could not be reversed, include the removal of 

mature trees from the forested landscape (for road rehabilitation actions in Alternatives 1 - 4 and for the 

reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3) and for building materials procured elsewhere. Fill materials would not 

be balanced in Alternatives 1 or 4 and would therefore require the importation of approximately 5,600 

cubic yards of fill for the road grade raise. Fill materials would be balanced in Alternatives 2 and 3, but 

because of this would disturb a larger area for the reroutes. Depending on the source of materials procured 

for Alternatives 1 and 4, impacts from their procurement could be considered irreversible since the 

materials would be taken from one area and moved to another area. Additionally, materials use for all the 

alternatives for building construction and outfitting would also result in the loss of materials from one 
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 375 

area and their movement to another. To the degree that nonrenewable resources, including minerals and 

metals, were used, such use would preclude other uses and would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources. 

Conclusion: Because development of the road and new facilities area currently affect only a very small 

percentage of the lower Stehekin Valley (see ―Land Use Impacts‖ in this chapter), are small in 

comparison to development occurring outside the area, and would not undergo major changes as a result 

of the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4, irreversible and irretrievable commitments would be minor in 

all alternatives. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

376 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Table IV-16: Impact Comparison Chart 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Land Use

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Relocating maintenance and housing: Long-term localized moderate adverse effects on 5 - 8 acres near the 

airstrip and moderate to major beneficial effects from restoration of riparian and upland areas (5 acres) and creation of more sustainable land use patterns 

outside CMZ. 

Winter Turnaround, pullouts, and erosion protection at Wilson Creek: Minor adverse effects.

New development on 10 acres.

Road rehabilitation: Long-term minor 

adverse effects from improvements to 

existing road.

LPP: Long-term minor to major adverse 

and moderate beneficial effects from 

potential exchange of 37 acres.

Erosion protection: Long-term minor 

adverse effects.

Restoration: Additional negligible 

beneficial effects.

New development on 28 acres.

Road rehabilitation: Same as Alternative 

1 with fewer impacts from less road 

rehabilitated.

Reroute construction: Long-term major 

adverse effects from development of 18 

acres from 1.9 mile reroute.

LPP: Long-term minor to moderate 

adverse and major beneficial effects from 

potential exchange of 24 acres.

Erosion protection: Long-term minor to 

moderate localized from 6 - 8 barbs and 

2 logjams.

Restoration: Additional moderate 

beneficial effects from restoration of 

Lower Field and Buckner.

New development on 28 acres.

Impacts similar to Alternative 2 

with fewer adverse impacts from 

shorter reroute (1.6 miles) and 

more from more erosion 

protection measures (6 sites, 4 

barbs and 6 logjams).

New development on 11 acres.

Road rehabilitation: Impacts same 

as Alternative 1.

LPP: Impacts similar to Alternatives 

2 and 3 with less land exchanged 

from channel migration zone 

(moderate to major beneficial).

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 3 with more 

minor to moderate adverse impacts 

from many more erosion protection 

measures (8 sites, 16 - 17 barbs 

and 3 logjams).

Restoration: Similar to 

Alternative 2.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute the fewest changes in land use (locally minor to moderate adverse effects on land use) since they 

would result in the least amount of additional development, however they would continue to have the potential to have the greatest impact on sustainability of 

road access and land use in the channel migration zone. The road reroutes in Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute greater cumulative effects on development 

(minor to major adverse effects) from the relocation of the road from adjacent to the river to a currently forested area and the fewest impacts on the movement of 

the river channel.

Conclusion: The greatest direct effects on land use would occur in Alternatives 2 and 3 because they would relocate the road (with its existing adverse changes 

in the channel migration zone) to higher ground and disturb new areas (approximately 18 acres). At the same time, relocating the road would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on the sustainability of the Stehekin Valley Road and provide for restoration. Because Alternatives 1 and 4 would retain the road (including 

these adverse effects in the channel migration zone) there would be fewer impacts on undisturbed lands (approximately 10 and 11 acres, respectively); however, 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would continue to result in a continuation of unsustainable land use and affect the channel migration zone by leaving more of the road within 

it. Compared to the area that would be retained and protected within the lower Stehekin Valley, depending on the alternative selected, new development would 

occur on a very small percentage of the land within Lake Chelan NRA. 

Because nearly all of Lake Chelan NRA would be retained in public ownership, reroute impacts in Alternatives 2 and 3 would occur in a common forest 

community type, and the Stehekin Community would remain, there would be no significant adverse effects on land use as a result of the implementation of 

Alternatives 1 - 4.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 377 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Air Quality

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Localized short-term negligible to moderate adverse effects from soil moving activities, surfacing, transport of 

materials, evaporative emissions, and traffic delays associated with construction of housing and maintenance areas, road rehabilitation and construction of the 

Lower Valley Trail. Localized, long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects from surfacing (reducing dust), energy efficient design, LEED certification, and 

restoration of former maintenance area.

Road grade raise / erosion protection: 

Additional minor to moderate short-term 

localized adverse impacts from transport 

of fill for McGregor Meadows and rip-rap 

/ log-cribbing for Wilson Creek.

Road reroute: Additional short-term 

minor to moderate impacts from forest 

clearing, cuts and fills, and construction 

of road reroute. 

Erosion protection / recreational facilities: 

Additional localized short-term negligible 

to minor adverse effects from 

construction. 

Restoration: Additional long-term 

negligible beneficial effects from more 

restoration.

Similar additional negligible to 

moderate impacts related to the 

same actions in Alternative 2, with 

fewer construction impacts from 

recreational facilities and more 

from erosion protection measures. 

Restoration: Fewer negligible 

beneficial effects than Alternative 

2 from less restoration. 

Road grade raise: Same as 

Alternative 1

Erosion protection / recreational 

facilities: Additional short-term 

minor to adverse impacts from 

more construction.

Restoration: Similar to Alternative 3 

with less road restoration.

Cumulative Impacts: There would be no long-term contributions to particulate or other emissions from Alternatives 1 - 4. Alternatives 1 - 3 would contribute shortterm negligible to minor cumulative impacts from particulate, exhaust, and evaporative emissions during construction and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effects from energy efficient building use and surfacing. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have mostly localized, short-term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts lasting only during construction activities. 

Alternative 1 would have additional impacts from the grade raise. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have additional particulate and exhaust emissions due to greater 

excavation for the reroutes. Alternative 4 would have additional emissions from more importation of rock for barbs and soil for the grade raise. Beneficial impacts 

from restoration and bioengineering would be greatest in Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, and 1. All alternatives would have long-term localized minor 

to moderate beneficial effects from reducing gravel use from the Company Creek Pit and from dust reduction on the main road.

There would be no major adverse impacts to and no impairment of air quality or air quality-related values from the proposed actions under the alternatives.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

378 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Soils and Vegetation

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Long-term minor to moderate adverse effects from construction of the maintenance and housing area and 

localized negligible to major beneficial effects from upland and riparian restoration of the former maintenance area. Short-term negligible to moderate adverse 

effects from ongoing road maintenance and from rehabilitation, including construction of winter turnaround and pullouts. Minor short- and long-term adverse 

effects from road realignment at Wilson Creek, relocation of campsites and docks at Weaver Point, and minor to moderate adverse effects from construction of 

the Lower Valley Trail. Additional minor beneficial effects from dust reduction and vegetation restoration following disturbance.

Road grade raise: Additional short- and 

long-term negligible to minor adverse 

effects. 

Road realignment: Additional minor 

adverse and beneficial effects.

Erosion protection: Additional minor 

adverse impacts on soils from rip-rap and 

log cribbing at Wilson Creek.

Large woody debris: No effects.

LPP: Long-term minor to moderate 

adverse and beneficial effects from 

ongoing implementation.

Road reroute: Short- and long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on soils and 

moderate to major adverse impacts on 

vegetation from construction. Loss of 

approximately 238 trees per acre in 18 

acres. Negligible to moderate beneficial 

effects from revegetation.

Access road / recreation: Long-term 

minor adverse effects from ongoing 

maintenance of 0.8 miles of road in 

floodplain / channel migration zone and 

construction of recreation facilities.

Erosion protection: Short- and long-term 

minor to moderate localized adverse 

effects from construction and negligible 

to minor beneficial effects from 

bioengineering.

Milepost 8.0 / 9.2: Localized minor 

adverse and minor beneficial effects.

Large woody debris: Short-term minor 

adverse and long-term minor beneficial 

effects.

Restoration: Long-term minor to major 

beneficial effects from restoration of 

Buckner, Lower Field, old road, other 

erosion protection areas, and 

bioengineering.

LPP: Long-term minor to moderate 

adverse effects from development of 10 -

15 exchanged parcels and long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effects from 

acquisition or exchange in riparian areas.

Impacts same as Alternative 2 

from access road, Milepost 8.0, 

9.2, large woody debris, and LPP.

Road reroute: Similar to 

Alternative 2, with fewer adverse 

effects from shorter reroute.

Recreation: Similar to Alternative 

2, with impacts from one more 

camp, no raft takeout and 

retention of shooting range.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2, with fewer barbs 

and more logjams in two more 

sites.

Restoration: Similar to Alternative 

2, with less road restoration and 

more bioengineering.

Impacts same as Alternative 1 for 

road grade raise / realignment and 

same as Alternatives 2 and 3 for 

Mileposts 8.0 and 9.2 actions.

Recreation: Similar to Alternative 2, 

but with negligible impacts from 

one more camp and retention of 

shooting range.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 3 but with additional 

minor to moderate adverse and 

negligible beneficial effects from 

more barbs in more locations.

Restoration: Similar to Alternative 

3, but with no road restoration.

Large woody debris: Additional 

minor adverse and beneficial 

impacts from larger procurement 

area.

LPP: Similar to Alternatives 2 and 

3, but with less exchange targeted 

in channel migration zone.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 379 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Cumulative Impacts: Alternative 1 would contribute localized negligible to moderate adverse effects and localized minor to moderate beneficial effects. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute localized negligible to moderate adverse impacts and localized minor to moderate beneficial effects. Alternative 4 would 

contribute localized minor to moderate adverse effects and minor to moderate beneficial effects.

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would have negligible to moderate adverse and negligible to major beneficial effects. Alternative 2 would have negligible to major 

adverse effects and negligible to major beneficial effects. Alternative 3 would have impacts similar to Alternative 2, with adverse and beneficial effects both 

somewhat less from shorter reroute, less restoration, and more erosion protection measures. Alternative 4 would contribute negligible to moderate adverse 

effects and minor to major beneficial effects.

Because there would be no widespread major adverse impacts on vegetation, and no major widespread adverse impacts to soils or effects on rare vegetation or 

soils, there would be no impairment of park resources or values.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

380 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Geologic Hazards

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Ongoing long-term minor to moderate potential for injury or damage from geologic hazards.

Ongoing long-term minor to moderate 

exposure to flood hazards on the 

Stehekin Valley and Company Creek 

roads.

Reduced impacts from rock fall hazard at Milepost 8.0 (minor beneficial) and 

with most flood hazards on the Stehekin Valley Road (moderate beneficial). 

The potential for injury or damage would remain minor to moderate. Minor new 

risks would be associated with relocated recreational facilities and minor to 

moderate from the debris flow or snow avalanche hazards on the reroute.

Same as Alternative 1 except 

reduction of hazards at Milepost 

8.0 and minor additional hazards 

from recreational facilities as in 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Impacts: A variety of potential hazards would continue to exist. The contribution of additional impacts from Alternatives 1 - 4 would be negligible to 

minor.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have minor increase in exposure to geologic hazards. Alternatives 2 - 3 would reduce roadway flood hazards along reroute 

sections. Alternatives 2 - 4 would have long-term minor beneficial impacts from stabilizing the slope at Milepost 8.0
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 381 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Water Resources: Hydraulics and Streamflow Characteristics

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Ongoing long-term minor to major adverse effects from maintaining the Company Creek Road and levee. 

Major adverse impacts would occur from retaining the Stehekin Valley Road (Alternatives 1 and 4) or moderate impacts from retention of the McGregor Meadows

Access Road (Alternatives 2 and 3). Minor to moderate adverse effects from road rehabilitation actions coupled with minor long-term beneficial effects from 

surfacing from less erosion of fill. Long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects from drainage modifications. Long-term moderate beneficial effects from 

maintenance facility and housing replacement and relocation. Long-term negligible to moderate adverse effects from construction of Lower Valley Trail. Longterm negligible to moderate beneficial effects from removal of structures and from restoration and bioengineering.

Road grade raise: Long-term localized 

moderate to major adverse effect on 

floodwater level and flow.

Erosion protection: Long-term moderate 

adverse effects from rip-rap and logcribbing at Wilson Creek.

LPP: Ongoing long-term minor to 

moderate, occasionally moderate to 

major, adverse impacts from 

development in floodplain / channel 

migration zone. Ongoing minor beneficial 

effects from effort to remove 

development from floodplain.

Road reroute: Long-term moderate to 

major beneficial effects from allowing 

floodwater, wood, and gravel storage 

and lateral migration of channel.

Access road: Minor short-term adverse 

impacts from potential release of road 

sediments and on floodwater elevation

and flow.

Milepost 8.0: Short-term minor adverse 

and long-term moderate beneficial 

effects from slope stabilization.

Erosion protection: Minor adverse 

impacts from new structures on the edge 

of the channel migration zone and 

moderate impacts from those within it. 

Minor to moderate beneficial effects from 

restoring more natural rates of erosion. 

Minor to moderate increase in hardening 

of additional 1.4% more of riverbank.

Localized long-term moderate adverse 

impacts in Reach 1, minor to moderate in 

Reach 2 and Reach 3 from increased 

area of hardened riverbank.

Restoration and bioengineering: Longterm localized minor to moderate 

beneficial effect from increase in stream 

bank cover.

LPP: Same as Alternative 1 plus longterm minor to major beneficial impacts.

Road reroute: Long-term 

moderate adverse impacts from 

retention of some of the road in 

the channel migration zone. 

Moderate beneficial effects.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2, but with additional 

localized minor to moderate 

adverse impacts from two more 

sites with actions (1.7% more of 

riverbank).

Localized moderate to major 

adverse impact in Reach 1, minor 

to moderate in Reaches 2 and 3, 

and moderate in Reach 4.

Access road / Milepost 8.0 / 

Restoration / LPP: Same as 

Alternative 2 with slightly less road 

restoration.

Road grade raise: Same as 

Alternative 1.

Erosion protection: Same as 

Alternative3 plus actions at two 

more sites, a moderate to major 

adverse impact.

Localized long-term major impact in 

Reach 1, minor to moderate in 

Reaches 2 and 3 (same as 

Alternative 2), and moderate in 

Reach 4 and an undesignated 

reach near Milepost 9.2.

LPP: Same as Alternative 1 plus 

long-term minor to major beneficial 

impacts.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

382 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Cumulative Impacts: All alternatives would contribute minor to moderate cumulative impacts from increasing the amount of hardened streambank. Measures in 

Alternative 4 would add the most to cumulative effects, while Alternative 1 would likely equal these over time. Alternative 2 would have the fewest additions to 

cumulative adverse effects. All alternatives would also contribute long-term minor beneficial effects from relocating the housing and maintenance areas. 

Conclusion: Alternative 2 would have the fewest effects, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, and 1. Alternative 1 would have long-term minor to major adverse effects 

and minor beneficial effects. Alternative 2 would have long-term minor to moderate adverse effects and long-term minor to major beneficial effects. Alternative 3 

would have long-term minor to moderate and localized major adverse effects and long-term minor to major beneficial effects. Alternative 4 would have minor to 

major adverse effects and minor to major beneficial effects.

Since there would be no significant adverse impacts to streamflow characteristics or channel-forming processes, there would be no impairment of park resources 

or values.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 383 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Water Resources: Water Quality

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Localized negligible to moderate long-term adverse effects from existing development and operations. Shortterm negligible to minor adverse effects from runoff and long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects from surfacing. Short-term localized negligible to minor 

adverse effects from culvert work and Lower Valley Trail. Short-term minor to moderate localized adverse impacts from construction. Minor to moderate adverse 

impacts from removal of structures coupled with long-term moderate to major beneficial effects. Negligible to moderate beneficial effects from replacement and 

relocation of maintenance area.

Road grade raise: Short-term moderate 

to major localized adverse impacts from 

potential release of fill.

Erosion protection: Short-term minor 

adverse and long-term beneficial effects 

at Wilson Creek.

Large woody debris: No effects.

LPP: Short-term negligible to moderate 

adverse and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects.

Road reroute: Short- and long-term 

minor impacts from runoff.

Erosion protection: Short-term minor to 

moderate localized adverse impacts from 

placement of barbs and logjams and 

long-term negligible to moderate 

beneficial impacts from reducing erosion.

Milepost 8.0 and 9.2: Minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts from slope retention / 

decreasing erosion.

Large woody debris: Short-term 

negligible to minor adverse effects from 

access.

Recreation: Short-term negligible to 

minor adverse effects from construction. 

Potential beneficial impacts from 

restoration of shooting range.

LPP: Potential long-term moderate to 

major beneficial and short-term minor to 

major adverse effects.

Road reroute: Similar to 

Alternative 2 with short-term minor 

adverse impacts.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2 with additional 

impacts from a different array of 

structures.

Milepost 8.0 / 9.2 / Large Woody 

Debris / LPP: Same as 

Alternative 2.

Road grade raise: Same as 

Alternative 1.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2 with more structures 

at more sites.

Large woody debris: Additional 

short-term minor impacts from 

additional procurement area.

LPP: Long-term minor to major 

beneficial impacts from removal of 

structures combined with potential 

short-term adverse similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute minor localized cumulative adverse impacts from construction of new maintenance and housing, 

negligible to minor long-term beneficial effects from road rehabilitation, and minor to moderate adverse and beneficial effects from LPP actions. Alternatives 2 

and 3 would contribute additional minor adverse and long-term beneficial effects from the reroutes and Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute additional moderate 

beneficial effects from LPP actions.

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would have short-term negligible to major localized adverse effects and long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects. Alternatives 2, 

3, and 4 would have short-term minor to major localized adverse effects and long-term minor to major beneficial effects. 

There would be no significant impacts to and no impairment of water quality or its values under Alternatives 1 - 4.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

384 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Water Resources: Wetlands

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Short-term negligible to minor adverse effects on wetlands from construction and negligible to moderate or 

major beneficial impacts from restoration. There would be short-term minor adverse effects from replacement of intermittent and perennial stream culverts and 

long-term negligible to minor effects from maintaining these and snowmelt drainage culverts. Long-term beneficial effects from restoration of 1.5 acres of 

palustrine forested wetlands in the current maintenance area. Ongoing beneficial impacts from acquisition of lands within the floodplain.

Road grade raise: Long-term localized 

moderate adverse impacts from elevated 

road.

Road reroute: Long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects from 

removing road from floodplain / channel 

migration zone.

Erosion protection: Short-term minor to 

moderate adverse effects from 

construction of barbs and logjams, 

particularly from actions within or 

adjacent to water coupled with long-term 

minor beneficial effects from revegetation 

and riparian restoration.

Large woody debris: Negligible to minor 

short-term adverse effects from access 

for procurement.

Restoration: Long-term beneficial effects 

from restoration of Buckner and Lower 

Field riparian areas and from other 

restoration associated with erosion 

protection measures.

LPP: Long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects from acquisition of 

riparian areas or exchange of uplands for 

riparian areas.

Road reroute / Large woody

debris: Same as Alternative 2.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2 with additional minor 

and moderate adverse effects 

from additional measures within 

and adjacent to channel migration 

zone (minor to moderate 

adverse).

Restoration: Similar to Alternative 

2, with less restoration of riparian 

area in old road alignment 

(moderate beneficial) and ongoing 

impacts from continued location of 

road next to Lower Field riparian 

area (moderate adverse).

Road grade raise: Same as 

Alternative 1. 

LPP: Additional minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts from 

opportunities to acquire lands 

within channel migration zone.

Erosion protection: Impacts similar 

to Alternatives 2 and 3, but with 

more moderate adverse effects 

from more structures within and on 

the edge of the river.

Restoration: Similar to Alternatives 

2 and 3, but without road 

restoration in McGregor Meadows 

and Lower Field.

Cumulative Impacts: All alternatives would contribute long-term moderate beneficial effects from restoration of the maintenance area and long-term minor 

adverse and negligible to minor beneficial effects from erosion protection measures and replacement / construction of culverts. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have 

similar beneficial and adverse contributions, with more adverse and fewer beneficial effects in Alternative 3 because of ongoing impacts adjacent to Lower Field. 

Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute slightly more beneficial effects from restoration than Alternative 1.

Conclusion: There would be short- and long-term adverse effects from impacts to wetlands of less than one acre in Alternatives 1 - 3. Long-term beneficial 

impacts would occur from approximately 1.5 acres of restoration in Alternative 1, 4.1 in Alternative 2, 3.9 in Alternative 3, and 2.9 in Alternative. Jurisdictional 

wetland impacts would include erosion protection measures (barbs and logjams above) plus impacts from culvert modifications. Only Alternative 4 would require 

a wetlands statement of findings and formal mitigation of adverse impacts.

Because there would be no widespread major adverse impacts on wetlands there would be no impairment of park resources or values from the implementation of 

Alternatives 1 - 4.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 385 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Water Resources: Floodplains

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Ongoing moderate to major adverse impacts from retaining Stehekin Valley Road floodplain channel migration 

zone in McGregor Meadows and from the Bakery to Lake Chelan and from Company Creek Road near Harlequin Bridge and above Company Creek. Ongoing 

negligible to minor adverse effects from maintaining recreational facilities in floodplains. Long-term minor to moderate adverse effects from not retaining the 

Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment near Milepost 3.8 (Frog Island), Milepost 5.3 (Wilson Creek), Milepost 8.0 and 8.5. Long-term moderate to major 

beneficial effects from relocating housing and maintenance areas (including fuel storage area) outside of regulatory floodplains. Long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects from allowing floods to overtop riverbanks. Long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts from existing erosion protection measures.

Road grade raise: Localized moderate to 

major adverse impacts from placement of 

5,600 cubic yards fill.

Road reroute: Long-term moderate to 

major beneficial effects from restoring 

floodplain values and functions.

Access road: Long-term localized minor 

to moderate adverse impacts.

Erosion protection: Minor to moderate 

adverse impacts from three structures on 

the edge of the channel migration zone 

and one within it.

Restoration and bioengineering: Longterm minor beneficial effects from slowed 

bank erosion.

LPP: Potential for long-term moderate to 

major beneficial effects by removal of 

private development.

Access road / Restoration and

bioengineering / Removal of

structures / LPP: Same as 

Alternative 2.

Reroute: Long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts and 

ongoing minor to moderate 

adverse effects from 1.2 acres 

remaining within channel 

migration zone.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2 with additional longterm minor to moderate adverse 

effects from more structures within 

or on the edge of the channel 

migration zone.

Road grade raise: Same as 

Alternative 1.

Restoration and bioengineering: 

Same as Alternative 2.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 3, with additional longterm minor to major adverse 

impacts from more structures within 

channel migration zone.

LPP: Potential long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects on 

floodplains.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute moderate adverse impacts from fill used for the road grade raise. Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute 

minor effects from retaining the Access Road in the floodplain. Long-term negligible benefits would be contributed in all but Alternative 1 from the changed 

priorities for land acquisition and exchange, though these would be greater in Alternatives 2 and 3 from prioritizing lands primarily to remove development from 

not just the floodplain, but also the channel migration zone. All action alternatives would move toward less development within the floodplain, a long-term minor to 

major beneficial effect, depending on the alternative.

Conclusion: The combined effects of the actions in Alternative 1 would result in a series of localized, long-term negligible to major adverse effects coupled with 

some long-term moderate to major beneficial effects. Alternative 2 would result in similar negligible to moderate adverse effects, while it would have more longterm moderate to major beneficial effects. Alternative 3 would have effects similar to Alternative 2, including a range of negligible to moderate adverse and 

beneficial impacts from many of the same actions. These would include fewer beneficial effects from shorter reroute and from the implementation of additional 

erosion protection measures in areas where the road is within the floodplain / channel migration zone. Alternative 4 would essentially combine the effects of 

retaining the Stehekin Valley Road in its current alignment as in Alternative 1, a long-term moderate to major adverse effect with the erosion protection and 

restoration measures in Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in some long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects. 

There would be no significant impacts to and no impairment of floodplain values or functions from the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

386 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Wildlife

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Short-term localized negligible to minor disturbance from noise and construction activity and long-term minor to 

moderate disturbance from new developed areas. Ongoing negligible to minor impacts from vehicle-wildlife collisions. Long-term minor to moderate habitat loss 

from road rehabilitation and facility construction. Potential minor short-term impacts from sedimentation attributed to earth moving activities and localized minor 

adverse effects from work at Wilson Creek. Minor adverse effects from contamination from runoff after surfacing. Long-term negligible to moderate localized 

beneficial impacts from habitat restoration. Short- and long-term negligible to moderate localized impacts from other construction activities. Localized short-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts from construction of Lower Valley Trail. Long-term moderate beneficial impacts from habitat restoration of former 

maintenance area.

Road grade raise / realignment::

Negligible to moderate adverse effects 

from reduction in habitat and potential for 

sedimentation due grade raise / 

realignment.

Erosion protection: Long-term localized 

moderate impacts to aquatic habitat from 

rip-rap and log-cribbing at Wilson Creek.

Large woody debris: Ongoing negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on fish and 

aquatic species.

LPP: Ongoing long-term negligible to 

moderate beneficial and minor to 

moderate adverse effects.

Road reroute: Short-to long-term localized 

moderate to major adverse effects from 

habitat loss. Negligible to minor beneficial 

effects from edge habitat creation and 

restoration over time of cuts and fills.

Erosion protection: Short-term minor to 

moderate adverse and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects on bank 

stabilization and habitat loss and creation.

Milepost 8.0 and 9.2: Negligible to minor 

adverse impacts from habitat modification 

and disturbance and long-term minor 

beneficial effects from revegetation and 

stabilization.

Large woody debris: Short-term minor 

adverse impacts during procurement and 

long-term minor beneficial impacts from use 

of wood over rock.

Recreation: Short- and long-term negligible 

to moderate adverse effects from 

construction and use and long-term 

negligible to minor effects from habitat 

modification.

Restoration: Long-term beneficial impacts 

from restoration.

LPP: Long-term minor to moderate adverse 

effects from development and minor to 

moderate beneficial effects from potential 

acquisition of important riparian habitat 

areas.

Road reroute: Same as 

Alternative 2 except for shorter 

distance with fewer impacts.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 2 with more 

adverse and more beneficial 

impacts.

Restoration: Same as 

Alternative 2 except with less 

road restoration from shorter 

reroute.

LPP: Same as Alternative 2.

Recreation: Fewer adverse 

impacts from no raft takeout 

and one additional camp.

Road grade raise: Same as 

Alternative 1.

Erosion protection: Similar to 

Alternative 3 with short-term minor 

to moderate adverse and negligible 

to minor beneficial impacts. 

Large woody debris: Negligible to 

minor adverse effects, including 

potential for more dispersed 

impacts from wider area used.

LPP: Similar to Alternatives 2 and 

3, with fewer beneficial impacts 

from revised LPP from retaining the 

Stehekin Valley Road alignment.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 387 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Cumulative Impacts: Alternative 1 would contribute long-term negligible to minor cumulative adverse and beneficial effects from habitat disturbance and loss. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute localized minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts and localized minor beneficial impacts on wildlife. Alternative 4 

would contribute localized minor to moderate adverse effects from both disturbance and loss.

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would have negligible to moderate short- and long-term adverse and long-term beneficial impacts. Alternative 2 would have negligible to 

major adverse and negligible to moderate beneficial impacts. Alternative 3 impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, with short- to long-term negligible to major 

adverse impacts and long-term negligible to moderate localized beneficial effects from restoration. Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would have both 

adverse and beneficial effects would be somewhat less from shorter reroute, less potential restoration at Lower Field, and more erosion protection measures. 

Alternative 4 would have negligible to moderate adverse and beneficial effects. In Alternative 4, fewer overall beneficial effects would occur compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 3, because the road would be retained in the channel migration zone and more erosion measures would also be within that zone. 

Although localized impacts could range to major in Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the disturbance of approximately 18 acres of wildlife habitat, within a total 

disturbed area of about 28 acres from the construction of the reroutes, no species loss would occur and displaced species could use other nearby intact areas 

and future restored areas for habitat. As a result, there would be no impairment of wildlife or its values.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

388 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Special Status Wildlife

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Impacts would be not likely to adversely affect most special status species because they would primarily be 

associated with short-term construction impacts. Impacts would be short-term and negligible on gray wolves and grizzly bears; short-term and minor for lynx and 

wolverine; short- and long-term minor on fishers (with some negligible beneficial effects from restoration of riparian areas); and short-term negligible to minor on 

bald eagles. 

Most effects on aquatic species, including fish, frogs, and toads would be avoided by work outside the breeding season. 

Road rehabilitation: Approximately 7.5 

acres of northern spotted owl suitable 

habitat could be affected by noise and 

disturbance, a short- to long-term minor 

to moderate adverse effect, primarily 

associated with road rehabilitation. 

Impacts would be the same as in 

Alternative 1 for all special status species 

except northern spotted owls, goshawks 

and aquatic species.

Road reroute: Impacts on northern 

spotted owls would be long-term and 

moderate to major associated with both 

noise and disturbance and habitat 

removal. Long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial impacts could occur from 

changes to foraging areas.

Removal of forested habitat for the 

reroutes would also have moderate 

adverse effects on goshawks.

Erosion protection: There would be 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse and minor beneficial impacts 

from work in or near water. Some longterm negligible to minor beneficial effects 

could occur from creation of pool habitat 

for fish, frogs and toads.

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 1 with 

increased effects from creating 

pool habitat.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute long-term, cumulative negligible to minor beneficial impacts along with similar short-term adverse impacts 

from construction. Cumulative effects in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be greater associated with direct adverse impacts to northern spotted owl habitat.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect and would be likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls. Alternatives 1 - 4 may affect, but would not be likely to 

adversely affect the following listed, proposed or candidate species: grizzly bears, gray wolves, Canada lynx, Pacific fisher, bull trout, dolly varden, Chinook 

salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, or Columbia spotted frog. Similarly, the proposed actions may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect the following 

mammal, bird, and amphibian federal species of concern: mammals: California wolverine and western gray squirrel; birds: bald eagle, Pacific Townsend‟s bigeared bat, small-footed (Yuma) myotis, western long-eared myotis, fringed myotis or long-legged myotis, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, olive-sided 

flycatcher, and black swift; and amphibians: western toad, spotted frog, Cascades frog, and tailed frog. 

Because there would be limited major adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species or species of concern there would be no impairment of the park‟s 

special status species‟ resources or values. Northern spotted owls may have become extirpated from their existing nest site prior to project implementation by 

barred owls, or may return to nest activity area. Other northern spotted owl nest sites within the lower Stehekin Valley would likely continue to produce young. 

Visitors and residents would likely continue to have the opportunity to experience rare glimpses of this threatened species and it would continue to occur in the 

lower Stehekin Valley.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 389 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Archeological Resources

Because archeological resources have been surveyed for within the proposed project area; because archeological resources found were outside of the project 

area; and because the discovery potential for buried archeological resources would employ mitigation measures noted below there would be no adverse effect on 

known archeological resources.

Cumulative Impacts: There would be no construction-related contributions that would affect known eligible archeological resources and therefore no cumulative 

impacts from Alternatives 1 - 4. There is a slight possibility; however, that future proposed work could affect currently unidentified cultural resources. Because 

mitigation measures would be implemented as noted above, Alternatives 1 - 4 would not be expected to contribute to cumulative effects on archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have no adverse effect on known archeological resources. 

There would be no adverse effects on and no impairment of known National Register eligible archeological resources or values.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

390 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Cultural Landscapes

No effect on cultural landscapes. Minor long-term beneficial effects on 

rehabilitation of the cultural landscape at 

Buckner Homestead Historic District from 

vegetation restoration of the riparian 

edge along the pasture and hayfield. 

Vegetation restoration of the riparian 

area would have no adverse effect on 

the Buckner Homestead Historic District. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Cumulative Impacts: Actions in Alternative 1 would have no contribution to cumulative effects on cultural landscapes. Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute minor 

long-term beneficial effects.

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would have no effect on cultural landscapes. Alternatives 2 - 4 would have long-term beneficial effects (no adverse effect) on 

rehabilitation of the cultural landscape at Buckner Homestead Historic District from vegetation restoration of the riparian edge along the pasture and hayfield. 

Vegetation restoration of the riparian area would have no adverse effect on the Buckner Homestead Historic District. 

There would be no impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 391 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Visitor Experience: Access and Transportation

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Negligible to moderate adverse short-term adverse impacts from transportation of materials and supplies for 

projects, causing an increase in barge loads and truck traffic as well as delays on road (such as one lane closures). Long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts from surfacing, a safer roadway, more pullouts and better signage. Minor to moderate beneficial effects from construction of Lower Valley Trail.

Road grade raise: Additional short-term 

moderate adverse impacts from 

importing and transporting fill. 

Retaining road: Ongoing long-term 

moderate impacts from difficult access in 

McGregor Meadows section during 

flooding.

Road reroute: Short-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts from 

transportation of materials (fewer than 

Alternatives 1 and 4 because most within 

area of reroute) and moderate long-term 

beneficial impacts from increased 

reliability of access.

Access Road: Ongoing long-term minor 

to moderate difficulty of access during 

flooding and minor adverse impacts from 

backtracking on the access road.

Erosion protection: Negligible to minor 

adverse impacts from potentially 

protruding barbs during raft trips.

Milepost 8.0: Long-term beneficial 

impacts from reduced potential for road 

closures due to rock fall.

Raft takeout: Long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects.

Same as Alternative 2 except for 

impacts associated with raft 

takeout.

Erosion protection: There would 

be fewer potential impacts on 

rafting from barbs, but more from 

logjams.

Road grade raise / Stehekin Valley 

Road retention: Same as 

Alternative 1.

Erosion protection: Minor to 

moderate adverse effects from 

potentially protruding barbs during 

raft trips.

Milepost 8.0 / Raft takeout: Same 

as Alternative 2.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts from dependable road access around McGregor 

Meadows, while Alternative 2 would also contribute long-term dependable road access to above the Lower Field area. With erosion protection measures, 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would likely result in better access than Alternative 1 from bank stabilization and from work at Milepost 9.2 and from slope stabilization at 

Milepost 8.0. All alternatives would contribute short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on transportation that would generally affect residents more than 

visitors. These include traffic delays from transport of fill and construction materials and other road construction activities. Similarly long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects on transportation would be contributed under Alternatives 1 - 4 from rehabilitation of the road (Alternatives 1 - 4) or construction of new

segments of road (Alternatives 2 and 3) from improved driving conditions, signage, and safety improvements such as sight distance and pullouts.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have short-term negligible to moderate adverse and negligible to minor beneficial impacts. Additional moderate adverse 

effects would occur in Alternatives 1 and 4 related to transportation of fill and flooding access. Alternatives 2 - 4 would add long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effects from actions at Milepost 8.0 and from stabilization of the road, whether in place or with a reroute, though these would be greater in Alternatives 2 and 3 

from increased reliability of access. Additional minor adverse impacts would occur from erosion protection measures. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

392 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Visitor Experience: Interpretation and Education

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Ongoing minor to moderate beneficial impacts from existing interpretive and educational programs. Minor longterm beneficial effects from opportunities for interpretation / education on Lower Valley Trail. Short-term minor beneficial impacts from informal interpretive 

opportunities during construction.

Same as Actions Common to All 

Alternatives.

Long-term minor to moderate long-term 

beneficial effects from other new 

interpretive opportunities associated with 

new recreational facilities.

Long-term minor beneficial effects from 

enhancement of interpretive and 

educational programming related to the 

implementation plan.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2

Cumulative Effects: Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute minor beneficial effects.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have minor to moderate beneficial effects, with slightly more beneficial effects in Alternatives 2 - 4. 
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 393 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Visitor Experience: Visitor Use Opportunities

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts from ongoing visitor use opportunities. Long-term moderate to 

major beneficial impacts from improved driving conditions on a surfaced road, new experiences on Lower Valley Trail, an improved winter turnaround, and 

reduced dust on the road for motorists and recreationists. Negligible to minor, short-term minor to moderate adverse effects from noise and activity and reduced 

wildlife presence due to road rehabilitation and construction of housing and maintenance areas. 

Same as “Actions Common to All 

Alternatives.”

Road reroute: There would be long-term 

minor effects from the increased diversity 

of the driving experience and from 

changes in views and vistas that would 

be negligible to minor beneficial or 

adverse depending on individual 

preferences. Long-term negligible 

beneficial effects from increased wildlife 

sightings in the Lower Field area. 

Recreation: Negligible to minor adverse 

and minor to moderate long-term

beneficial effects from establishing 

additional or improved camps and raft 

takeout. Minor beneficial effects on 

fishing from creation of pool habitat and 

riparian restoration.

Recreation: Similar to Alternative 

2 except fewer beneficial and 

adverse impacts form no raft 

takeout and one additional camp.

Same as Alternative 2, but with 

additional beneficial impacts from 

one additional camp.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative 1 would contribute minor to moderate beneficial impacts and negligible to minor short-term adverse effects. Alternatives 2 - 4 

would be the same as Alternative 1 plus would have additional minor beneficial effects from new visitor facilities. Depending on the viewer, changes to the driving 

experience would be viewed (in Alternatives 2 and 3) as minor and beneficial or adverse.

Conclusion: There would be few new opportunities in Alternative 1; however there would be improvements in existing opportunities. Compared to the negligible to 

minor beneficial effects in Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 - 4 would have both more opportunities and more improvements (minor to moderate beneficial effects) than 

Alternative 1. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

394 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Visitor Experience: Safety

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: All alternatives would contribute a series of long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects on safety 

primarily associated with road improvements (pullouts, surfacing, etc.) and maintenance area replacement and relocation. Negligible to moderate adverse effects 

from retaining sections of the road within the floodplain.

Road grade raise / road retention: Minor 

to moderate long-term adverse effects 

from maintaining more road vulnerable to 

flooding.

Road reroute: Long-term moderate 

beneficial effects from rerouting the road 

away from the river. Long-term negligible 

to moderate adverse effects from 

relocation of the road. 

LPP: Moderate beneficial effects from 

removing additional development from 

the floodplain.

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 1 plus 

additional minor to moderate 

beneficial effects from revised LPP.

Cumulative Effects: While Alternatives 1 and 4 provide minor safety improvements, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in long-term moderate beneficial impacts 

from improving safety conditions related to rerouting the road; as a result Alternative 2 would have slightly greater benefits. 

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on safety, while Alternatives 2 and 3 would also have additional 

moderate beneficial impacts because of the reroute and changes in LPP priorities. There would also continue to be negligible to moderate adverse effects from 

retaining sections of the road in the floodplain / channel migration zone where it cannot be moved (Alternatives 2 and 3) or to retain the existing road alignment 

(Alternatives 1 and 4).
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 395 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Visitor Experience: Scenic Resources

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Negligible short-term effects from construction. Long-term negligible to moderate adverse and beneficial effects 

from new actions, including from surfacing and restoration. 

Road retention: No effect. 

LPP: Ongoing minor beneficial effects 

from protecting scenic resources from 

acquisition and exchange along the 

Stehekin Valley Road.

Road reroute: Long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial or adverse effects, 

depending on the viewer.

Erosion protection: Long-term minor 

beneficial and adverse impacts.

Restoration: Long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects. 

LPP: Minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts from revised LPP.

Same as Alternative 2 with slightly 

less restoration and more erosion 

protection measures.

Same as Alternative 1 plus: 

Additional beneficial and adverse 

impacts from erosion protection 

measures and from revised LPP.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternative 1 would continue to contribute long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects and ongoing short-term adverse effects from 

construction activities / prescribed burns. Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute the same adverse and beneficial effects as Alternative 1, plus long-term adverse and 

beneficial effects from road reroute. Long-term beneficial effects noted in Alternative 1 associated with the LPP would continue but there would be less emphasis 

on these. Similarly, Alternatives 1 and 4 would contribute additional long-term negligible to minor adverse effects from maintaining roads in their existing 

alignments, contributing both minor adverse and minor beneficial effects on scenic resources from maintaining views while altering natural processes.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would continue to have long-term negligible to minor beneficial and short-term negligible to minor adverse effects on scenic 

resources, while Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute to the diversity of the Stehekin Valley Road driving experience, a long-term minor to moderate beneficial or 

adverse effect depending on the viewer.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

396 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Minor beneficial effects would occur from the creation of the Lower Valley Trail and its connection to the 

Stehekin River Trail. No effect on the following outstandingly remarkable values: prehistoric resources, geology, scenic resources, wildlife, or fish. 

Negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

historic resources. Minor beneficial 

effects on recreation from the 

designation of some additional camps 

and a raft takeout. Negligible to minor 

adverse effects from additional barbs or 

logjams where the road needs to be 

maintained near steep sections.

Additional negligible to minor 

adverse and beneficial effects on 

recreation from additional erosion 

protection measures and new 

recreational facilities. 

Same as Alternative 3, with a 

different array of erosion protection 

measures.

Cumulative Impacts: No effect on eligibility of Stehekin River Segment 1 to be designated as a wild and scenic river for recreation. Minor beneficial effects on 

recreation in Alternative 1. Minor beneficial effects on historic resources, recreation and negligible to minor adverse effects from erosion protection measures in 

Alternatives 2 - 4. Removal of private cabins from along the river would contribute long-term moderate beneficial effects. 

Conclusion: There would be no effect on the ability of the Segment 1 portion of the Stehekin River to be designated as a wild and scenic river for recreation. The 

river would continue to be free flowing with unobtrusive and short impediments to river flow and would continue to possess more than one outstandingly 

remarkable value. 

There would be no impairment of wild and scenic river resources or values from the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 397 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Park Operations

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Short-term minor adverse effects from additional staff time and delays associated with planning, road 

construction, facility improvements and other actions. Long-term negligible to moderate beneficial effects from maintaining new and old facilities in good 

condition, with fewer needs for repair and fewer adverse effects during seasonal and catastrophic flooding. Long-term major beneficial effects from more 

functional maintenance facilities and from location not impacted by flooding. Long-term beneficial effects from cost-savings from new maintenance facility and 

housing.

Road grade raise: Short-term minor to 

moderate adverse and long-term minor 

beneficial effects. 

LPP: Short- and long-term negligible to 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

New facility construction: Short-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

from oversight and management.

Road reroute: Negligible to minor shortterm adverse effects plus long-term 

moderate beneficial effects. 

Access Road: Minor to moderate 

adverse effects. 

Erosion protection: Negligible to 

moderate adverse and long-term 

beneficial effects. 

LPP: Minor to moderate beneficial 

effects.

Same as Alternative 2 Same Alternative 1 with additional 

minor impacts from revised LPP 

and from erosion protection 

measures.
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

398 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Socioeconomics

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Ongoing long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects from recreation area presence. Short-term minor 

to moderate beneficial effects from slight growth in construction during maintenance and housing and Lower Valley Trail project implementation.

Road rehabilitation: Short-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects from 

construction.

LPP: Long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects.

Road reroute: Short-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects from 

construction.

LPP: Long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects.

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 1 with 

additional beneficial impacts from 

LPP.

Cumulative Impacts: Alternatives 1 - 4 would contribute long-term minor beneficial effects from cost savings associated with construction of new maintenance 

and housing. Alternatives 2 - 4 would contribute negligible long-term economic benefits from reduced closures of the Stehekin Valley Road related to flooding.

Conclusion: Alternative 1 would have negligible to minor adverse effects and negligible to moderate beneficial effects. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negligible

to minor adverse effects and negligible to moderate beneficial effects, more than Alternative 1 because of more construction and road remaining open more. 

Alternative 4 would have the same negligible to minor adverse effects as Alternative 1 and the similar negligible to moderate beneficial effects as Alternatives 2 

and 3, however, the beneficial effects in Alternative 4 would be less related to road conditions.
26. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 399 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Hazardous Materials

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Potential short-term minor to moderate adverse effects from removing maintenance area and flood-affected 

structures and long-term moderate to major beneficial effects from removing hazardous materials from the floodplain.

Same as Actions Common to All 

Alternatives

Short-term minor to moderate adverse 

effects from potential clean-up actions 

associated with former shooting range.

Same as Actions Common to All 

Alternatives

Same as Actions Common to All 

Alternatives

Cumulative Impacts: There would be no additional long-term contribution to adverse cumulative effects from Alternatives 1 - 4. Impacts would be minor to 

moderate, long-term and beneficial from removal of potential areas of hazardous materials in the former maintenance area and at the shooting range.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would have minor to moderate adverse and moderate to major long-term beneficial effects from removing hazardous materials from 

the floodplain. There would be additional minor adverse and moderate beneficial impacts in Alternative 2 from removing the shooting range. 
Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

400 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Moderate to major adverse impacts from presence of development remaining within floodplain / channel 

migration zone, including on Company Creek Road, portions of the Stehekin Valley Road, erosion protection structures and on private lands.

Ongoing moderate adverse effects 

partially mitigated by long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effects from 

potentially reducing development in 

floodplain / channel migration zone.

Additional mitigation of ongoing adverse 

effects from removing a portion of the 

Stehekin Valley Road from floodplain / 

channel migration zone and from 

potentially reducing development in 

floodplain / channel migration zone. 

Slightly less mitigation than 

Alternative 2 from shorter road 

reroute and same LPP revisions.

Slightly more mitigation than 

Alternative 1 from LPP revisions.

Conclusion: Alternatives 1 - 4 would continue to have moderate to major adverse impacts from development remaining within the floodplain / channel migration 

zone, including private homes, roads and the Company Creek levee. Alternatives 2 - 3 would improve conditions by removing a portion of the Stehekin Valley 

Road from the floodplain / channel migration zone and Alternatives 2 - 4 would also allow removal of private development from the floodplain / channel migration 

zone through a revised emphasis in the LPP. Ongoing minor to moderate adverse effects would continue from existing (Alternatives 1 - 4) and new (Alternatives 

2 - 4) erosion protection structures along the banks of the Stehekin.

Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Long-term minor to moderate beneficial and adverse effects from restoration of former maintenance area and 

development of new areas.

Same as Actions Common to All 

Alternatives

Same as common to all alternatives plus: 

Additional moderate adverse effects from 

developing the road reroute areas and 

additional minor adverse and beneficial 

effects from erosion protection and 

restoration

Same as Alternative 2 Additional minor adverse and 

beneficial effects from erosion 

protection and recreation.

Conclusion: New development in Alternatives 1 - 4 would affect about 8 acres in Alternatives 1 and 4 and 22 acres in Alternatives 2 and 3 plus some portion of 

the 37 acres of available exchange lands in Alternative 1 and some portion of the 24 acres of available exchange lands in Alternatives 2 - 4. Most of this land has 

been affected by human activities or is forested (reroutes). Restoration of more productive riparian areas would compensate for some of this loss, accounting for 

about 5.0 acres in Alt1, 7.88 acres in Alternative 2, 7.42 acres in Alternative 3 and 6.42 acres in Alternative 4. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives: Short-term minor adverse impacts from use of building materials, particularly nonrenewable resources such as 

metals and minerals that taken from one area to another that could not be reused. Potential for removal of development and restoration in all alternatives but with 

impacts visible for many years in forested areas.

Conclusion: Because development of the road and new facilities area currently affect only a very small percentage of the lower Stehekin Valley (see “Land Use 

Impacts” in this chapter) and would not undergo major changes as a result of the implementation of Alternatives 1 - 4, irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

would be minor in all alternatives.

Note: LPP = Land Protection Plan
CHAPTER V:

Consultation

and Coordination

Devils Island

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 403 

CHAPTER V: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

A. HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Public Scoping (General) 

A press release and newsletter describing the intent to begin the public involvement process through 

comments on the proposed project was issued on January 7, 2008. The newsletter was distributed to 

approximately 350 people on the recreation area’s mailing list and was available in park visitor centers. 

The proposed project was also entered into the National Park Service (NPS) Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment (PEPC) website/database. 

The formal public scoping period for the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement began on January 22, 2008 and ended on March 31, 2008. During this 

time, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area held three open house public meetings in Stehekin (January 

22, 2008), Wenatchee (January 23, 2008) and Seattle (January 24, 2008). All parties wishing to express 

concerns or provide information about management issues which should be addressed in the forthcoming 

conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process were strongly encouraged to submit 

written comments. 

Professional staff was available to introduce the project, give presentations on scientific data, answer 

questions, and to accept comments. The public was encouraged to provide comments during the meetings 

and/or to submit written comments. In total, approximately 73 people attended the public meetings and 

approximately 226 comments were recorded on flip charts at the meetings (see Chapter II). Later, 21 

public comment letters were also received, including letters from individuals, nonprofit organizations (the 

Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation Association, and North Cascades Conservation 

Council), and one business. With the exception of concerns outside the scope of the plan, these comments 

were used to inform the preparation of the preliminary alternatives. 

After the public comments were analyzed, a postcard announcing the public comment summary was 

posted on the recreation area and PEPC website. Individuals, agencies, organizations, and businesses 

were invited to view the public comments online beginning June 9, 2008 at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/noca

and were notified that the process of developing alternative management strategies was beginning. 

Public Scoping (Alternatives) 

A second newsletter was prepared and sent out in summer 2008 describing the results of public scoping in 

more detail and identifying a range of preliminary alternatives. It was sent to the project mailing list, 

including the same individuals and organizations from the original mailing, plus the addition of 

individuals, organizations, and businesses who commented during public scoping. 

Upon publication of the second (alternatives) newsletter, additional public scoping took place, focusing 

on these preliminary alternatives. Three public open houses were held: two in Stehekin (August 26 - 27, 

2008) and one in Seattle (August 28, 2008). Afterwards, 17 additional comment letters were received 

from individuals; nonprofit organizations (National Parks and Conservation Association, Western Lands 

Project, and Stehekin Heritage); the Stehekin School District, Chelan County and two businesses (Island 

Resources, Ltd., and Stehekin River Resort). These letters contained approximately 65 comments, which 

were incorporated into the revised alternatives. 
Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination 

404 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Public Notification 

The formal notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2008. 

News releases mailed in advance of the public scoping and alternatives scoping periods were sent to the 

following news media: Seattle Times, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chelan Mirror, Wenatchee World, 

Associated Press, Everett Herald, River Post, Argus, Spokane Chronicle, Bellingham Herald, Skagit 

Valley Herald, and Lynden Tribune. 

Public notification also included the two newsletters and postcard mentioned above, sent in January, June 

and August 2008. 

A project website (www.nps.gov/noca/srcip) was created in January 2008 and is periodically updated with 

new information.

During both the public scoping (general and alternatives) processes, comments were submitted directly to 

the park at the following address: North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Attn: SRCIP-EIS, 810 

State Route 20, Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284. Comments were also submitted via the NPS PEPC website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/NOCA or sent via e-mail to the superintendent, project manager, or 

NOCA_planning@nps.gov. Information about the planning process was regularly updated and posted on 

the park’s website: www.nps.gov/noca and on PEPC. 

B. AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

A variety of agencies have an interest in the outcome of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

following discussion documents the consultation and coordination process undertaken by the NPS and 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the preparation of the Draft Stehekin River Corridor 

Implementation Plan / Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SRCIP/EIS). All local governments, 

tribal governments, and federal and state agencies with resource management responsibilities or interests 

in Lake Chelan National Recreation Area were invited and encouraged to participate in the development 

of the Draft SRCIP/EIS. Representatives of the planning team, including the North Cascades National 

Park Service Complex NOCA superintendent and SRCIP project manager made several presentations for 

key stakeholders, congressional officials, and NPS regional office management staff. Information from 

these contacts and correspondence is on file. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 

As noted in the beginning of this EIS, the lead agency for the preparation is the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service at North Cascades National Park Service Complex (Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area) and the cooperating agency is the Federal Highway Administration (U.S. Department of 

Transportation). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

The EPA submitted comments following their review of the notice of intent. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended authorizes federal agencies to enter into early 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that federal actions would not 

jeopardize the existence of any listed or proposed species or habitat. Consultation with the USFWS under 
B. Agency Consultation and Coordination 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 405 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was initiated in January 2008 and updated in June 2008 and 

January 2009. Preparation of a biological assessment based on the impact analysis in this Draft EIS (see 

Chapters III and IV ―Special Status Species‖ sections), as well as on more detailed species-specific 

information, is currently ongoing. 

Native American Tribe Consultation 

Consultation with Native American tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

occurred. Native American tribes within the vicinity of the recreation area were contacted. During public 

scoping the following tribes were informed of the Draft SRCIP/EIS process: Yakama Nation, Skagit 

System Cooperative, Nlakapamux National Tribal Council, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribal 

Office, and Colville Confederated Tribes. The North Cascades National Park Service Complex NOCA 

Cultural Resources Branch Chief, archeologist, and superintendent offered representatives of these tribes 

several opportunities further information and to provide comments and recommendations on the plan. 

Washington State Historic Preservation Officer / Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Consultation 

The State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council are consulted regarding any proposals 

that might affect a cultural property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 

NPS initiated consultation during the public scoping period. Upon the release of the Draft SRCIP/EIS, 

individual letters will be sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council with a copy 

of the Draft, further informing them of the release and requesting additional informal consultation. 

Washington State Natural Resources Agencies 

In addition to consultation with federal agencies, the NPS contacted the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Washington Natural Heritage 

Program) to gather species information and additional concerns regarding the planning process. In 

addition, ongoing consultation with the Washington Department of Ecology also informed the process. 

Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan Technical Committee 

In addition to individual agency contacts regarding the development of the Draft SRCIP/EIS, a technical 

committee was formed. 

Mission: To provide technical and regulatory information related to long-term river and floodplain 

management in the lower 10 miles of the Stehekin Valley, Chelan County, Washington. 

Nature of Involvement: The committee will meet regularly during the 2-year planning and EIS 

preparation process. The schedule will include working committee meetings and public meetings for 

scoping and alternative development. Meetings will focus on review of technical information and 

proposed management alternatives, as well as other functions described below. The SRCIP technical 

committee is not a decision-making body. 

Functions 

1. Help define the nature and scope of river and floodplain management issues; 

2. Technical assessment of alternatives for mitigating erosion and flooding; 

3. Assist with public education; 

4. Assessment of the suitability of NPS exchange property; 
Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination 

406 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

5. Review NPS technical reports on sediment yield and channel change; and 

6. Assist with development of a new regulatory floodplain map for lower Stehekin River valley. 

The technical committee met on the following dates: December 7, 2007 (Chelan), April 18, 2008 

(Wenatchee), July 28 - 29, 2008 (Stehekin), and April 28, 2009 (Seattle). 

Membership: The following individuals from the identified agencies/organizations served on the 

Technical Committee and provided comments on initial proposals associated with the alternatives: 

National Park Service: Jon Riedel 

Chelan County: Mike Kaputa 

Chelan Public Utilities District: Bill Christman 

Geomax PC: Don Reichmuth 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Gina McCoy 

Washington Department of Ecology: Patricia Olson 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Paul Komoroske, Doug Weber, and Les Soule

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: David Morgan 

C. LIST OF PREPARERS / LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES 

CONSULTED 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex 

Main: 810 State Route 20, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 

Resource Division: 7280 Ranger Station Road, Marblemount, WA 98267 

Project Team 

Chip Jenkins, Superintendent 

Jon Riedel, Geologist / Hydrologist (Project Manager, preparer) 

Mignonne Bivin, Plant Ecologist (preparer) 

Vicki Gempko, Stehekin District Resource Management Specialist (preparer) 

Jesse Kennedy, Chief, Cultural Resources Branch (preparer) 

Bob Kuntz, Wildlife Ecologist (preparer) 

Jack Oelfke, Chief, Natural Resources (preparer) 

Kerry Olson, Stehekin District Interpretive Specialist 

Paul Slinde, Chief of Maintenance (former Stehekin Foreman) 

Roy Zipp, Environmental Protection Specialist (preparer) 

Other Staff

Charles Beall, Chief of Interpretation 

Nicole Bowerman, Physical Science Technician 

Anne Braaten, Geographic Information System Specialist (preparer) 

Sharon Brady, Physical Science Technician (preparer) 

Roger Christopherson, Wildlife Biologist (preparer) 

Reed Glesne, Aquatic Ecologist 

Shelley Kluz, Management Assistant 

Karen Kopper, Fire Ecologist 

Tom Langley, Maintenance Mechanic 

Bob Mierendorf, Archeologist (preparer) 

Stan Zyskowski, Biological Technician (Fisheries) (preparer) 
C. List of Preparers / List of Persons and Agencies Consulted 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 407 

Pacific West Regional Office 

Seattle 

Main: 909 First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98304 

Land Resources: 168 South Jackson Street, Seattle, WA 98104 

Keith Dunbar, Chief, Division of Planning and Environmental Compliance 

Wayne Hill, Realty Specialist (project team) 

Amanda Kaplan, Environmental Planner (project team) 

Rose Rumball-Petre, Environmental Protection Specialist (project team, preparer) 

Anna Tamura, Landscape Architect / Planner 

Karen Vaage, Landscape Architect (project team) 

Rick Wagner, Chief, Division of Land Resources (project team) 

Oakland 

1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700, Oakland, California 94607 

Justin DeSantis, Landscape Architect, Federal Highway Program Liaison 

Alan Schmierer, Regional Environmental Coordinator 

Denver Service Center 

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy., Denver, Colorado 80225 

Jan Burton, Landscape Architect (Project Manager) 

Mark Pritchett, Section Chief, Park Roads and Parkways 

George Tait, Branch Chief of Roads 

Karen Vaage, Landscape Architect 

Bob Welch, Branch Chief, Transportation Division 

Sarah Wynn, Revegetation Technical Specialist 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Seattle District, PO Box C-3755, Seattle, WA 98124-2255 

Paul Komoroske 

Les Soule 

Doug Weber, Levee Safety Program Manager 

Amy Gibbons 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 

Elaine L. Somers, NEPA Review Unit 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands Highway Division 

610 East 5th Street, Vancouver, WA 98661 

Juan Aguirre, former Civil Engineering Technician 

Betty Chon, Highway Engineer (Project Manager) 

Jennifer Corwin, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Sven Leon, Hydraulics Engineer 

Grant Lindsey, Civil Engineering Technician, Designer 
Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination 

408 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Craig Sanders, Construction Operations Engineer 

Curtis Scott, former Construction Operations Engineer 

Malcolm Ulrich, Engineering Geologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Central Washington Field Office, 215 Melody Lane, Suite 119, Wenatchee, WA 98801 

David Morgan, Biologist 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Region 3 Office, 1701 S. 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902 

Gina McCoy, Central Washington Technical Assistance Engineer 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Shorelines and Environmental Assistance Division, Ecology Headquarters Building, 30300 Desmond Drive SE, 

Lacey, WA 98503 

Patricia Olson, Senior Hydrogeologist 

Chelan County 

316 Washington Street, Suite 401, Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Mike Kaputa, Director, Chelan County Natural Resource Department 

Chelan County Public Utility District 

327 N. Wenatchee Ave, Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Bill Christman, Hydro Engineering Manager 

Geomax 

1023 West 30th Avenue, Spokane, WA 99203-1324 

Don Reichmuth, Private Consultant for Geomax 

D. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND BUSINESSES THAT 

RECEIVED THE DRAFT SRCIP/EIS 

Groups/Agencies Contact Name

American Rivers

American Whitewater Thomas O'Keefe

Army Corps of Engineers

Blue Water Network

Chelan Airways

Chelan County Commissioner Doug England

Chelan County Dept. Of Natural Resources Michael Kaputa
D. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that received the Draft SRCIP/EIS 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 409 

Groups/Agencies Contact Name

Chelan County PUD Richard Riazzi

Chelan County PUD Bill Christman

Chelan County, Port of

Chelan Public Library

Chelan Ranger District Robert Sheehan, District Ranger

City of Chelan

Colville Confederated Tribes Camille Pleasants

Colville Confederated Tribes Michael E. Marchand

Congressman Doc Hastings

Congressman Doc Hastings Tara Ord, Legislative Director

Conservation Northwest

Defenders of Wildlife

Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund Stephan Volker

Friends of the Earth

Geomax Don Reichmuth

Lake Chelan Boat Company Jack Raines

Methow Conservancy

Mt Baker-Snoqualmie NF Forest Supervisor

National Parks & Conservation Association Sean Smith

North Cascades Conservation Council Marc Bardsley

North Cascades Institute

North Central Washington Audubon Society Jon Soest

NPCA

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor

Pacific Crest Trail Association Mike Dawson

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Port of Chelan County Mike Mackey

Representative Cary Condotta Cary Condotta

Representative Cary Condotta Cary Condotta

Representative Mike Armstrong 426A Legislative Building

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Janice Mabee

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Richard Wolten
Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination 

410 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Groups/Agencies Contact Name

Seattle Public Library

Senator Maria Cantwell

Senator Maria Cantwell

Senator Maria Cantwell Central WA Outreach Director

Senator Patty Murray 2988 Jackson Federal Building

Senator Patty Murray

Senator Patty Murray Eastern WA Director Judy Olsen

Senator Linda Evans-Parlette 316 Legislative Building

Senator Linda Evans-Parlette

Sierra Club - Cascades Chapter

Stehekin Valley Ranch Clifford Courtney

Student Conservation Assn. Inc.

The Henry M. Jackson Foundation

The Mountaineers

The Nature Conservancy

The Wilderness Society

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Scott Schuyler

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Jennifer Washington 

US Army Corps of Engineers Deborah Knaub

US Army Corps of Engineers Doug Weber

US DOT, Fed. Hwy Administration Betty Chon

US DOT, Fed. Hwy Administration Betty Chon

WA Department of Ecology Patricia Olsen

Washington DNR Sandy Swope Moody

Washington DNR-Rivers District Cindy Peston

WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Bob Steele

Washington Fish and Wildlife Service David Morgan

Washington Fish and Wildlife Service Gina McCoy

WA State Parks & Recreation Commission

WA Trails Association

Washington Recreational River Runners

Washington State DOT, Aviation Division William Hamilton
E. List of Federal Permits 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 411 

Groups/Agencies Contact Name

Washington Wilderness Coalition

Washington's National Park Fund

Wenatchee Public Library

Western Lands Project Janine Blaeloch

Wilderness Watch

Yakima Nation Tribe Johnson Meninick

E. LIST OF FEDERAL PERMITS 

Clean Water Act Section 401 and Section 404 

Actions identified in Alternatives 1 - 4 (rock barbs) would require Clean Water Act, Section 404 permits. 

These permits will either fall under existing nationwide permits, or could require individual permits. 

It is also likely that these actions will require a Section 401 consistency determination from the 

Washington State agency that implements Section 401 of the Clean Water Act: the Washington 

Department of Ecology. 

It is also likely that the project will require at least one nonpoint source discharge (NPDES) permit. 

Hydraulic Project Approval permits may also be required as part of Washington State’s implementation 

of the Clean Water Act. 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 

The USFWS has stated that it is currently unlikely that an incidental take permit would be required for 

adverse effects to northern spotted owls. 

Code of Federal Regulations Rule Change 

Under Alternative 2, closure of the Shooting Range would require a change in a Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 7 regulation. Although this would not require a federal permit, it would require 

publication of a regulation change in the Federal Register and a change in the Superintendent’s 

Compendium. 

The current compendium states ―Stehekin Shooting Range, as described in 36 CFR 7.62(c), is closed to 

the discharge of firearms from March 15th to June 15th.‖ This closure is in effect because of potentially 

nesting northern spotted owls. No alternate site is mentioned as being available for use during this time 

period; the compendium simply closes the existing site. 

CHAPTER VI:

References

Devils Island

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 415 

CHAPTER VI: REFERENCES 

Aldridge, B.N., and J.M. Garret. 1973. Roughness Coefficients for Stream Channels in Arizona. USGS Open 

File Report, Tucson, Arizona. 49 pp. 

Allen, D. 2005. Personal communication. E-mail from Dan Allen, Natural Resources Specialist, North 

Cascades National Park to Parametrix in NPS 2005. 

Aubry, K.B., G.M. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 1999. ―Ecology of Canada Lynx in Southern Boreal 

Forests.‖ In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, G.M Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and 

J.R. Squires (eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, pp 373 - 396. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-GTR30WWW. 

Bader, M., S. Kelly, and K. Hammer. 1993. ―The Decline of the Bull Trout and the Future of the West.‖

Forest Watch 13(10):15 - 18 in NPS 1995a. 

Baukun, W., R. Haugerud, M. Hopper, and R. Ludwin. 2002. ―The December 1872 Washington State 

Earthquake.‖ Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92(8):3239 - 3258. 

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. 

275 pp in NPS 1995a. 

Bivin, M. 2004. Personal communication with Parametrix regarding the Stehekin Valley Road 

Improvement Project rare plant survey in NPS 2005. 

Brown, L.G. 1984. Lake Chelan Fishery Investigations. Washington Department of Fish and Game in

NPS 1995a. 

Cassirer, E.F., G. Schirato, F. Sharpe, C.R. Groves, and R.N. Anderson. 1993. ―Cavity Nesting by 

Harlequin Ducks in the Pacific Northwest.‖ Wilson Bulletin 105:691 - 694 in NPS 2005. 

Chelan County. 2007. Memo to Stehekin area interested parties from Mike Kaputa, Chelan County 

Natural Resource Director, regarding Stehekin area flood measures proposed under Chelan County 

Resolution 2007-42, March 27, 2007. Chelan County, Washington. 

Chelan PUD (Chelan Public Utility District). 2000. Paleoflood investigations to assess maximum flooding in 

the Chelan River basin, Washington. Unpublished report. 36 pp. 

Chelan PUD. 2001a. Stehekin River Sedimentation Summary. Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project, 

Wenatchee, Washington. 12 pp. with data appendices. 

Chelan PUD. 2001b. Evaluation of the backwater hydraulic profile of the lower Stehekin River. Lake Chelan 

Hydroelectric Project, Wenatchee, Washington. 12 pp with data appendices. 

Chelan PUD. 2002. Preliminary DEA, Lack Chelan Hydroelectric Project No. 637, Public Utility District 

No. 1 of Chelan County, Wenatchee, Washington. March 28, 2002. 

Christophersen, R. 2009. Personal communication. E-mail from Roger Christopherson, Wildlife 

Biologist, North Cascades National Park, to Rose Rumball-Petre. Comments on draft EIS wildlife section 

January 12, 2009. 
Chapter VI: References 

416 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Christopherson, R., and B. Kuntz. 2004. Field Surveys for Forest Carnivores in the North Cascades 

National Park and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

Christopherson, R., and R.C. Kuntz, III. 2003. A Survey of Bat Species Composition, Distribution and 

Relative Abundance North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington. Technical Report 

NPS/NOCA/NRTR-2003/01. 

Christy, R.E., and S.D. West. 1993. ―Biology of Bats in Douglas-fir Forests.‖ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR308. (M.H. Huff, R.M. Holthausen, K.B. Aubry (tech. coords.), Biology and Management of Old-Growth 

Forests, in NPS 2005. Portland, Oregon: USFS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 pp. 

City-data.com. 2007. 

Citydata.com. 2009. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pub. # FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. 

DES (Duke Engineering and Services). 2000. Draft Study Report: Riparian Zone Investigation, Lake 

Chelan Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 637. Prepared for Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan 

County, Wenatchee, Washington. 60 pp. 

Dixon, R.D., and V.A. Saab. 2000. ―Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus).‖ In The Birds of 

North America, No. 509 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. in NPS 2005. 

Droppers, D. 2009. Personal communication. E-mail from David Droppers to Robert Kuntz, Wildlife 

Biologist, North Cascades National Park, April 18, 2009. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Air Quality Rulemaking. 

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1981. Flood Insurance Study, Chelan County, 

Washington, Unincorporated Areas: Federal Insurance Administration. 63 pp., 89 pls. 

FEMA. 1981. [Floodplain maps.] 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2002. Final Preliminary Draft Environmental 

Assessment for Hydropower License. Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 637. FERC 

Washington Office of Energy Projects, Division of Environmental and Engineering Review. Washington, 

D.C. 

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. ―Life History, Ecology, and Population Status of Migratory Bull 

Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River System, Montana.‖ Northwest Science

63(4):133 - 42 in NPS 1995a. 

Gempko, V. 2009. Personal communication. E-mail from Vicki Gempko to Rose Rumball-Petre 

regarding restoration actions in Stehekin. North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Stehekin, 

Washington. January 26, 2009. 
References 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 417 

Grabert, G.F., and D.J. Pint. 1978. An Archaeological Reconnaissance and Cultural Resource Inventory 

of the North Cascades National Recreation Area. Reports in Archaeology No. 5. Department of 

Anthropology, Western Washington University. 

Gregory, S.V., F.H. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. ―An Ecosystem Perspective of 

Riparian Zones.‖ Bioscience 41(8):540 - 551 in NPS 1995a. 

Happe, P.J., R. Christopherson, J. Schaberl, and R. Kuntz. 2006. ―Forest Carnivore Surveys in 

Washington’s Wilderness Parks.‖ Abstract for Science in the National Parks conference June 23 - 24, 

2006. National Park Service, Padilla Bay Interpretive Center, Mount Vernon, Washington. 

Hickman, T., and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.5 in NPS 1995a. 

Jarret, R.D. 1999. Paleoflood investigations to assess maximum flooding in the Chelan River Basin, 

Washington. Unpublished report to the Chelan Public Utility District. 36 pp. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America: Biology and Natural History. 

Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 

Johnson, R.E., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. ―Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State: Location Data and 

Predicted Distribution.‖ Vol. 3. In K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich (eds.), 

Washington State Gap Analysis Final Report. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Kennedy, J. 2008. Personal communication. E-mail and attached summary of Stehekin cultural resources 

to Rose Rumball-Petre. Report on File, North Cascades National Park, Marblemount, Washington. June 

17, 2008. 

Kopper, K. 2009. Personal communication. E-mail from Karen Kopper to Rose Rumball-Petre and Vicki 

Gempko regarding fire-management actions in Stehekin. North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 

Sedro-Woolley, Washington. January 26, 2009. 

Kuntz, R.C. 2009. Personal communication. E-mail from Robert Kuntz, Wildlife Biologist, North 

Cascades National Park, to Rose Rumball-Petre. Comments on draft EIS wildlife section. February 12, 

2009. 

Kuntz, R.C. II, and R.S. Glesne. 1993. A Terrestrial Vertebrate Inventory of the Stehekin Valley, Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area. National Park Service. Seattle, Washington. 

Kusler, J.A. 1983. Our National Wetlands Heritage: A Protection Guidebook. Washington, D.C. The 

Environmental Law Institute in NPS 1995a. 

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. ―Broad-scale Assessment of 

Aquatic Species and Habitats.‖ In T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide (eds.), An Assessment of Ecosystem 

Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. USFS, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-405.

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of 

Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 
Chapter VI: References 

418 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Louter, D. 1998. Contested Terrain: North Cascades National Park Service Complex—An Administrative 

History. National Park Service, Seattle, Washington. 

MacCallum, B. 2001. Status of the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) in Alberta. Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division and Alberta 

Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 36, Edmonton, Alberta. 38 pp. 

Mason, D.T., and J. Koon. 1985. Habitat Value of Woody Debris Accumulations of the Lower Stehekin River, 

with Notes on Disturbance of Alluvial Gravels. Final Report to the National Park Service, Western 

Washington University, Bellingham. 

McIntyre, J.E., and B.E. Rieman. 1995. ―Westslope Cutthroat Trout.‖ In M.K. Young (ed.), Conservation 

Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. USFS, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

RM-GTR-256.

McLellan, B.N., and F.W. Hovey. 2001. ―Habitats Selected by Grizzly Bears in a Multiple Use 

Landscape.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1):92 - 99.

Mierendorf, B. 2009. SRCIP McGregor Reroutes Cultural Assessment: Summary Assessment of Proposed 

Stehekin Valley Road Reroutes. National Park Service, North Cascades NPS Complex, Sedro-Woolley, 

Washington. 

Mierendorf, R.R. 1986. People of the North Cascades. North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 

Cultural Resources Division, Pacific Northwest Region, National Park Service, Seattle. 

Nagorsen, D.W., and R.M. Brigham. 1993. The Bats of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia 

Museum, University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. ―The Role of Riparian Corridors in Maintaining Regional 

Biodiversity.‖ Ecological Applications 3(2):209 - 212 in NPS 1995a. 

Nelson, N.M. 1974. Sediment Transport by Streams in the Upper Columbia River Basin, Washington. U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigation Report. pp. 39 - 73. 

Nelson, N.M. 1986. Effect of Bank-Protection Measures, Stehekin River, Chelan County, Washington. USGS 

Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4316, Tacoma, Washington. 22 pp. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service). 

2004. Draft Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for the Lake Chelan 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 637). NOAA Fisheries Consultation No. 2002/01303. 

NPS (National Park Service). 1993a. Personal communication. Memo to Regional Director, Pacific 

Northwest Region, NPS and Superintendent, North Cascades NPS Complex, NPS from Office of the 

Regional Solicitor (William D. Back), regarding United States v. Chelan County, CS-92-0331-AMM 

(E.D. Wash.). 

NPS. 1993b. Stehekin River Floodplain Mapping Project. Technical Report PS/PNRNOCA/NRTR-93/011 

by Riedel. 24 pp and data appendices. 

NPS. 1993c. Data Summary Booklet, Support Studies for the General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 
References 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 419 

NPS. 1995a. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Final General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume I. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NPS. 1995b. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan. National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NPS. 1995c. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Final General Management Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement Executive Summary. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NPS. 1995d. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Stehekin Landing and Valley Development Concept 

Plan. In Lake Chelan National Recreation Area General Management Plan Final EIS. National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NPS. 1995e. Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan. In Lake Chelan National Recreation Area General 

Management Plan Final EIS. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NPS. 1995f. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Transportation Plan. In Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area General Management Plan Final EIS. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

Denver, Colorado. 

NPS. 1995g. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Forest Fuel Reduction Plan / Firewood Management 

Plan. National Park Service, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 1997. Environmental Assessment for Erosion Control on Company Creek Road, Stehekin Valley, 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro-Woolley, 

Washington. Finding of No Significant Impact signed February 26, 1997. 

NPS. 1998a. Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management. June 11, 1998. 

NPS. 1998b. Buckner Orchard Homestead Historic District Final Management Plan. 

NPS. 1999. Director’s Order 17: Tourism. September 28, 1999. 

NPS. 2000. Director’s Order 47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management. December 1, 2000. 

NPS. 2001a. Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking. National Park Service, Washington D.C. 

NPS. 2001b. Director’s Order 25: Land Protection. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. January 19, 

2001. 

NPS. 2002a. Director’s Order 77-1: Wetland Protection. October 30, 2002. 

NPS. 2002b. The Stehekin River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report. Prepared by L. Finlayson for 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. May 2002. 

NPS. 2003a. Finding of No Significant Impact: Acquisition of Interest in Private Land in the Stehekin 

Valley. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, SedroWoolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2003b. Director’s Order 77-2: Floodplain Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, Washington D.C. 
Chapter VI: References 

420 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

NPS 2004a. Finding of No Significant Impact: Protection of the Stehekin Valley Road in the Vicinity of 

McGregor Meadows, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. 26 pp. 

NPS. 2004b. Stehekin River Inventory Report. NPS Technical Report by Riedel and Glesne. 20 pp. 

NPS. 2005a. Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project. National Park Service, North Cascades National 

Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2005 (2005b). Finding of No Significant Impact: Restore Stehekin Valley Road Vehicle Access at 

Coon Run Mile 9.1–10.2. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, North Cascades National Park 

Complex, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2005c. Finding of No Significant Impact / Statement of Findings for Floodplains and Wetlands: 

Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project MP 4.0–9.15. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, North 

Cascades National Park Complex, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2005d. Museum Management Plan, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, North Cascades 

National Park Complex, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2005e. Forest Fuel Reduction/Firewood Management Plan. United States Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Washington. 

NPS. 2006a. Management Policies 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

NPS. 2006b. North Cascades National Park Service Complex Foundation Statement. National Park 

Service, Pacific West Regional Office, Seattle, Washington. 

NPS. 2006c. Upper Stehekin Valley Road Environmental Assessment. National Park Service, North 

Cascades National Park Complex, Marblemount, Washington. 

NPS. 2007. Minimize Erosion on the Upper Company Creek Road Environmental Assessment. National 

Park Service, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2008a. North Cascades National Park Service Complex Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2: Appendixes and Comments and Responses. North Cascades 

National Park Service Complex, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2008b. North Cascades National Park Service Complex Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1. North Cascades National Park Service Complex, SedroWoolley, Washington. 

NPS. 2009. North Cascades National Park Nature and Science web page. Accessed January 12, 2009, at 

www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience.natural-resource-issues.htm 

NPS. nd. Director’s Order 87A: Park Roads and Parkways. [In development.] 

NPS, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the ACHP. 2008. Programmatic 

Agreement among the National Park Service, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
References 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 421 

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific 

Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho. 332 pp. 

Ozbun, T.L., J.G. Smith, J.S. Chapman, and J.L. Fagan. 2005. Cultural Resource Survey of the National 

Park Service Area and Archaeological Evaluation of Resources for the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric 

Relicensing Project, FERC No. 637. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. Report No. 1219, 

prepared for Chelan County PUD No. 1, Wenatchee, Washington. Volumes I and II. 

Patmont, R.C., G.J. Pelletier, E.B. Welch, D. Banton, and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1989. Lake Chelan Water 

Quality Assessment. Final Report, Contract No. C0087072. State of Washington Department of Ecology. 

Post, A., Richardson, D., Tangborn, W. and Rosselot, F. 1971. Inventory of Glaciers in the North 

Cascades Washington, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 705-A.

Raley, C. 2009. Personal communication from Parametrix with Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, Washington. April 23, 2009. 

Ramcharita, R.K. 2000. Grizzly bear use of avalanche chutes in the Columbia Mountains, British 

Columbia. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 42 pp.

Rice, H.S. nd. An Archaeological Survey of the Stehekin Valley Road in the Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area and North Cascades National Park. Report submitted to the Washington State Highway 

Commission. Ms. on file, Washington Archaeological Research Center, Washington State University, 

Pullman. 

Riedel, J.L. 2004. Draft Statement of Findings—Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project 

Environmental Assessment. April 27, 2004. 

Riedel, J.L. 2007. Late Pleistocene glacial and environmental history of Skagit valley, Washington and 

British Columbia. Dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Canada. 

Riedel, J.L. 2008. Personal communication. E-mail dated June 11, 2008, from Steve S. Sumioka, 

Washington Water Science Center, USGS (Tacoma, Washington) to Jon Riedel, Geologist, North 

Cascades National Park Service Complex. 

Riedel, J.L. 2009. Current Knowledge Base Whitepaper. National Park Service, Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull 

Trout. General Technical Report. USFS Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. 

Rohrer, J., K. Aubry, and C. Raley. 2008. Distribution and Ecology of Wolverines in the North Cascades: 

Year 2 of a 5-year Study. FY 2008 Status Report for the Interagency Special-Status/Sensitive Species 

Program (October 22, 2008). 30 pp. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for 

Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United 

States. USFS. GTR-RM-254.

Schumm, S.A. 1977. The Fluvial System. Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 
Chapter VI: References 

422 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle Audubon Society’s Bird Web. www.birdweb.org

Sedell, J.R., F.J. Swanson, and S.V. Gregory. 1984. ―Evaluating Fish Response to Woody Debris.‖ In 

Pacific Northwest Stream Habitat Workshop, October 10 - 12, 1984. Humboldt State University, Arcata, 

California in NPS 1995a. 

Shepard, B.B., K.L. Pratt, and P.J. Graham. 1984. Life Histories of Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Bull 

Trout in the Upper Flathead River Basin, Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 

Helena, Montana. 

Siegel, R.B., R.L. Wilkerson, R.C. Kuntz II, and J. McLaughlin. In press. Landbird Inventory for North 

Cascades National Park Service Complex, Final Report. Technical Report NPS/NOCA/NRTR- 2004-

XX, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

Southerland, W.B. 2003. Stream geomorphology and classification in glacial-fluvial valleys of the North 

Cascade Mountain Range in Washington State. PhD dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman, 

Washington. 141 pp. 

Strickland, R. (ed.). 1986. Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The 

State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of a conference held April 30 - May 2, 1986, Fort Worden State 

Park, Port Townsend, Washington in NPS 1995a. 

Tanimoto, P.D. 1991. Applications of geographical information systems to the management of Lake Chelan 

National Recreation Area. Master’s thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow in NPS 1995a. 

USDC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2005. BEA Regional Facts for Chelan County, Washington, 

1995 - 2005. USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis. Accessed on September 25, 2007, at: 

https://bea.gov/regional/bearfacts

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Denver, 

Colorado. 

USFWS. 1992. Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Prepared by Marvin Plenert, Team 

Leader in NPS 1995a. 

USFWS. 1995. Biological Opinion. August 23, 1995. 

USFWS. 1997. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for North Cascades Ecosystem. 

USFWS 2001 in Christophersen and Kuntz 2003 

USFWS. 2004. Grizzly bear recovery: North Cascades. In NPS 2005 accessed on March 30, 2004, at: 

http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly/cascades.htm 

USFWS. 2005. Biological Opinion for the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project, North Cascades 

National Park Service Complex. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2002 in Christophersen and Kuntz 2003 

Watson, J., and M. Whalen. 2003. ―Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).‖ In E.M. Larsen, N. Nordstrom, 

and J. Azerrad (eds.), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitat and Species 

Management Recommendations, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 
References 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 423 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2004. Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliRECtM.pl?wasteh. 

Wikipedia.com. 2008. 

Witmer, G.W., S.K. Martin, and R.D. Sayler. 1998. Forest Carnivore Conservation and Management in 

the Interior Columbia Basin: Issues and Environmental Correlates. T. Quigley (ed.). USFS Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-420. July 1998. 

Zipp, R. 2008. Laws, Regulations, and Policies Whitepaper. National Park Service, Lake Chelan National 

Recreation Area, Sedro-Woolley, Washington. 

CHAPTER VI:

Glossary and Acronyms

Devils Island

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 427 

CHAPTER VII: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 

A. GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS 

Adfluvial: A fish that lives in lakes and migrates into rivers or streams to spawn. 

Affected Environment: Existing natural, cultural, social, and recreational conditions of an area, 

potentially subject to change indirectly or directly as a result of human action. 

Alternatives: Sets of management elements that represent a range of options for how, or whether to 

proceed with a proposed action. An environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 

analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the range of alternatives, as required under National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Alluvial Fan: An outspread, gently sloping mass of alluvium deposited by a stream. Viewed from above, 

it has the shape of a fan, the apex being at the valley mouth. 

Area of Potential Effect: The geographic area or areas where an undertaking has the potential to affect 

historic properties. The APE consider physical, visual, auditory, and atmospheric effects as well as 

potential changes in land or building use, change in the setting, and potential for neglect. 

Archeological Resources: Historic and prehistoric deposits, sites, structures, and other remains from a 

human culture from an archeological site. 

Asphalt Pulverizing: Pulverizing is the process of breaking apart existing road asphalt into an aggregate 

(gravel-like) mixture, sometimes blending the recycled aggregate with new aggregate and reusing it as 

subgrade for newly laid asphalt. Pulverizing is a cost effective and environmentally appropriate way to 

reconstruct existing pavement. The process eliminates the expensive and environmentally damaging 

excavation and trucking of the existing asphalt and it creates a stronger base course. 

Avulsion: A major change in the location of a river channel. 

Bankfull: When a river is at maximum carrying capacity and its waters come up to the height of the bank. 

Bankfull Stage: The elevation of the water surface of a stream flowing at channel capacity. 

Batholith: A large mass of igneous rock that formed when magma was emplaced at depth and was 

subsequently exposed by erosion. 

Berm: A shaped mound of earth. It is intended to direct traffic or flow away from an area. 

Best Management Practices: Effective, feasible (including technological, economic and institutional 

considerations) conservation practices and land and water management measures that avoid or minimize 

impacts to natural and cultural resources. Best management practices may be physical, organizational, 

prohibitions, or management practices. 

Bioengineering: Bioengineering is the use of plants to stabilize riverbanks and slopes. In Stehekin, 

National Park Service (NPS) favors use of a layering technique with long whips of willow, dogwood, and 

coconut fabric, which decomposes over time. First, as plants grow and roots develop, the structure gets 

stronger with time. Second, native shrubs grow quickly, and do not add weight to the bank. 
428 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Bioengineering provides several benefits. First, the plants provide shade and woody debris, an important 

component of aquatic habitat. They also provide habitat for birds, small mammals, and amphibians (NPS 

2005: 25). 

Borrow Pit: An excavated area where material has been dug for use at another location (e.g., sand, rock, 

and gravel). 

Candidate Species: Those species being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as 

threatened or endangered as published in the Federal Register. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations: The CEQ was established by the NEPA and 

given the responsibility of developing federal environmental policy and overseeing the implementation of 

NEPA by federal agencies. 

Channel Migration Zone (CMZ): The historic area within which the Stehekin River has migrated over 

time (does not include tributary migration area). 

Chipseal: A road-surfacing treatment composed of asphalt emulsion covered with crushed aggregate 

(gravel chips). 

Cirque: A deep, steep-walled basin on a mountain, usually forming a blunt end of a valley. 

Compatibility Criteria: The basis for determining which land uses are consistent with the recreation, 

scenic, scientific, natural, and historic values of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. 

Crushed Aggregate: Gravel. 

Cultural Landscape: Cultural landscapes are defined as areas that reflect human adaptation and use of 

natural resources during one period or over time, as expressed in the way that land is organized and 

divided into patterns of settlement, land use, circulation systems, and structures. Cultural landscapes may 

be comprised of a series of historic districts or may be the landscape associated with one district. 

Culvert: Plastic, PVC, or corrugated metal pipe used to convey water under a road. 

Cumulative Effect or Impact: ―The impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time.‖ (40 CFR 1508.6) 

Cut Slope: The upslope, the hill sloping up from the roadbed. 

Debris Cone: A mass of loose, unstable material constructed in part by mass movement (debris flows, 

debris torrents). Debris cones are typically associated with small, steep streams and have slopes greater 

than ten degrees. 

Debris Fence (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Advanced Flood Protection Measure): A debris 

fence may be constructed from a chain-link fence, continuous row of gabion baskets, logs chained or 

cabled to standing trees, or spaced gabion baskets. Debris fences prevent debris flow toward a structure. 

Decibel: A unit of measure for sound intensity. 
A. Glossary Definitions

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 429 

Deposition / Storage Zone: Areas of channel stability where the gradient of the river is relatively low 

and massive amounts of gravel and large wood are stored by the river. These are located near McGregor 

Meadows, Frog Island, and where the river meets Lake Chelan. 

Direct Effect or Impact: Effects that are ―...caused by the action and occur at the same time and place‖

(40 CFR 1508.8[a]). 

Ecosystem: A geographically identifiable area that encompasses unique physical and biological 

characteristics. It includes the plant community, animal community and environment in a particular 

region or habitat. 

Effect (or Impact): ―Effects are synonymous with impacts‖ (40 CFR 1508.8[b]). 

Endangered Species: A species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a part of its range due to current or planned activity. 

Engineered Logjam: As used by the NPS along the Stehekin River, an engineered logjam consists of 

several dozen large logs cabled together and anchored to the bank of the river. Some of the logs may be 

buried within the bank. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A public document, required under NEPA that identifies and analyzes 

actions that might affect the human environment, including natural, cultural and social resources. An 

Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. An EA facilitates compliance with NEPA when no 

EIS is necessary and facilitates preparation of an EIS if one is necessary. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A public document, required under NEPA that identifies 

alternatives and analyzes their effects on the human environment. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative: The alternative in an EA or EIS that best promotes the goals 

of NEPA and meets the identified CEQ criteria. In general, this is the alternative that causes the least 

damage to the environment and best protects natural, cultural, and social resources. 

Exotic: See nonnative. 

Facilities: Buildings and the associated supported infrastructure, including roads, trails, and utilities. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): The decision document for an environmental assessment. 

Fill slope: Downslope; the hill sloping down from the roadbed where fill from the construction of the 

road was cast. 

Floodplain: The area surrounding a stream subject to flooding on some interval (10, 20, 50, 100, 500 

years). 

Flow Deflector (ACOE Advanced Flood Protection Measure): A barrier intended to divert, but not stop, 

flow toward a structure. Flow deflectors are located at an angle, a minimum of 20 feet from a structure. 

Gabion Basket (ACOE Advanced Flood Protection Measure): A gabion basket is made of steel mesh and 

contains various sizes of rocks that lock together well. Typical baskets are 3 feet wide by 3 feet tall by 6 

feet long and may be wired together to achieve any desired length. 
430 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Glide: An expanse of shallow bottom extending across a streambed, over which the water flows 

smoothly.

Grade Control (ACOE Advanced Flood Protection Measure): Grade-control structures slow the 

progression of head cutting in areas where there is water flowing down a slope. Grade-control structures 

are trenches dug approximately 6 feet deep and filled with rip-rap. 

Gradient: Degree of inclination of the part of the earth’s surface; steepness of slope. May be expressed as 

a fraction, ratio, percentage, or angle. 

Guardwall: A wall intended to keep cars on the road in case of loss of control. 

Headwall: A vertical support structure at a culvert inlet or outlet. 

Historic or Cultural Resources: Under NEPA/CEQ, these are culturally valued pieces of real property 

that are not historic properties and nontangible values such as cultural use of the biophysical and built 

environment, and sociocultural attributes such as social cohesion, social institutions, lifeways, religious 

practice, and other institutions. 

Historic Property: Under the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA/CEQ, a historic property is a 

district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places, and/or which includes resources of cultural and religious significance for American 

Indians (traditional cultural properties; see National Register Bulletin 38). 

Human Environment: The natural and physical (e.g., built) environment and the relationships of people 

to that environment, i.e., social and cultural aspects and the relationships between natural and cultural. 

Culturally valued aspects of the environment generally include National Register historic properties, and 

other culturally valued pieces of real property, cultural use of the biophysical environment, and intangible 

sociocultural attributes as social cohesion, social institutions, lifeways, religious practices, and other 

cultural institutions. 

Igneous: A type of rock formed as a result of volcanic processes. 

Impact (or Effect): ―Effects are synonymous with impacts‖ (40 CFR 1508.8[b]). 

Impairment: Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, 

would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including opportunities that would otherwise be 

present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. 

Indirect Effect or Impact: Effects that are caused by the action that occur later in time or at a distance 

from the action. 

Inlet: The place where water enters a culvert or other drainage feature. 

Invasive Species: A nonnative species of plant or wildlife that not only exists away from its natural 

habitat but also employs habits that allow it to take over the habitat, displacing native species. Often (in 

the case of plants) becomes a monoculture. 

Lacustrine: Pertaining to wetlands and deepwater habitats produced by or formed in a lake. 
A. Glossary Definitions 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 431 

Land Protection Techniques: Land use protection techniques detailed in the Land Protection Plan 

include agreements (cooperative and overlay district), zoning and public review, and regulations. 

Land Acquisition Methods: 

Donation: Landowners may donate property or interests in land to achieve conservation 

objectives. Tax benefits are also available for donations. 

Exchange: The NPS will consider some federal lands within the authorized boundary as potential 

for exchange to strengthen historic development patterns, consolidate new developments into the 

most suitable areas, and protect other significant areas. 

Purchase: Acquisition by purchase requires appropriated funds from Congress or donated from 

private sources. 

Purchase and Sellback: Land is purchased in fee, appropriate restrictions are attached to the deed, 

and the deed-restricted land is then sold or leased to another owner. 

Lateral Moraine: A low ridge-like moraine carried on, or deposited at, the side of a mountain glacier. It 

is composed chiefly of rock fragments loosened from the valley walls by glacial abrasion and plucking, or 

fallen on the ice from the bordering slopes. 

Left Bank: The left side of a river when facing downstream. 

Main Channel: The channel currently occupied by the main body of a river. 

Metamorphic: A type of rock formed under tremendous heat and pressure. 

Mitigation: Activities that avoid, reduce the severity of, or eliminate an adverse environmental impact. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The federal act requiring the development of an 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for federal actions having an effect on the 

human environment. 

National Register of Historic Places: The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of 

American cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and 

private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed 

on or ―determined eligible‖ for listing on the National Register must be given consideration for 

preservation in the planning for federal or federally assisted projects. 

Native: Indigenous; pertains to plant and animal species that occur naturally in a particular area. Not 

introduced by humans or as a result of human activity. 

No Action Alternative: The alternative that is proposed to continue current management actions and 

direction. ―No Action‖ means the proposed activity would not take place. The No Action Alternative sets 

the standards for comparing the action alternatives. 

Nonnative: Exotic; pertains to plant or animal species that do not occur naturally in a particular area and 

were introduced by humans or human activity. These species may interfere with natural biological 

systems or ecosystems. Some nonnative species are also invasive. See invasive species. 
432 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Organic Act (NPS): 1916: The NPS Organic Act established the NPS to ―promote and regulate the use of 

the parks‖ and defined their purpose as ―to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and 

the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as 

will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.‖

Outlet: The location where water exits a culvert or other drainage feature. 

Palustrine: Pertaining to freshwater wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and 

emergent mosses and lichens. Also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with the following 

three characteristics: area less than 20 acres; active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; 

and maximum water depth less than 2 meters at low water. 

Planning: An interdisciplinary process for developing short- and long-term goals and alternatives for 

visitor experience, resource conditions, projects, facility type and placement, and other proposed actions. 

Pool: Deep sections of a river channel, usually between riffles, with gradients usually under 1 percent; 

critical habitat for river life during storm events. 

Preferred Alternative: The alternative in an EA or EIS that the agency believes would best fulfill the 

purpose and need for action. 

Public Comment Process: A formalized process required by NEPA in which the action agency publishes 

a notice in the Federal Register that provides notice that the agency is preparing an EIS. Public meetings 

are a required part of the EIS process. For EAs, the public comments process is less formal, with 

notification of the public by press release and optional public meetings. 

Pullout (Turnout): A widened section of roadway that allows vehicles to pull off the road for 

viewpoints, access to terrain or emergencies. Pullouts may be formal (paved or graveled) or userdesignated (created by visitor use over time). 

Reach: The length of a stream channel that is uniform with respect to discharge, depth, area, and slope; 

also the length of a stream between two defined stations. 

Redd: The depression a female fish creates when laying eggs that males then fill in with gravel. 

Retaining Wall: A wall intended to hold the fill slope at a steep angle. 

Riffle: An expanse of shallow bottom extending across a streambed, where water flows over submerged 

obstructions; a shallow rapids of comparatively little fall. Gradients are usually between 1 and 3.5 

percent.

Right Bank: The right side of a river when facing downstream. 

Ring Dike (ACOE Advanced Flood Protection Measure): An arc or circular structure made of sandbags 

constructed approximately 8 feet away from the structure to be protected. Ring dikes protect against a 1-

foot rise in standing water and may be used in combination with pumping water out of the ring. Ring 

dikes are not suitable for use with moving water. 

Riparian Area or Zone: The land area and associated vegetation bordering a stream or river. 
A. Glossary Definitions 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 433 

Rip-rap: A layer of durable broken rocks or formed concrete selected and graded (in the same size), put 

together irregularly or fitted to prevent water erosion; often placed at the end of a constructed water flow 

zone, such as a culvert. 

Riverine: Freshwater wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a stream channel. 

Road Prism: The area affected by original construction, from cut slope to fill slope. 

Rock Barb: A structure that protrudes into the river at an angle upstream of perpendicular to the bank. 

Rock barbs are individually placed to redirect and dissipate the force of the river to create eddies, thereby 

eliminating bank erosion. Rock barbs are designed to move the main channel to the ends of the barbs 

away from the banks. 

Setback: A line some distance from a specific site or area where areas beyond the line would be suitable 

for development or another activity. 

Scoping: Public involvement is a key component of the NEPA process. In this part of the process, the 

general public, federal, state, local agencies and organizations are provided an opportunity to identify 

concerns and issues regarding the potential effects of proposed federal actions. The opportunity to provide 

input is called ―scoping.‖. 

Scour Protection (ACOE Advanced Flood Protection Measure): Scour protection structures consist of a 

long, narrow mound of rock and soil called a berm. Berms are used where water rises and flows across 

the property toward structures and where there is not a great deal of debris expected.

Section 7 Consultation: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies, when 

proposing a federal action to obtain a species list for the project area from, and to consult with the 

USFWS regarding potential impacts to listed species from the proposed action. 

Side Channel: Channels peripheral to the main channel that may or may not have flowing water in them 

at all times. Can also be old, abandoned main channels. 

Sinuosity: A quantifiable value to measure the degree to which a river channel meanders. 

Storage Zone: See Deposition Zone. 

Substrate: The substance or nutrient on or in which an organism lives and grows, or the surface to which 

a fixed organism is attached. 

Threatened or Endangered Species: Plants or animals that receive special protection under federal or 

state laws, including the Endangered Species Act. Species may be listed threatened or endangered in the 

state, but not by the federal government (USFWS), or vice versa. Some USFWS regional offices also 

maintain a list of those species of special concern, either nationally or locally, which may be being or may 

have been previously considered for listing as threatened or endangered. 

Threatened Species: Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a part of its range, as listed by the USFWS in the Federal Register. 

Traditional Cultural Resource: Any site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional, legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a 

group traditionally associated with it. 
434 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Traditional Cultural Property: Traditional cultural resources eligible for or listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. They are resources to which American Indian tribes attach cultural or 

religious significance and may include structures, objects, districts, geological and geographical features, 

and archeology. 

Transport Zone: Reaches of the lower Stehekin River that have relatively straight, stable channels that 

move large wood and gravel between deposition reaches. They are generally located where the river flows 

against gravel deposited by the tributaries of Company, Boulder, and Rainbow Creeks. 

Turbidity: A measure of the optical clarity of a liquid (water). Optical clarity in water is affected by the 

scattering and absorption of light by suspended material, such as clay, silt, sand, and organic and 

inorganic particulates and plankton. 

Turnout: See Pullout. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The federal agency responsible for implementing the 

provisions of the Endangered Species Act, including listing species, developing recovery plans, etc. 

Viewshed: The visible areas seen from identified viewpoints. 

Visitor Experience: The perceptions, feelings, reactions, and activities of a park visitor in relationship to 

the surrounding environment. 

Visitor Use: The types of recreation activities engaged in by visitors, including the type of activity, visitor 

behavior, timing, and distribution of use. 

Wetland: As defined by the ACOE – an area inundated or saturated with surface or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 
B. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 435 

B. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

AFMZ Alluvial Fan Migration Zone 

amsl above mean sea level 

APE area of potential effects 

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCRs Conditions, Covenants, and Deed Restrictions 

CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

Chelan PUD Chelan County Public Utility District 

CMZ Channel Migration Zone 

Complex North Cascades National Park Service Complex (North Cascades National Park, 

Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area) 

CTA Common to All 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dbh Diameter-at-Breast-Height (a standard measure of tree size) 

DCA Designated Conservation Area 

DEIS draft environmental impact statement 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ft2square feet 

ft3cubic feet

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FEMA Federal Disaster Assistance Administration 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

GMP General Management Plan 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

km2square kilometers 

Lake Chelan NRA Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LPP Land Protection Plan 
436 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

nd no date 

N/A Not applicable 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

NOCA North Cascades National Park 

NPS National Park Service 

NR National Register (of Historic Places) Number 

NRA National Recreation Area 

PEPC NPS Planning Environment and Public Comment website 

PL Public Law 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office or Officer 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USFS USDA Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WSRA Wild and Scenic River Act 

yd3cubic yard 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 437 

Photo 33 – The Stehekin River near High Bridge
O
Appendices

Devils Island

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 441 

APPENDIX 1: LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

ENABLING LEGISLATION (PUBLIC LAW 90-544) 

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 time 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 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 
Appendices 

442 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

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 single-family 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. 

(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. 
Appendix 1 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 443 

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 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 Committees 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 clerical 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 administered 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. 
Appendices 

444 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

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. 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 445 

APPENDIX 2: MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS IN THE 

LAKE CHELAN NRA GMP APPLICABLE TO THE SRCIP 

The following information is taken from the proposed action section in the Final Lake Chelan NRA GMP. 

Among the applicable overall Management Objectives identified in the GMP (NPS 1995a: 19-49) under 

Natural Resources are those which pertain to the Stehekin River; wetland, floodplain, shoreline and 

riparian areas; geohazards and scenic resources. Other Management Objectives pertain to Cultural 

Resource Management, Visitor Experience, Interpretation and Information, Land Use and Development

(transportation and land protection plan elements), and Park Operations. Because this plan focuses on the 

Stehekin River, that section is included in its entirety. Otherwise, only applicable management objectives 

and actions are cited below. 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Fish Management Objective: Preserve existing native fish populations and strive to restore viable native 

fish populations to levels where all endemic species are represented in Lake Chelan NRA; preserve or 

restore the opportunity for anglers to fish for native fish species and to enjoy and learn about the natural 

aquatic environment (NPS 1995a: 20). 

Stehekin River Management Objective: Preserve and restore the free-flowing character and natural 

processes of the Stehekin River and its tributaries with consideration for protecting the public road 

system. 

Management Actions: The National Park Service would not manipulate the Stehekin River to protect 

federal property except roads and bridges according to the following criteria. Existing public roads would 

be protected in erosion / river conflict zones only if (1) there are no feasible alternatives, (2) funds are 

available, (3) proposed actions would have lesser impacts than other alternatives, and (4) the proposed 

actions are permitted by the county, state, and other federal agencies. No new road construction would be 

proposed in active river / erosion conflict zones. 

Previously manipulated sites that do not meet the above criteria for future manipulation would be restored 

to approximate natural conditions. 

The Park Service would not manipulate the river to protect private property. No action would be taken to 

prevent private owners from manipulating the river on their land to protect their property unless such 

actions would significantly harm recreation area resources or were in violation of local, state, or federal 

ordinances, regulations, or laws. Such actions would not be encouraged, however. 

NPS structures that could be threatened by river processes would be relocated. 

The National Park Service would manipulate woody debris in the Stehekin River or its tributaries only to 

protect public roads and bridges according to the criteria above. Woody debris could also be trimmed or 

turned in the lower 9 miles of the Stehekin River to allow safer recreational use of the river for rafting, 

kayaking, and canoeing if it did not alter the function or stability of woody debris accumulations and was 

permitted by the appropriate regulatory agency. Woody debris would not be removed from the river 

system in any case. The Park Service would not remove or manipulate woody debris on public land or 

water to protect private property, and it would take no action to prevent private landowners from 

removing or manipulating woody debris on their land to protect their property, unless these actions would 

significantly harm recreation area resources or were in violation of local, state or federal ordinances, 

regulations or laws. Such actions would not be encouraged. 
Appendices 

446 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The National Park Service would work with the county to encourage private property owners to protect 

natural river processes. Private alteration of river processes would be opposed through cooperation with 

county, state and federal agencies that have appropriate authorization to take action. The highest priority 

would be placed on acquiring lands, through exchange or purchase that area threatened by or where 

development threatened natural river processes. 

River processes would be inventoried, researched and monitored to evaluate and mitigate impacts of 

recreation and other land uses. 

The suitability of the Stehekin River would be studied for designation as a wild and scenic river. 

WETLAND, FLOODPLAIN, SHORELINE AND RIPARIAN AREAS

Management Objective: Preserve or restore ecological processes and conditions in wetland, floodplain, 

shoreline and riparian areas (NPS 1995a:23). 

Management Actions: Existing NPS development on public wetland, appropriate regulatory floodplain, 

shoreline, and riparian areas (except significant cultural resources) would be relocated to suitable sites 

and the disturbed sites restored to natural conditions... Campgrounds in regulatory floodplains would be 

brought into compliance with floodplain guidelines. 

Property owners would be encouraged to minimize impacts on wetland, floodplain, shoreline or riparian 

areas. The National Park Service would take appropriate measures where actions threatened to cause 

significant impacts on wetland, floodplain, shoreline, or riparian areas. 

SAND, ROCK AND GRAVEL PLAN ELEMENTS

Management Objective: Allow mining of sand, rock, and gravel in Stehekin Valley but restrict mining 

to the Company Creek borrow pit for NPS maintenance and public use and minor reconstruction only; 

allow for importing of material from outside the valley for new construction (NPS 1995a: 23). 

Actions: ...No sand, rock or gravel would be removed from the 100-year floodplain of the Stehekin River 

or its tributaries. 

GEOHAZARDS

Management Objective: Recognize and avoid hazards of natural geological processes, such as snow 

avalanches, debris torrents and rockfalls (NPS 1995a: 23). 

Management Actions: New NPS developments and recreational facilities would be sited to avoid 

geohazards, and existing NPS / concession facilities would be relocated away from geohazards. 

The National Park Service, through cooperative efforts with state and local agencies, would oppose 

private commercial visitor facilities in geohazard areas... 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND RARE SPECIES / NONNATIVE SPECIES

Management Objective: Preserve and restore, where feasible, species and ecological relationships that 

would exist were it not for human impacts including control of nonnative species, and comply with 

federal, state, and local laws and guidelines (NPS 1995a: 27). 
Appendix 2 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 447 

Management Actions: The NPS would monitor and attempt to protect incoming gravel, soil and 

firewood from nonnative plants and would control selected nonnative species that threaten to spread and 

adversely affect national recreation area resources. The NPS would educate and cooperate with private 

landowners and other agencies to encourage use of native species. 

The NPS would work with the USFWS and other agencies to define and properly management important 

habitats in an ecosystem context. The NPS would pursue resource inventory, monitoring and research 

programs to enhance knowledge of biological communities and natural processes to evaluate trends. 

Human-disturbed sites would be actively revegetated, or natural revegetation with native species would 

be allowed to occur on a case-by-case basis. Species recovery plans would be implemented as approved. 

SCENIC RESOURCES

Management Objective: Maintain existing levels of natural scenic quality and views and restore cultural 

scenes (NPS 1995a: 27-28). 

Management Actions: The current character of the road from the Landing to Harlequin Bridge and from 

9-Mile to High Bridge would be maintained. Between them a hardened, single lane road with pullouts 

would be provided from Harlequin Bridge to 9-Mile. 

The natural character of the lake and river edge on public lands (includes areas within 200 feet of the lake 

and river shoreline) would be restored... 

...Design guidelines would identify a crafted, step-back-in-time image... Where feasible, structures 

would be relocated away from environmentally sensitive areas. 

In cooperation with Chelan County PUD and in compliance with state and federal requirements, power 

lines would be buried where feasible. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Management Objective: Emphasize selected opportunities that focus on natural, cultural, and 

recreational values, through both structured and unstructured ways and both solitary and social means. 

Visitors encounter facilities and services in a rural community context where needs are balanced with 

preservation of a nearly pristine natural environment. 

Circulation Management Actions: ...The Stehekin Valley Road would be paved from the Landing to 9-

Mile, gravel between 9-Mile and High Bridge... (NPS 1995a: 30). 

Overnight Uses Management Actions: ...The National Park Service would provide camping areas (NPS 

1995a: 30). 

River Management Actions: The Stehekin River would be managed as a dynamic natural 

system...Opportunities for visitors to appreciate the power and intricacy of the river as a natural system 

would be enhanced (NPS 1995a: 30). 
Appendices 

448 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT

Transportation Plan Elements Management Objective: Provide transportation and access to, from and 

within the national recreation area to accomplish a quality visitor experience, fulfill resource management 

objectives, and meet local Stehekin Community needs (NPS 1995a: 32). 

Transportation Plan Elements Actions: The airstrip would be retained and operated under a special use 

permit with the Washington State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, for 

noncommercial public use on a “use at your own risk” basis (NPS 1995a: 33). 

...Abandoned vehicles would be removed from public lands. 

Roads and trails – the road system would not be expanded. Unnecessary roads would be eliminated and 

the areas restored to natural conditions. 

Company Creek Road would be maintained in its current alignment and condition. According to the Lake 

Chelan GMP, rerouting the Company Creek Road was inappropriate because it would destroy one acre of 

riparian habitat and would require building numerous bridges over existing flood channels. As a result, 

the Record of Decision for the Lake Chelan GMP states: “Company Creek road will be maintained in its 

current alignment, and will be protected from river erosion at two locations.” As noted in the Company 

Creek EA (NPS 1997: 8) this references the flood prone areas at road mile 2.1 and 2.2. 

An 11-mile pedestrian and horseback trail would be developed from the Landing to High Bridge...A 

pedestrian and horseback riding trail system that connects key lower valley features to the Stehekin 

Valley Road would also be developed. 

Land Protection Plan Elements Management Objective: Make sure that land uses on public and 

private lands are compatible with the purposes of the Lake Chelan NRA, emphasizing those uses that 

protect natural and cultural resources and natural processes, and provide for safe visitor facilities and 

services (NPS 1995a: 40). 

In addition to this overall objective, there are six management objectives and thirteen guidelines related to 

land protection within Lake Chelan NRA as well as five high value resources. Three subsequent sections 

identify the need to cooperate with Local Zoning/Land Use Regulations (Chelan County); to establish a 

Stehekin Valley Overlay District; and to establish NPS Land Use Compatibility Criteria (NPS 

1995a: 41-47). 

Stehekin Maintenance Facility and Phase I Housing Development Concept Plan/Environmental 

Assessment Management Objective: The project will replace the existing maintenance facility and 

employee housing located in the floodplain at Lake Chelan National Recreation Area in accordance with 

the direction of the 1995 General Management Plan. The project will specifically provide for design and 

construction of a new maintenance facility, to include an equipment repair shop, fuel storage and 

dispensing facility, a search and rescue/fire cache building, storage building, solid waste compaction and 

recycling building, helipad and associated infrastructure. The project will also include the design and 

construction of the first phase of housing, to include a 10 person fire dorm and one three-bedroom single 

family residence. The project is to include removal of the existing facilities, and site restoration. The sitespecific planning for this project will begin in fall 2010 and include production of a Development 

Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment. 
Appendix 2 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 449 

PARK OPERATIONS

Cooperative Relationships with Others Management Objective: Strengthen working relationships 

with others, defining shared objectives and developing strategies that lead to cooperative agreements for 

the management of natural, scenic, cultural, and recreational resources of Lake Chelan NRA (NPS 

1995a: 48). 

Cooperative Relationships with Others Actions: The National Park Service would work with county, 

state, and federal agencies for enforcement of existing ordinances and regulations. 

The National Park Service would build cooperative relationships with county, state, and federal agencies; 

the private sector; and the public through constant communication to involve them in all efforts to 

facilitate resource protection and visitor enjoyment... 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 451 

APPENDIX 3: LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LAND 

PROTECTION PLAN MANAGEMENT GOALS / OBJECTIVES AND 

GUIDELINES 

Management Goal / Objectives (NPS 1995a: 40-41, 1995c: 2-3)

The goal is to ensure that land uses on public and private lands are compatible with the purposes of Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), emphasizing those uses that protect area natural and cultural 

resources and natural processes, and provide for safe visitor facilities and services. 

The six principal management objectives are as follows: 

 Protect Lake Chelan NRA from land uses and developments that are incompatible with the 

purposes of the recreation area. 

 Actively support local government in their regulation of nonfederal land within the Stehekin 

Valley, which places primary reliance on adopted Chelan County zoning ordinances, 

subdivision, and other applicable ordinances and regulations that ensure that the public health 

and safety of Stehekin Valley residents and visitors are maintained and enhanced. 

 Provide a formal process by which Stehekin Valley residents can actively participate in and 

provide meaningful input to the Chelan County land use decision process regarding the 

regulation of private lands. 

 Ensure that applicable laws and policies of the state of Washington, including health and 

safety regulations and Washington Growth Management Act provisions, are followed. 

 Provide a basis for meaningful and constructive NPS review of proposals for land use change 

on private land within the Stehekin Valley in order to ensure that all uses and land 

developments are compatible with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. 

 Maintain an effective NPS capability to acquire or exchange for full or partial interests in 

private lands, conducted on a willing buyer / willing seller basis, to augment the protection 

measures provided by county land use authority and compatibility determinations. 

Guidelines (NPS 1995: 3-4)

Based on the land protection goal and objectives, the following guidelines form the basis for this Land 

Protection Plan: 

 Place emphasis on local zoning and other land use authorities of county and state government 

to regulate private land uses within the Stehekin Valley. 

 Provide opportunities for local review of Stehekin Valley land use proposals, and an 

appropriate forum to provide this input to Chelan County government. 

 Accept new residential and other private land uses that are compatible with the purposes of 

Lake Chelan NRA. 

 Accept new commercial uses on private lands that provide visitor and resident services and 

that are compatible with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. 
Appendices 

452 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Accept new industrial uses on private lands that are typical of and compatible with historical 

industrial uses within the Stehekin Valley and that are compatible with the purposes of Lake 

Chelan NRA. 

 Encourage land uses that consume a low level of resources, and that conserve both renewable 

and nonrenewable resources. 

 Encourage new construction and conversion of existing facilities that adhere to sustainable 

design principles. 

 Identify those properties with areas that have a high priority for resource protection, and 

where a public interest in land is necessary to protect recreation area resources, based on 

resource sensitivity and values, or to provide for compatible visitor use and public 

community needs consistent with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA and other legislated 

mandates. Resources that have a high priority protection are wetland, high flood influence, 

riparian, and high visual sensitivity areas. 

 Continue willing buyer / willing seller acquisitions for properties with areas that have a high 

priority for resource protection, or for which public needs have been identified, when 

appropriated funds are available for such purposes or appropriate lands are available for 

exchange. The National Park Service will consider other factors on a case-by-case basis in 

making final determinations to purchase tracts. Private lands consisting primarily of areas 

with a low priority for protection are considered lowest priority for acquisition; willing seller 

opportunities would be considered when funds are available. 

 Unless specifically authorized by Congress, for all proposed NPS acquisitions of land, or 

interests in lands (e.g., easements), including exchanges, the National Park Service will 

provide advance written notification to both U.S. senators for Washington and the U.S. 

congressional representative(s) for the congressional district(s) containing the affected lands. 

A copy of the notification will also be sent to the Chelan County Commissioners. If 

specifically requested in writing by any of the congressional delegation, the National Park 

Service will enter into further consultation regarding the proposed action. 

 Use land exchanges, as natural, cultural, and scenic conditions allow, within Lake Chelan 

NRA by offering to exchange private lands having resources with high priority for protection 

for public land from previously acquired private tracts having resources with a low priority 

for protection. 

 Emphasize, where appropriate, with the cooperation of the landowner, opportunities for 

easement purchases and other less-than-fee (e.g., conservation easements) interests for 

resource protection and public use. This will allow greater flexibility in the protection of high 

priority resources, including scenic areas, and could provide an alternative method of 

achieving public nonmotorized recreational trail access to lakes, rivers, and streams, and 

other sites within Lake Chelan NRA. 

 Exercise the use of eminent domain procedures only to prevent resource degradation of 

national recreation area values by incompatible uses on private land, and only as a last resort 

where other prudent and reasonable measures to protection national recreation area resources 

by eliminating or mitigating the resource degradation have been exhausted. 

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 

landownerships, identifying the approximate percentage of each tract that has a high priority for resource 

protection (see the “Recommendations” section). 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 453 

APPENDIX 4: STEHEKIN RIVER REACH ANALYSIS 

STREAM CHANNEL GEOMETRY, HYDRAULICS, AND STABILITY

The lower Stehekin Valley is an alluvial valley with varying levels of confinement. It is characterized by 

a wide floodplain and gravel-dominated channel containing an island-bar pattern (Schumm 1977). The 

river has this pattern because of the heavy coarse-textured bed load it carries, its large-scale transport and 

storage of woody debris, and the effective resistance provided by dense stream-bank vegetation, including 

willow and red osier dogwood. The Stehekin is not a braided glacially dominated system like the large 

rivers at Mount Rainier and in Alaska. 

Figures 1 and 2: Stehekin River Channel Changes 1962-2006 (above and below Harlequin Bridge)

illustrate the island-bar pattern of the river in several reaches. Two sites in the lower valley, however, 

have more of a single, straight channel, including the reach above Harlequin Bridge and the reach near the 

mouth of Boulder Creek. As discussed above, these single-thread, relatively straight channel reaches have 

functioned as large wood and sediment transport zones. They have been stable features of the floodplain 

for most of the last century. 

Areas standing above the floodplain, and limiting channel migration, include a large lateral moraine on 

the northeast side of the valley and the extensive alluvial fans of Company, Rainbow, and Boulder 

Creeks. Over the past several hundred years, the Stehekin River has meandered across most of the valley 

floor between these landforms. 

Channel geometry varies considerably within the two types of lower valley reaches. In the narrow straight 

reaches, bank-full width is as low as 50 feet, but increases to more than 250 feet in other reaches. Channel 

sinuosity is generally near 1.3, but in areas of recent sediment deposition, such as McGregor Meadows, it 

is 1.8. Three relatively large meander loops have formed downstream from Harlequin Bridge, where 

sinuosity increases to 2.5. The first meander is located near Frog Island (river kilometer 6), where the 

channel has migrated into the left bank. A second meander is below Buckner Homestead hayfield and 

pasture. This unusually large meander formed in-part because a right bank side channel was blocked by 

Chelan Public Utility District (PUD) in the 1930s to prevent water from bypassing the downstream gauge. 

Growth of this meander was exacerbated by removal of native vegetation and the presence of weak sand 

and silt soils (ancient river delta) on the left bank below the mouth of Rainbow Creek. Another large 

meander has formed just above the mouth of the river and is discussed below. 

Channel hydraulic conditions in the two different reaches were assessed by the NPS (1992a) with a 

HEC-2 hydraulic model. Channel velocity generally decreases down valley, while width depth ratio and 

sinuosity increase. Superimposed on this general pattern, within three narrower straighter sediment 

transport zones adjacent to alluvial fans and above McGregor Meadows, 100-year flood channel 

velocities are on the order of 9-12 feet per second (fps). Within the sediment storage zones between the 

big fans and at McGregor meadows, 100-year flood velocities are typically 6-7 fps, but more variable due 

to the presence of multiple side channels. Flow depth, flood-prone width, entrenchment, width-depth 

ratio, and stream power also vary systematically between these zones. Overbank velocities during 100-

year flood events vary between 2 - 4 feet, with flood depths of 6 feet or more in many side channels. 

Manning’s hydraulic roughness values for the Stehekin River channel have been estimated at 0.045 by the 

USGS (1987) and NPS (1992a). This is a measure of how many obstacles the water encounters as it flows 

downstream. Overbank flooding areas in the deposition zones, with dense forests and large wood 

accumulations, have ‘n’ values as high as 0.125. The high degree of roughness in most overbank areas 

reduces flood velocities in floodplains. 
Appendices 

454 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 1: STEHEKIN RIVER CHANNEL CHANGES 1962-2006

(above Harlequin Bridge) 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 455 

FIGURE 2: STEHEKIN RIVER CHANNEL CHANGES 1962-2006

(below Harlequin Bridge) 
Appendices 

456 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The position of the Stehekin River channel has been examined based on an old map made in 1902 and 

from aerial photos taken in 1957, 1962, 1978, 2004, and 2007. The 1902 channel location is suspect due 

to mapping scale and a lack of landmarks; however, in several areas there are old river channels where the 

map placed the river. Furthermore, it is interesting that the channel appears to have been straighter in 

1902, and its sinuosity (curvature) has generally increased since 1962. 

Until passage of the recent large floods, evidence indicates that the Stehekin Rivers channel geometry was 

fairly well adjusted to a spring mean bank-full discharge of about 9,000 cfs (Wolma and Leopold 1957; 

Ackers and Charlton 1970; Southerland 2002). Deposition of massive amounts of gravel and channel 

widening in different reaches during the recent fall floods is leading to channel changes on the lower 

Stehekin River. 

Channel changes observed at three locations by the NPS in the past 50 years have been remarkably 

gradual, given the recent flood events. Qualitative observations indicate that the process begins with 

deposition of large amounts of gravel in the main channel during floods, which reduces channel capacity 

and results in accelerated bank erosion and over-bank flooding. Over-bank flooding exploits weaknesses 

in the floodplain, but generally follows and enlarges former river channels. The process of channel 

migration is complicated by the presence of large wood, which can block side channels and initiate new 

channel formation in unexpected locations. 

Pronounced changes in channel configuration and associated rapid bank erosion can be found at and 

downstream of McGregor Meadows, below the orchard, and at the mouth of the river. At several other 

locations, including the Lower Field, McGregor Meadows, and near the mouth of Wilson Creek, the river 

has jumped from one side of its channel to the other with deposition of gravel during large floods. 

Due to changes in valley width, stream gradient, and obstructions, there are three main areas of stream 

bank instability in the lower Stehekin valley. One is where the river loses its gradient upon entering Lake 

Chelan. Another is where the river is joined by Company Creek above Harlequin Bridge. The third is at 

McGregor Meadows, where the valley width increases three-fold. In the McGregor Meadows reach, the 

increase in valley width is accompanied by a drop in valley gradient, which in turn results in the loss of 

stream power and massive deposition of sand, gravel, and large wood. 

CHANNEL HABITAT

In the lower valley, the Stehekin River is characterized primarily by alternating riffles and pools, with 

occasional cascades and glides. In a 2000 survey, approximately four pool units covered 32,000 square 

meters, compared to 39,000 square meters in four riffles, with small pools associated with accumulations 

of large wood (Table 1: Stream Reach Large Woody Debris). It is not currently known how the 

distribution and character of the riffle and pool habitat may have changed with the passage of the 2003 

and 2006 floods (Riedel 2007). 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 457 

TABLE 1: STREAM REACH LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (1984, 1999/2000, AND 2007)

Reach 1984 Logjams

Large Woody Debris 

(LWD) (cubic yards)

1999 / 2000 

Logjams

LWD (cubic yards)

2007 Logjams

LWD (cubic yards)

Habitat (acres)

Reach 1 Logjams:21

LWD: 2,607

Logjams:12

LWD: 22,682

Logjams:17

LWD: 110,348

Pool: 4.4

Riffle: 7.6

Glide: 5.8

Reach 2 Logjams:11

LWD: 1,111

Logjams: 15

LWD: 2,987

Logjams: 16

LWD: 3,083

Pool: 0.6

Riffle: 12.2 

Run:2.9

Reach 3 Logjams: 16

LWD: about 2,300

Logjams: 15

LWD: 9,133

Logjams: 17

LWD: 21,398

Pool: 3.6

Riffle: 14.8

Run: 0.5

Reach 4 Logjams: 9

LWD: about 4,200

Logjams: 19

LWD: 16,705

Logjams: 26

LWD:48,371

Pool: 5.4

Riffle: 15.1

Cascade: 4.7

SELECTED STREAM REACH CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

This section describes the characteristics of four stream reaches on the Stehekin River within the project 

area. A similar section was included in the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project (NPS 2005). 

These reach analyses help to sort out effects of existing erosion protection structures and the 

accumulation of large woody debris over time in the Stehekin River. 

Descriptions of each reach include average depths and widths, flood prone areas, channel gradient, 

sinuosity, large wood accumulation, and distribution and amount of stream habitat such as riffle, pool, 

glide, and of side channel types (Table 1: Stream Reach Large Woody Debris and Table 2: Stream Reach 

Physical Characteristics). Reaches were selected for analysis based on their proximity to proposed erosion 

protection measures. 

TABLE 2: STREAM REACH PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4

River (kilometer) 0-1.5 4.8-6 7-8.5 9-11

Length (feet) 4,600 5,000 6,000 3,400

Bankfull Width (feet) 450 160 200 160

Width/Depth Ratio 40:1 24:1 37:1 20:1

Max. Bankfull Depth (feet) 11.1 6.6 5.4 7.9

Flood Prone Area Width 

(feet)

1400 1780 1600 1200

Channel Gradient (5) 0.5 1.6 0.8 0.8

Sinuosity 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3

Maximum Diameter (inches) 7.9 5.5 9.4 11.8
Appendices 

458 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The lower Stehekin River flows through a wide and deep glacially carved valley into Lake Chelan. 

Glacial deposits are important in defining the river channel pattern in the lower Stehekin. In the lower 

valley towards the lake, alluvial fans, debris cones, fan terraces, and steep valley walls mark the edge of 

the channel migration zone (Reaches 1-2) (Figure 3: Overall Layout of the Reaches on the Stehekin 

River). A large glacial moraine runs along the northeast side of the valley and generally defines the limit 

of channel migration on the left bank for a large portion of the lower valley (Reaches 3-4) (Figure 3: 

Overall Layout of the Reaches on the Stehekin River). Steep first and second order streams contribute 

large amounts of sediment. At the bottom of Reach 1 is Lake Chelan, while bedrock at the lower end of 

Reach 2 controls the bottom of Reaches 2 - 4. 

FIGURE 3: OVERALL LAYOUT OF THE STREAM REACHES ANALYZED ON THE STEHEKIN RIVER

Note the Pleistocene moraine (red) along the left bank and the alluvial fans (orange) along the lower valley, which 

generally defines the channel migration zone. 

Within the approximately four miles containing Reaches 1-4, the longitudinal profile of the Stehekin 

River undergoes several significant changes. These changes define the riffle-pool sequence along the 

river; determine relative channel stability, large wood accumulation and stability, and other habitat 

factors. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted removal of large woody debris from the lower five 

kilometers of the Stehekin River in the early 1970s. Surveys of woody debris were conducted on the 

Stehekin River in 1984, 2000, and 2007 (Table 1: Stream Reach Large Woody Debris). Information about 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 459 

large woody debris within each reach from all three surveys has been included, as have cross-sections 

from each reach. 

Reach 1 

Reach 1 of the Stehekin River encompasses the river mouth to the edge of the Lake Chelan backwater 

zone (Figure 4: Location of Reach 1). When Lake Chelan is at full pool and river discharge approaches 

20,000 cfs (i.e., a 100-year flood), the backwater effect of the lake extends about 0.25 mile upstream 

(Chelan PUD 2001). The backwater effect also extends several hundred feet further upstream for smaller 

floods that occur at full pool. Reach 1 ends near the edge of this backwater zone, which has a strong effect 

on gravel and wood deposition and channel stability in this section of the river. The lower valley is 

underlain by a thick silt and clay layer that represents the former bed of Lake Chelan. This material 

outcrops intermittently on the right bank of Reach 1. The presence of this layer along with the water level 

in Lake Chelan probably slows channel migration in this area. 

FIGURE 4: LOCATION OF REACH 1, WITH ASSOCIATED LANDFORMS, LOGJAMS, AND HABITAT UNITS 

Proposed bank stabilization work will extend downstream 280 feet near river kilometer 1. 

Topography: The valley wall confines this section of the river on the right bank at the upper end of 

Reach 1. Downstream the river meanders across a wide floodplain with terraces on either side. The 

alluvial fans of Margerum and Devore Creeks on the right bank and the Boulder Creek alluvial fan on the 
Appendices 

460 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

left bank also limit channel migration. The width of the valley averages 0.7 miles in this reach. The 

Stehekin River meanders through gravel bars and logjams, dropping its remaining load as it approaches 

Lake Chelan. This is a net sediment deposition zone with massive logjams in multiple side channels. 

Based on a continual decrease in grain size as the river approaches the lake, only pebble gravel and finer 

material is transported through the lower valley and deposited in the lake. The largest diameter sediment 

cataloged in this reach was only 7.9 inches. The maximum depth for this reach is artificially high at 11.1 

feet, since it is at a 50-foot recession bank next to a levee. 

Large Woody Debris: The effect of the lake backwater is to raise the 100-year flood elevation about 0.5 

feet, and to cause sediment deposition and accumulation of large woody debris in Reach 1. This reach is 

one of the largest net deposition zones for large woody debris on the river. In the 1984 the lower 4,600 

feet of the Stehekin River contained 21 logjams, totaling 2,607 cubic yards of wood. The number of 

logjams dropped to 12 in 1999, but the volume increased to 22,682 cubic yards. In summer 2007, a large 

logjam was removed from the head of a side channel near river kilometer 1 on the right bank of Reach 1. 

Almost all of the logs were repositioned downstream of the channel mouth below the ordinary high water 

mark. This project represented the first large scale manipulation of wood on the Stehekin River in more 

than 35 years. The 2007 survey done in the fall showed the number of logjams to be 17, with 

110,348 cubic yards of wood. There are four major logjams at the mouth of the Stehekin River, the largest 

totaling 861 logs. 

Stream Habitat: Habitat in Reach 1 was last surveyed in 2000. It is characterized by a mix of riffle and 

glide sequences, along with an occasional pool. Riffles and glides are intermixed in this reach, with riffles 

accounting for 7.2 acres of habitat and 4.4 acres for glides. A majority of the glides are at the very mouth 

of the river, where it meets Lake Chelan. Pool habitat consists of two large pool features covering 

approximately 3.3 acres of habitat. Side channels are also a significant habitat feature in this reach, 

especially adjacent to Lake Chelan were they are strongly affected by changes in the lake level. 

Erosion Protection Measures: In this reach there is currently a total of 1,000 feet of modified bank. 

Private landowners installed two rock barbs, effecting about 200 feet of the left bank in the 1990s. Riprap, covers 800 feet of the left bank immediately downstream near the mouth of the Stehekin River and 

was installed in 1983, including a few hundred feet on NPS land. In addition to stopping bank erosion 

where they were placed, the primary effect observed was development of scour holes on the channel bed 

within 200 feet downstream of the barbs. The effect of the rock barbs is also limited in time and in parts 

of the channel prone to gravel deposition. There are no other bank modifications in Reach 1. 

Reach 2 

The Stehekin River within Reach 2 has a wide flood prone area averaging 1,780 feet in width due to the 

lack of confining landforms (Figure 5: Location of Reach 2). Located just down valley from the Company 

Creek alluvial fan, is a major gravel and wood deposition zone, Frog Island on the left bank marks the 

beginning of this reach. Highly unstable in this section, the Stehekin River reaches a sinuosity of 1.3, 

spreading over many side channels. Gradient in this reach appears to be controlled by a bedrock ledge at 

Buckner Rock. Right bank side channels represent the lowest part of the floodplain, and one cut 4-5 feet 

below the main channel, which is clogged with logs and gravel. While some of the right bank side 

channels are cut off at Harlequin Bridge, recent new channels have formed across from Frog Island. 

Topography: At one time, the river travelled across the right side of its floodplain, but for at least the 

past 50 years it has been moving into the left bank. The channel is truncating the former alluvial fan of 

Rainbow Creek. As the river moved east the point bar on the opposite bank has grown proportionally. A 

cross-section through Frog Island reveals numerous side channels (Figure 6: Cross-Section N2-N2’for 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 461 

Reach 2). The channel gradient in Reach 2 is 0.02 percent and is influenced by Buckner rock. Gravel, 

only as large as 5.5 inches, was cataloged in this reach. 

FIGURE 5: LOCATION OF REACH 2, WITH ASSOCIATED LANDFORMS, LOGJAMS, AND HABITAT UNITS 

Proposed rock barbs just downstream of ‘N2’ where the river is encroaching on the road. Gravel was removed from a 

gravel bar on the left bank across from upper Frog Island. 
Appendices 

462 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 6: CROSS-SECTION N2 TO N2’ FOR REACH 2 

Large Woody Debris: When the channel in this reach was first surveyed in 1984, 1,111 cubic yards of 

woody debris was present. In the 1999 woody debris survey, 15 individual logjams were identified, 

totaling 2,987 cubic yards of wood. When surveying was completed in 2007, 16 logjams were present, 

with the overall size had increased to 3,083 cubic yards of wood. 

Minor amounts of rock were placed at this site in the past, but there are no other erosion management 

structures in this reach. The rock and natural accumulation of boulders from adjacent cliffs effect about 

300 feet of riverbank. 

Erosion Protection Measures: Gravel was removed in small quantities from the right bank but ceased in 

the late 1970s. Harlequin Bridge upstream has a strong influence on river process. The potential action 

site on this reach includes the bend in the river just downriver of Frog Island, which is cutting laterally 

into the main Stehekin Valley Road. Proposed rock barbs would be on the edge of the channel migration 

zone, where the river flows against the valley wall. 

Stream Habitat: The habitat within Reach 2 is characterized by a series of riffles, with only two pools 

present. The riffles account for 94 percent of the habitat area. The pools total only 0.4 acres and are 

located at the downstream end of Frog Island. Bank erosion at the site of the proposed barbs measures 

240 feet since 1962, with approximately 90,300 cubic yards of gravel introduced into the channel 

downstream. 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 463 

Reach 3 

Topography: The upper part of this reach is at the end of a major gravel and wood deposition zone. At 

about River Kilometer 8, the river transitions to a transport zone. In Reach 3 the Stehekin River has 

alternated over time between two channels located on opposite sides of the floodplain. Channel migration 

is limited on the left bank by a large glacial lateral moraine, while on the right bank it is limited by the 

extensive alluvial fan of Company Creek (Figure 7: Location of Reach 3). The main channel of the river 

is paralleled by an abandoned channel on the floodplain of the right bank, which appears to have been the 

active channel in the early 1900s (Figure 7: Location of Reach 3 and Figure 8:Cross-section T to T’ for 

Reach 3). Avulsion of this abandoned channel and occupation of the present alignment probably occurred 

sometime before 1953, most likely during the 1948 flood. 

FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF REACH 3, WITH ASSOCIATED LANDFORMS, LOGJAMS, AND HABITAT UNITS. 
Appendices 

464 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 8: CROSS-SECTION T TO T’ FOR REACH 3 

Stream gradient in Reach 3 varies significantly. In the upper part of the reach the gradient is 0.0089 

percent, while in the lower part of the reach the gradient drops to 0.0039 percent. The substrate in this 

reach ranges from cobble and boulder to gravel with the maximum diameter pebble at 9.4 inches. Main 

channel flood velocities in this reach are on the order of 5-6 cubic feet per second (cfs). Bankfull width, 

bankfull depth, and width to depth ratios all reflect the broad alluvial nature of this reach. 

Large Woody Debris: Reach 3 represents a significant storage zone for large woody debris. In a 2000 

survey approximately 9,133 cubic yards of large wood in 15 logjams was inventoried in this reach, 

representing a 400 percent increase from a 1984 large wood survey. The results from the 2007 survey 

reveal 17 logjams that total a volume of 21,398 cubic yardsin wood, reflecting further substantial 

increases during the large 2003 and 2006 floods. 

Sinuosity is calculated at 1.2 in this reach, although it is higher in the upper parts of this reach. Associated 

with increased sinuosity is growth of gravel bars and bank erosion. Bank erosion since 1962 at one site 

measured 315 feet, with an average rate of 7feet/year. Bank erosion at these sites introduced 87,000 cubic 

yards of gravel to the channel downstream in the past half century. 

Erosion Protection Measures: There are currently no erosion control structures within this reach, except 

for rip-rap at Harlequin Bridge. 

Stream Habitat: Habitat in Reach 3 is characterized by riffle pool sequences. Seven long riffles dominate 

the reach, accounting for 87 percent of all main channel stream habitats (approximately 6.0 acres). Side 

channels are also a significant habitat feature in this reach (12.5 acres), and have half as much habitat as 

the main channel. The system of abandoned channels on the right bank of the river’s floodplain accounts 

for most of the side channel habitat. Pool habitat is limited in Reach 3 to two pool features covering 

approximately 0.7 acres of habitat. 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 465 

Reach 4 

Topography: The Stehekin River channel in Reach 4 migrates across a broad alluvial floodplain between 

a glacial moraine on the north and a valley wall to the south (Figure 9: Location of Reach 4). The most 

significant change in valley geomorphology within the lower Stehekin River above the head of Lake 

Chelan occurs at Reach 4, where valley width increases from a width of 500 feet to a half-mile. Flood 

prone area and bankfull width (Figure 9: Location of Reach 4) also increase significantly in this reach 

(Table 2: Stream Reach Physical Characteristics). This change coincides with a drop-in stream gradient 

from 0.015 percent to 0.008 percent. Flood velocity in the main channel is estimated at 9 cfs. The main 

channel in the upper part of this reach is boulder and cobble gravel, with a DMax of 11.8 inches. 

FIGURE 9: LOCATION OF REACH 4, WITH ASSOCIATED LANDFORMS, LOGJAMS, AND HABITAT UNITS

Due to these physical changes in valley width and stream gradient, Reach 4 is located in an area where the 

Stehekin River channel is very unstable. Gravel deposition in this reach since the mid 1980s is estimated 

at 50,000 cubic yards. Most gravel deposited in this reach has been upstream of the large logjam shown in 

Figure 9. Downstream of the jam, repeat channel surveys indicate that the river has incised 2-3 feet into 

1995 and earlier flood deposits. 

A major stream avulsion has been underway in Reach 4 that will likely reroute the main channel through 

McGregor Meadows down No Name Creek on the left bank (labeled “Old River Channel” on Figure 
Appendices 

466 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

9). Sinuosity in Reach 4 is as high as Reach 1, another very unstable section of the river (Table 2: Stream 

Reach Physical Characteristics), and has been increasing steadily since the 1950s. The increase in 

sinuosity is associated with rapid point bar growth and bank erosion. In the October 2003 flood, bank 

erosion of more than 50 feet was recorded on the right bank at the lower end of Reach 4. In response to 

bank erosion issues, the NPS and private landowners have installed rock barbs and three grade-control 

structures in this reach covering a liner distance of 1,565 feet at three locations. Most of these structures 

are in the middle of the channel migration zone, where their impact on river migration is large. However, 

four of the rock barbs are now buried in sediment deposited in the 2003 and 2006 floods. 

Bankfull width in Reach 4 is 500 feet, while maximum bankfull depth is 7.9 feet (Table 2: Stream Reach 

Physical Characteristics). Repeat surveys of the river channel in this reach indicate that bankfull width is 

increasing, while bankfull depth has decreased. These changes are associated with the ongoing channel 

avulsion described above and are directly related to deposition of sediment as main channel conveyance is 

decreased. 

Large Woody Debris: Reach 4 is located in an area that changes from a net large wood transport zone 

upstream to a storage zone downstream. Reach 4 contains 23 logjams in2007, totaling 48,371 cubic yards 

of wood. Large wood accumulated rapidly in this area between surveys in 1984 and 2000 (16,705 cubic 

yards), with an approximately 1,800 percent increase in large wood volume. Large woody debris 

accumulations have played a major role in channel stability and pattern in Reach 4. For many years a 

rapidly growing logjam prevented the river from following No Name Creek and reoccupying an old river 

channel (Figure 10: Cross-section WSI-WSIʹ for Reach 4). However, the record October 2003 flood 

punched a hole in the logjam, thereby rapidly increasing conveyance down the avulsion route and 

decreasing flow down the main channel. The 2006 event re-plugged this route and the logjam grew to 

cover 5 acres on both sides of the main channel that contains more than 3,000 individual logs stacked as 

high as 20 feet. 

FIGURE 10: CROSS-SECTION WSI-12 TO WSI-12’ FOR REACH 4 

Erosion Protection Measures: There are currently 14 erosion management structures within this reach, 

affecting about 4,000 feet of the river bank. Structures include 13 rock barbs on both banks, cabled logs, 

and two levees. A 300 foot long by 3 foot tall levee was built in the floodplain on the left bank in 2008. 
Appendix 4 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 467 

About 0.4 miles downstream, the NPS constructed a 400 foot long levee and log cribbing in the 1980s. 

Eleven of the 13 rock barbs are on the right bank to protect Company Creek Road. 

In response to channel instability in upper Reach 4, the NPS and private landowners cooperated to 

manage ever-worsening flood damage. A 1998 plan coordinated installation of about a dozen small grade 

control structures on public and private land. These sills of rock buried beneath the surface are designed 

to slow channel formation and maintain sheet flow in McGregor Meadows (aka avulsion sill). 

The 2003 and 2006 floods deposited massive quantities of gravel in upper Reach 4, resulting in 

unprecedented erosion and flooding of the left bank. In response, private landowners and the NPS 

cooperated on installation of three long grade control structures. The NPS also installed one long grade 

control structure and two smaller ones beneath the Stehekin Valley Road near Milepost 6.6 - 6.8. 

Stream Habitat: Stream habitat in this reach is confined primarily to the main channel, until halfway 

through the reach, with a noticeable absence of pool and side-channel habitat. All habitats were classified 

as riffle in upper McGregor Meadows, covering an area of approximately 3.4 acres. Through lower 

McGregor Meadows, downstream of the logjam, pools dominate riffles, totaling 2.5 acres of habitat with 

numerous side channels along the river. Two cascades are present, signaling gradients over 3.5 percent 

just below the major logjam in McGregor Meadows. 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 469 

APPENDIX 5: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT LIST 

See also Chapter I: Purpose of and Need for Management Action and Chapter IV: Environmental 

Consequences (Methodology section). 

COMPANY CREEK ROAD (CCR) 

CCR Mile 1.9: Maintain levee (1981), bank barbs and riparian vegetation (1997) to protect Company 

Creek Road from inundation.

For several decades, prior to the 1970s, there was repeated flood damage to the Company Creek Road, 

including deep scouring and loss of surface gravel. In 1976 a 290-foot long log-crib was constructed to 

protect the Company Creek Road (NPS 1997). By 1981, that log cribbing was extended 110 feet for a 

total length of 400 feet (NPS 1997) and was raised by approximately 2 feet (one row of logs) and an 

earthen levee from loose pit run material was built on top of the log-crib (NPS 1997). The levee is 

currently approximately 6 feet high and has not recently been topped by floodwaters along 90 percent of 

its length. Two rock barbs protect the river side of the levee. 

A flood in the spring of 1982 substantially damaged the cribbing/levee and the adjacent road. In this 

flood, the last remnant of land between the river and the log-crib structure (formerly 8 feet from the river) 

washed away. The flood inundated the area around the levee on both the upstream and downstream sides 

and flowed down the Company Creek Road, washing off the gravel surfacing (NPS 1997). The cribbing 

was repaired and expanded and was further damaged in subsequent floods (NPS 2007:3). These repairs to 

the road required over 3,000 cubic yards of rock and gravel (NPS 1997). 

In 1995, a flood undermined the cribbing and eroded the lower end of the levee again (NPS 2007:3). By 

1997, the height of the levee was 4.8 feet above the cribbing. As noted in the Erosion Control on 

Company Creek Road, Stehekin Valley Environmental Assessment (NPS 1997): 

Although the log cribbing was constructed to protect the road from erosion by the river, it 

has locally accelerated the water velocity, creating a large scour hole at the base of the 

structure, undermining the crib. This allows some of the rock and soil in the crib and 

levee to wash out through the bottom. The cribbing now sags several feet in the middle. 

At present there is no protection for the downstream end of the crib, which has suffered 

from erosion damage and floats during high water events. 

Therefore, in 1997 two rock barbs were constructed at the toe of the levee and a dense cover of native 

riparian vegetation was planted on top of the levee. The road was then protected from erosion and a 

section of road downstream from levee elevated to redirect overbank flow off the road into existing 

natural flood channels (NPS 1997). In the spring 1999 flood, the river channel along the levee was 

blocked by a natural logjam and is now covered in alders. The poorly constructed levee remains stable, 

with a dense cover of surface vegetation. 

Although the levee is currently in fair to good condition, it is anticipated that over time additional repairs 

to maintain it will need to be made. These repairs would likely consist of measures similar to those 

described above, such as reconstruction of rock barbs, replacement of portions of the levee structure, and 

additional bioengineering or riparian restoration.

CCR Mile 2.1: Maintain three remaining rock barbs and bioengineering from installation of six barbs and 

bioengineering constructed in 1997 to implement the Erosion Control on Company Creek Road 

Environmental Assessment (NPS 1997).
Appendices 

470 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

In 1997, four bank barbs and bioengineering were placed at Milepost 2.1 to protect the Company Creek 

Road from Stehekin River flood-related erosion. One of these barbs has since been buried, while three 

remain. Over time it is anticipated that these barbs will also be buried, necessitating their reconstruction 

as the riverbed continues to aggrade (increase in height). A fifth barb, placed on private land, has also 

been largely buried. 

CCR Mile 2.2: Maintain hump in road to allow water to run off the road, rather than down the road. 

In 2004, a road hump was placed within the Company Creek Road as part of the emergency repairs that 

followed the flooding in 2003. This road drainage feature allows water to run off into natural flood 

channels off the edge of the Company Creek Road. Over time, it may require replacement or repair. 

CCR Mile 2.2 - 2.4: Maintain three grade-control structures in road constructed as an action which 

implemented the Minimize Erosion on Upper Company Creek Road Environmental Assessment (NPS 

2007).

In 2007, three grade-control structures were constructed adjacent to the Company Creek Road to prevent 

head-cutting along the bank of the Stehekin River from affecting the Company Creek Road. Additional 

changes in the bank of the Stehekin River could necessitate the repair or reconstruction of these gradecontrol structures, which are designed to allow floodwater to pass through the floodplain without cutting 

large channels. 

STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD (SVR) 

Numerous erosion management and one major flood control measure have been implemented by the NPS 

along the Stehekin Valley Road, beginning in the 1930s. Under all alternatives (1-4) these measures 

would continue to be maintained and would be enhanced if necessary. 

SVR Mile 2.8: Maintain four rock barbs and bioengineering constructed in 1997 as part of the Company 

Creek Road Environmental Assessment (EA).

Using an easement, a 400-foot long rock toe (using approximately 4,000 cubic yards of rock), four rock 

barbs and bioengineering were installed on public and private land. The barbs and bioengineering were 

installed after a pile of rocks fell into the river and 100 feet of bank was lost in one day. In the fall of 

2008, cabled logs were added behind the first barb to prevent the continued formation of a scour hole and 

20 cubic yards of rock were used to repair three barbs. Although there is not a strong flow at this location, 

seeps are contributing to the ongoing erosion of the sandy bank. The rock toe armor was done as an 

emergency action, while the rock barbs and bioengineering were installed in 1998 and repaired in 2000 

and 2008. 

Approximately 8,000 linear feet of streambank has been affected, with approximately 400 feet × 20 

(8,000 linear feet) of bioengineering. Over time, additional maintenance of the rock barbs, including 

potential reconstruction, would be needed as the Stehekin River continues to fill with sediment. 

SVR Mile 5.5: If the need for additional erosion protection impacts private property downstream, work 

with the landowner to identify mitigation and/or compensation for impacts.

There is little NPS land and little room to work between the slope of the road and the Stehekin River. 
Appendix 5 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 471 

SVR Mile 7.0: As part of the Stehekin Valley Road Improvement Project implementation of the Milepost 

7.0 and 7.5 reroutes, grade-control structures were constructed to inhibit the Stehekin River from flowing 

down the road. 

Three grade-control structures and reroutes (7.0 - 7.2 and 7.5 - 7.9) would continue to be maintained and 

the road would be repaired as needed following flooding. The largest grade-control structure (at Milepost 

7.0) is 300 feet long and 6 feet wide (1,800 square feet or 0.04 acres) (beneath the road). The other two 

are slightly wider than the road (12-14 feet), approximately 16 feet by 6 feet (96 square feet) (0.004 acres) 

and spread 50 yards apart downstream. 

The Environmental Assessment: Protection of the Stehekin Valley Road in the Vicinity of McGregor 

Meadows, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) cleared the 

way for construction of several grade control structures in McGregor Meadows and placed a hump in the 

Stehekin Valley Road to reduce the potential for river avulsion through the area (NPS 2004a).

SVR Mile 8.0: Maintain streambank revetment (1993 and 2007), two rock barbs and bioengineering 

(1993), and four additional rock barbs and bioengineering (2007) constructed as part of the Stehekin 

Valley Road Improvement Project. 

Approximately 800 linear feet of streambank has been affected, with approximately 12,000 square feet 

(800 feet × 15 feet) (0.28 acre) of bioengineering. Over time, additional maintenance of the rock barbs, 

including potential reconstruction, would be needed as the Stehekin River continues to fill with sediment. 

SVR Mile 9.2: Continue to monitor threats to Stehekin Valley Road and maintain existing grade-control 

structures that limit the potential for water to create a channel in the road corridor (see also proposed 

actions at this site in Alternatives 2 - 4).

Following rapid bank erosion just upstream during the 2006 flood, two grade-control structures were 

installed where the road meets the river. 

SVR Mile 9.1 - 10.2: Restore Stehekin Valley Road access at Coon Run, Mile 9.1 to 10.2 (NPS 2005b) 

Maintain existing culverts, bioengineering, and cabled logs (2005).

In 2003, catastrophic loss of the Stehekin Valley Road occurred in this area and an upper road reroute was 

selected from among the alternatives described in the EA that evaluated options for this portion of the 

road. Because the road reroute continues to traverse the edge of the floodplain, there is a potential that 

future additional repairs or modifications to the road and/or associated erosion control structures could be 

needed. 

STEHEKIN RIVER 1948 CHANNEL

Prior to a large logjam being deposited during a significant flood in 1948, the Stehekin River had access 

to an overflow flood channel near the Stehekin River Resort. The channel permitted overflow from the 

right bank of the river (toward Silver Bay). At the logjam, where the channel is blocked, the main 

Stehekin River channel flows past the 1948 channel toward the left bank and then makes a large bend 

toward its right bank. Armoring along the left bank has been in place for many years. The unarmored 

portion of the bend is eroding rapidly and is exhibiting bank undercutting. At this location, where the 

erosion and undercutting is occurring, there is another low-lying channel that would allow the river to 

jump the left bank and flood the land and homes near it (toward the Stehekin Valley Road) during floods. 

It was postulated that this flow pattern caused the destruction of the Weaver Point docks (Chelan County 

2007). 
Appendices 

472 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

In this project, the 1948 channel was opened up to allow water from the Stehekin to pass by the area of 

erosion and undercutting toward the head of Lake Chelan. The purpose of the project was to allow high 

water to travel in a way that would protect the eroding bank, potentially alleviating flooding nearby, and 

reducing the force of floodwater exiting into upper Silver Bay (Chelan County 2007). 

This project was completed in the fall of 2007 on private land, through applicable permitting from state 

and federal agencies. In the fall of 2008, the 1948 channel closed again and after additional maintenance, 

was reopened in the fall of 2009. 

UPPER STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD, FLAT CREEK TO COTTONWOOD CAMP 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NPS 1997) 

The November 1995 flood severely damaged portions of the Stehekin Valley Road between Flat Creek 

and Cottonwood Camp. During the flood, the Stehekin River changed course and occupied approximately 

3,000 feet of the road, making it impassable. Following public review and comment the NPS decided to 

temporarily close the road and to reevaluate the damaged area every year for possible reconstruction. 

Since then, the river has continued to occupy the roadbed and the road remained closed at what is referred 

to as the “Glory” turnaround until the Upper Stehekin Valley Road EA (NPS 2006) closed the road at 

Car Wash Falls, just above High Bridge. 

Stehekin Ferry Landing Improvement Project Environmental Assessment (FONSI 

approved 05/07/2010) 

The purpose of this proposed action is to improve passenger safety and experience by providing yearround Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant universal access at the Stehekin Ferry Landing 

for all passengers traveling via the commercial ferry system. An important but secondary purpose is to 

improve passenger circulation and freight handling. 

This action is needed because for at least eight months out of the year the current docking facilities at the 

Stehekin Ferry Landing do not meet guidelines provided by the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 

Standards (ABAAS) or ADA. Once the lake level drops more than two feet below full elevation, the 

angle of the passenger gangway from the ferry to the shoreline exceeds the ADA-mandated maximum 

1:12 slope and can reach angles of 4:12 before ferry docking is shifted to the boat launch. Docking along 

the boat launch forces passengers to navigate an expanse of uneven terrain. There is no accessible route 

between primary transportation to or from Stehekin and additional transportation or facilities within 

Stehekin. The lack of accessibility is a notable problem since approximately 25 percent of commercial 

ferry passengers are over the age of 60 and/or have limited mobility. 

Future Proposed Environmental Assessments 

Title: Maintenance and Housing Facilities, including Solid Waste Treatment and Fire Cache 

Environmental Assessment 

Title: Reestablish Private Access From the Stehekin Valley or Company Creek Roads 

One or more environmental assessments could be needed if catastrophic loss of access to private property 

occurred as a result of flooding. As noted in the SRCIP, a set of criteria, to be identified, would be used 

to determine how to reestablish access. 

Title: “TBD Owner” Land Exchange 

One or more environmental assessments would be needed to implement future potential land exchanges 

between the National Park Service and private landowners in Stehekin. 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 473 

APPENDIX 6: SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE IMPACTS

Land Use: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate depending on the alternative) to 

minimize impacts to land use would be: 

 Clearly identifying the construction limits, to prevent expansion of construction operations 

into undisturbed areas. 

 Work with Chelan County on zoning and land use planning. 

 Minimizing disturbance from reroutes by incorporating toe walls at fill locations where 

feasible. 

 Retaining some sensitive lands previously proposed for exchange. 

 Reducing the number of acres within the lower valley offered for exchange. 

 Concentrating the maintenance and housing area developments. 

 Combining maintenance functions in buildings where possible. 

 Restoring the former maintenance and housing areas. 

 Limiting circulation space associated with new housing and maintenance areas to functional 

needs. 

 Minimizing clearing of vegetation associated with the road rehabilitation. 

 Continuing to acquire private lands in the floodplain and/or channel migration zone as 

identified by Land Protection Plan priorities. 

 Restoring some riparian areas to natural conditions. 

 Continuing to use conditions, covenants and deed restrictions (CCRs) on exchanged public 

lands when private development is proposed. 

Air Quality: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to 

minimize impacts to air quality would be: 

 Chipping or mulching vegetation on site rather than disposing of it offsite or burning it. 

 Spraying water over exposed soil, particularly during dry conditions to minimize fugitive dust 

on main roadway. 

 Covering trucks when transporting materials outside the project area to reduce or eliminate 

particle release during transport. 

 Encouraging contractor employees and National Park Service (NPS) employees to travel in 

groups to and from the project site (rather than in multiple separate vehicles). 

 Revegetating bare and staging areas as soon as possible (upon final grading or when staging 

area is no longer in use). 

 Minimizing the extent of vegetation removal associated with road rehabilitation. 

 Encouraging the use of local labor sources and large-volume material delivery to minimize 

trip generation during construction activity. 
Appendices 

474 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Not locating wood-burning stoves or fireplaces in buildings. 

 Using propane and solar devices for heating. 

 Using low VOC paints, solvents and other chemicals in building construction. 

 Encouraging idling of construction vehicles and equipment for periods of no longer than 15 

minutes when not in use. 

 Encouraging use of a biodiesel mix fuel rather than traditional diesel fuel. 

Soils: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize 

impacts to soils include: 

 Locating staging areas where they will minimize new disturbance of area soils and 

vegetation. 

 Minimizing ground disturbance to the extent practicable. 

 Minimizing construction along water courses during periods of heavy precipitation. 

 Minimizing driving over or compacting root-zones. 

 Using mats or plywood to minimize soil compaction impacts in sensitive areas or finegrained soils. 

 Salvaging topsoil and duff from excavated areas for use in re-covering source area or other 

project areas. 

 Windrowing topsoil at a height that will help to preserve soil microorganisms (less than three 

feet). 

 Covering salvaged topsoil with a breathable, water repellent fabric and anchoring perimeter 

to limit erosion. 

 Not leaving excavated soil alongside trees, and providing tree protection if needed for 

specimen trees. 

 Reusing excavated materials where possible in the project area. 

 Revegetating project areas through native seeding or planting. 

 Importing weed-free clean fill and topsoil. 

 Identifying clearing limits to minimize the amount of vegetation loss. 

 Clearing and grubbing only those areas where construction would occur. 

 Reusing topsoil from the reroute areas, to the extent practicable, to obliterate and revegetate 

abandoned road sections. 

 Preparing and approving a hazardous spill plan before construction begins. 

 Encouraging the use of vegetable oil in place of hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment. 
Appendix 6 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 475 

Vegetation: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to 

minimize impacts to vegetation include: 

 Minimizing construction limits and areas to be cleared, where possible. 

 Clearly identifying the construction limits, to prevent expansion of construction operations 

into undisturbed areas. 

 Rehabilitating or restoring road reroute clearing areas not occupied by the roadway. 

 Retaining specimen trees where possible adjacent to erosion protection sites and along the 

reroute/realignment areas (as identified by park staff). 

 Salvaging plant material, prior to construction, from areas to be disturbed. 

 Replanting salvaged plants on reroute side slopes and obliterated areas to accelerate site 

recovery and to reduce the opportunity for exotic species to establish (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

 Continuing to use CCRs associated with the development of exchanged lands to address 

clearing of vegetation; location and design of access roads and utilities; density, height, 

design and color of visible development; and access for management of natural and cultural 

resources. 

 Restoring staging and other temporarily impacted areas following construction. 

 Obliterating and revegetating abandoned road segments and areas disturbed by construction 

with native plant species. 

 Using bioengineering techniques such as willow layering to stabilize river banks. 

 Minimizing actions that affect endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species in the project 

area. 

 Keeping fill slopes as steep as possible where fill is proposed to raise the road to minimize 

the disturbance footprint. 

 Minimizing clearing of vegetation associated with reroutes by incorporating toe walls at 

appropriate locations (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

Noxious Weeds: Mitigation measures for preventing the spread of noxious weeds include: 

 Only importing freshly exposed subsurface materials. 

 Avoiding the use of stockpiled materials from the Company Creek Pit unless designated for 

the project. 

 Covering trucks when transporting materials outside the project area to reduce or eliminate 

particle release during transport. 

 Imported topsoil, fill and other construction materials capable of harboring seeds would be 

weed free, and would include certification if applicable. 

 Washing all vehicles having contact with soil or materials that may contain noxious weed 

seed prior to working in weed free areas or transporting weed free materials. 

 Covering stored soil and rock to prevent exposure to noxious weed seed. 

 Separating contaminated soil from weed free soil and using it for subsurface fill. 
Appendices 

476 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Conducting annual monitoring for potential weed infestation. 

 Identifying and controlling exotic plant species infestations prior to construction (especially 

associated with the airstrip and old roads). 

Water Resources: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to 

minimize impacts to water resources (including hydraulics and streamflow characteristics, water quality, 

wetlands, and floodplains) include: 

 Locating staging and stockpiling areas located away from the Stehekin River. 

 Delineating staging areas to prevent incremental expansion of the staging area. 

 Covering stockpiled fine-grained soil and rock near surface water and if overwintered with a 

breathable, water repellent fabric, such as silt fence, anchored around the perimeter. 

 Using temporary sediment control devices such as filter fabric fences, sediment traps, or 

check dams as needed during culvert replacement. 

 Identifying the area to be cleared to define extent and clearing only those areas necessary for 

construction. 

 Minimizing the amount of disturbed earth area and the duration of soil exposure to rainfall. 

 Using bioengineering to stabilize riverbanks where erosion protection measures are 

employed. 

 Minimizing soil disturbance and re-seeding or revegetating disturbed areas as soon as 

practical. 

 Using topsoil and duff from the reroute areas to rehabilitate (re-create habitat) the obliterated 

road segments and road shoulders where reroutes occur. 

 Scarifying slopes, if necessary, to slow erosion. 

 Stabilizing disturbed areas until seeding and/or revegetation takes hold. 

 Constructing temporary diversion devices such as swales, trenches, culverts, or drains to 

divert storm water runoff away from disturbed areas, including exposed slopes. 

 Using native duff and topsoil to cover exposed soil as soon as practical. 

 Installing protective construction fencing around, adjacent to, or near wetland and/or riparian 

areas that are to be protected or other erosion control measures to protect water resources in 

the project area. 

 Avoiding machinery use below the wetted perimeter of water bodies (work would be done 

from the bank) where possible. 

 For rock barbs, equipment (excavator) would be used from the bank to place rock below 

ordinary high water mark to reduce the potential for introducing pollutants, including possible 

leaks of hydraulic fluid or other substances from heavy equipment. 

 Using vegetable based hydraulic fluid in heavy equipment. 

 Limiting the duration of the instream work as much as possible. 

 Timing instream work to occur at lower flow periods (i.e., work would not occur during 

heavy river flows). 
Appendix 6 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 477 

 Minimizing creation of impervious surface. 

 Using a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities to 

control surface run-off, reduce erosion, and prevent sedimentation from entering water bodies 

during construction. 

 Developing and implementing a comprehensive spill prevention/response plan that complies 

with federal and state regulations and addresses all aspects of spill prevention, notification, 

emergency spill response strategies for spills occurring on land and water, reporting 

requirements, monitoring requirements, personnel responsibilities, response equipment type 

and location, and drills and training requirements. Using an oil and hazardous materials spill 

prevention, control, and countermeasure plan to address hazardous materials storage, spill 

prevention, and responses. 

Prevention of Fuel Spills: The following best management practices to control adverse impacts of fuel 

spills would also be used: 

 Refueling activities would be done at least 100 feet from the river and its tributaries or other 

surface water. 

 Areas where refueling or maintenance of equipment would occur would be identified and 

have containment devices such as temporary earth berms. 

 Absorbent pads would be available to clean up spills. 

 Restrictions on the location of fueling sites, requirements for spill containment, and other 

measures to safeguard aquatic and terrestrial habitat from construction-related contaminants 

would be identified. 

Wildlife: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize 

impacts to wildlife would include: 

 Scheduling construction activities with seasonal consideration of wildlife lifecycles to 

minimize impacts during sensitive periods (e.g., bird nesting and breeding seasons). The 

timing of the construction of rock barbs and other channel or bank stabilization measures, as 

well as extraction of large woody debris, could be limited to avoid spawning and other 

sensitive periods for fish and aquatic wildlife. 

 Minimizing the degree of habitat removal (vegetation clearing) by delineating construction 

limits. 

 Limiting the effects of light and noise on wildlife habitat through controls on construction 

equipment and timing of construction activities, such as limiting construction to daylight 

hours. 

 Requiring all equipment and motor vehicles to have working mufflers and/or sound 

attenuation devices. 

 Use of un-muffled engine brakes or Jake Brakes is prohibited in the park unless required for 

safety. 

 Use of air horns within the park would be limited to emergencies only. 

 Maintaining routes of escape for animals that might fall into excavated pits and trenches. If 

erosion control matting is used, only tightly woven fiber netting or nonbound materials (e.g., 
Appendices 

478 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

rice straw) would be used to ensure that small animals would not be trapped. No plastic 

netted materials would be used. 

 Using spill prevention measures to prevent inadvertent spills of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, 

antifreeze, and other toxic chemicals that could affect wildlife. 

 Discouraging construction personnel at work sites from providing a source of human food to 

wildlife, avoiding conditioning of wildlife and in human/wildlife conflicts. Title 36, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1, Section 2.10(d) prohibits anyone from leaving food 

unattended or stored improperly where it could attract or otherwise be available to wildlife. 

Title 36, CFR, Chapter 1, Section 2.14(a) prohibits the disposal of refuse in other than refuse 

receptacles. Title 36, CFR, Chapter 1, Section 2.2(a)(2) prohibits the feeding and molesting 

of wildlife. 

 Maintaining proper food storage, disposing of all food waste and food-related waste 

promptly, in a bear-resistant receptacle and removing all garbage off-site at the end of each 

working day. 

 Placing rock barbs from outside the wetted channel. Rock would be placed in the channel 

using heavy equipment from the road or bank above the ordinary high water mark. 

 Conducting informal inspections for aquatic species prior to removal of large woody debris 

from the tops of logjams. 

 Obtaining single pieces of large woody debris only from above the high water mark in a 

manner that would not destabilize the logjam. 

Special Status Species: The following conservation measures would be included in the proposed project 

(as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts related to northern spotted owls, bull trout, 

and other wildlife species were taken from the Biological Opinion (BO) produced by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS 2005) for the Road Improvement Project (NPS 2005): 

 Determining whether northern spotted owls or another special status species are nesting, and 

then whether or not the proposed action will affect the active nest or disrupt reproductive 

behavior. If it is determined that the action will not affect an active nest or disrupt breeding 

behavior, work will proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure. If it is determined 

that construction activities will affect an active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then 

avoidance strategies will be implemented. 

 If nesting is occurring, not conducting construction activities within a 0.7 mile radius of the 

nest site between March 1 (the beginning of the spotted owl nesting season) and September 6, 

depending on the age of the fledgling spotted owls, as follows: work can begin on or after 

September 6 or after four weeks have passed since fledging of the spotted owl(s), if any. This 

determination will be done by the North Cascades National Park Complex wildlife biologist. 

Without nesting, work can begin after July 1. 

 Not locating pullouts within line-of-sight of the area along the road that is immediately 

adjacent to the current spotted owl nest activity area if one is identified. 

 Placing rock barbs from outside the wetted channel. The rock will be placed in the channel 

using heavy equipment that will be on the road or bank above the ordinary high water line. 

 Storing food and garbage in wildlife-resistant containers during the day and removing all 

garbage off-site from project work areas at the end of each working day. 
Appendix 6 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 479 

The following reasonable and prudent measures with respect to northern spotted owls (developed by the 

USFWS in the Road Improvement Project Biological Opinion) would also be implemented as part of the 

project by NPS wildlife biologists: 

 Monitoring project implementation to ensure compliance with the conservation measures 

listed above, especially the seasonal timing restrictions and the final placement of the road 

near the spotted owl nest and reporting the results of this monitoring to the USFWS. A North 

Cascades Complex biologist would monitor the spotted owl nest to determine if the spotted 

owls produce young during the year(s) of project implementation. (Note: The biologist would 

also determine whether the spotted owl nest is occupied or has moved.) If young are 

discovered, then the biologist would estimate the age of the fledgling(s) as part of the timing 

restrictions described above. 

 Reporting progress of the proposed action and its impacts on federally threatened and 

endangered species, particularly northern spotted owls to the USFWS as specified in the 

incidental take statement in the BO in accordance with 50 CFR §13.45 and §18.27. 

 Reporting any dead or injured federally-listed species found in the action area within 24 

hours to a special agent of the USFWS, Division of Law Enforcement at (360) 753-7764, or 

to the USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife office at (360) 753-9440. 

 Notifying USFWS in writing within 3 working days of the accidental death of, or injury to, a 

northern spotted owl or of the finding of any dead or injured spotted owls during 

implementation of the proposed federal action. Notification must include the date, time, and 

location of the incident or discovery of a dead or injured spotted owl, as well as any pertinent 

information on circumstances surround the incident or discovery. The USFWS contact for 

this written information is the Manager for the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife office. 

Archeological Resources: Based on the NPS Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Association of State Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council (NPS 2008), the following 

measures would be included in the proposed project to minimize impacts to archeological resources: 

 Documenting the rock walls along the reroute (Alternative 2) using Historic American 

Engineering Record (HAER) criteria if these would be affected by proposed road 

construction. 

 Stopping work in the area of identification and nearby areas if archeological resources are 

discovered at any point during the project work (as directed by the park) until the find is 

evaluated and action taken to avoid or mitigate the impact. 

 When it is necessary to stop work due to archeological resources discovery, the contractor 

would cease all activities in the area of discovery; allow the archeologist to complete 

investigations; and take measures to protect the resources discovered as directed by the park. 

(During this time, work may proceed in unaffected areas.) 

 Avoiding further impact by modifying project implementation as needed at the site if 

archeological resources are discovered during implementation. If this is not possible, as much 

information as possible would be collected about the site in accordance with applicable laws 

and regulations and additional consultation with applicable agencies and tribes would occur 

as specified in the implementing regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA. 

 Determining if a monitoring plan is needed pending final construction plans, the cultural 

material that might be encountered, important archeological questions that could be 
Appendices 

480 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

addressed, and identifying a range of treatment options (e.g., avoidance, data recovery) for 

any findings. 

 Monitoring ground disturbing actions as appropriate during construction to ascertain 

presence/absence of archeological materials within the proposed construction zone. 

Monitoring would be focused where buried historical deposits might be present beneath 

existing development. The NPS archeologist would identify sites prior to construction. 

Evaluating the eligibility of the site under National Register of Historic Places criteria if 

monitoring results in the discovery of archeological materials. 

 Following procedures outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (NAGPRA) in the unlikely event that human remains or any objects protected under 

NAGPRA are exposed. This would include the potential need to stop work for a minimum of 

30 calendar days. (During that time, work may resume in nonsensitive areas.) 

Cultural Landscapes: The following measures would be included in the proposed project (as appropriate 

to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts to cultural landscapes: 

 Appropriate measures under archeological resources. 

 Ensuring that access to the Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture would be via existing 

roads and paths. 

Visitor Experience: The following measures would be included in the proposed project (as appropriate to 

the alternative actions) to minimize impacts to visitor and resident access and transportation, 

interpretation and education, resident and visitor use opportunities, scenic resources, and visitor, resident, 

and employee safety: 

 Allowing construction delays and one-lane closures to be no longer than 20 minutes per 

passage through the project (longer delays could be approved in advance). 

 Avoiding evening, weekend, and holiday work by requiring approval in advance. Longer 

construction delays or total road closures would also be approved in advance. 

 Distributing press releases to local media, locating signs in the recreation area and providing 

information on the boat to inform visitors about road conditions in the Lower Stehekin Valley 

during the project. 

 Using a public information program to warn of construction related road closures, delays, and 

road hazards. 

 Keeping a McGregor Meadows and Lower Field route open during re-route construction 

(Alternatives 2 and 3). 

 Providing notice to equestrians (e.g., Stehekin Valley Ranch) regarding conditions that could 

make the road temporarily impassable for horse crossing. 

 Managing vehicle traffic and contractor hauling of materials, supplies, and equipment within 

the construction zone to minimize disruptions in visitor traffic. 

 Developing a safety plan prior to the initiation of construction to ensure the safety of 

recreation area visitors, workers, residents, and park staff. 

 Minimizing dust during construction on public roadways (by minimizing soil disturbance, 

spraying water but no chemicals over disturbed soil areas during dry periods and revegetating 

disturbed soil areas as soon as practical following construction). 
Appendix 6 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 481 

Wild and Scenic River Values: The following measures would be included in the proposed project (as 

appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts to wild and scenic rivers. Mitigation measures 

would include those listed in the water resources, vegetation, wildlife, and visitor experience – scenic 

resources sections. 

Park Operations: Measures included in the proposed project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to 

minimize impacts to park operations would include: 

 Providing and maintaining emergency vehicle access through the project area during 

construction. 

 Coordinating work with park liaison to minimize disruption to normal park activities. 

 Monitoring construction activities to ensure adherence to mitigation measures. 

 Monitoring construction activities to provide recommendations to minimize impacts on park 

resources. 

 Conducting legal boundary surveys prior to scheduling work that may have the potential to 

affect private property. If necessary, easements would be negotiated. 

 Designing new building construction to be silver or greater Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) certified. 

 Using functional, energy efficient appliances, and heating and cooling systems in new 

buildings. 

 Designing efficient circulation spaces for new maintenance and housing areas. 

 Using contractors and term employees to facilitate short-term workload increases. 

 Providing emergency vehicle access through the project area during construction. 

Coordinating work with park staff to reduce disruption to normal activities. 

 Informing construction workers about the special sensitivity of park resources and values and 

regulations. 

 Providing an orientation to park resources for the contractor. 

 Encouraging park resource specialists to be involved in inspections and monitoring and 

providing recommendations during the road rehabilitation and facility construction work. 

Socioeconomics: The following measures would be included in the proposed project (as appropriate to 

the alternative actions) to minimize impacts to the socioeconomic environment: 

 Where possible projects would be combined or phased to allow for cost-savings measures 

related to staging remaining in place rather than setting up and taking down for sequential 

implementation actions. 

 New buildings would be constructed to silver or greater LEED standards to minimize longterm operations costs. 

 New buildings, facilities, and other improvements would use recycled or reused materials to 

the extent possible. 
Appendices 

482 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Hazardous Materials: The following best management practices would be included in the proposed 

project (as appropriate to the alternative actions) to minimize impacts from hazardous materials: 

 Conducting formal surveys of the existing maintenance area, including contacts with staff to 

determine if any unanticipated spill or disposal areas are present before removal of buildings 

or structures and associated development. 

 Wearing proper personal protective equipment for the nature of the hazardous materials 

identified in the surveys during all work in the affected area. 

 Refueling vehicles and equipment at least 100 feet from the river and its tributaries or other 

bodies of water. 

 Identifying areas where refueling or maintenance of equipment would occur and providing 

containment devices, such as temporary earth berms surrounding these areas. 

 Ensuring that spill clean-up materials, such as absorbent pads, are present onsite where 

needed. 

 Identifying the locations of fueling sites, requirements for spill containment, and other 

measures to safeguard aquatic and terrestrial habitat from construction-related contaminants. 

 Locating fuel storage tank outside of the floodplain / channel migration zone floodplains and 

other sensitive areas. 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 483 

APPENDIX 7: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACOE) ADVANCED 

FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES 
Appendices 

484 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 
Appendix 7 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 485 
Appendices 

486 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 
Appendix 7 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 487 
Appendices 

488 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 
Appendix 7 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 489 
Appendices 

490 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 
Appendix 7 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 491 
Appendices 

492 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 
Appendix 7 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 493 
Appendices 

494 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 495 

APPENDIX 8: VASCULAR PLANTS OBSERVED WITHIN PROPOSED 

PROJECT AREAS 

KEY

Abundance codes represent relative abundance of individual plant species within the area. 

 R-Rare is a few plants less than five individuals for the area surveyed. 

 U-Uncommon is a species which is greater than five plants but is only occasionally observed. 

 C-Common, species are found throughout the area surveyed. 

 A-Abundant, species that are found throughout the area surveyed and are a dominate species. 

PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE PARCELS

Stehekin Valley Ranch Area Abundance

Acer macrophyllum A

Achillea millefolium C

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Agoseris sp. U

Agrostis stolonifera C

Alnus rubra C

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Anaphalis margaritacea U

Angelica sp. U

Apocynum androsaemifolium U

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi U

Artemesia sp. U

Aster engelmannii C

Aster sp. U

Bromus inermus C

Calamagrostis rubescens U

Carex mertensii U

Castilleja miniata U

Centaurea sp. U

Chamerion angustifolium U

Chimaphila umbellata U

Cirsium edule U

Collomia heterophylla U

Cornus sericea C

Dactylus glomerata A

Disporum hookeri U

Elymus glaucus U

Equisitem arvense U

Erigeron foliosus U

Festuca sp. U

Galium triflorum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Hieracium gracile U

Lomatium brandegii U

Lonicera ciliosa U

Lonicera involucrata U
Appendices 

496 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Lunia nardosmia U

Lupinus latifolia C

Madia sp. U

Madia exugia U

Mahonia nervosa U

Microseris sp. U

Moehringia macrophylla C

Mycalis muralis C

Osmorhiza chilense C

Paxistima myrsinites U

Penstemon serrulatus U

Phacelia hastata U

Philadelphus lewisii C

Pinus ponderosa C

Plantago lanceolata C

Platanthera sp. U

Poa bulbosa A

Poa pratensis A

Populus balsamifera C

Prunella vugalare U

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Pseudoregneria spicatum A

Pteridium aquilinum C

Ribes sanguineum U

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rumex acetosa C

Sambucus racemosa C

Sanicula crassicaulis U

Sanicula bipinnata U

Smilacina racemosa U

Solidago sp. U

Spirea betula U

Stipa lemmonii U

Symphoricarpos albus C

Taraxacum officinale C

Taxux brevifolia U

Tragopogon sp. U

Trifolium pratense C

Trifolium repens C

Vaccinium membranaceum U

Verbascum thapsus U

Viola sp. U

McGregor Meadows Abundance

Acer douglasii C

Acer macrophyllum C

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Agoseris sp. U

Amelanchier alnifolia C

Apocynum androsaemifolium C

Arnica cordifolia C

Asarum caudatum U

Aster engelmannii C

Athyrium filix-femina U

Balsamorhiza sagittata U
Appendix 8 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 497 

Calamagrostis rubescens C

Carex rossii U

Collinsia sparsiflora U

Cornus nuttallii A

Delphinium nuttallianum U

Disporum hookeri U

Elymus glaucus C

Festuca idahoensis A

Galium triflorum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Lupinus latifolia U

Mahonia nervosa C

Moehringia macrophylla C

Mycelis muralis A

Orthilia secunda U

Osmorhiza chilense U

Paxistima myrsinites U

Penstemon serrulatus U

Philadelphus lewisii C

Pinus ponderosa C

Polystichum munitum U

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Pteridium aquilinum C

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus ursinus U

Sanicula bipinnatifida U

Silene seelyi U

Spirea betula C

Symphoricarpos albus C

North Parcel - 3 parcels

Acer macrophyllum

Achillea millefolium

Amelanchier alnifolia

Apocynum androsaemifolium

Apodosis densa

Athyrium filix-femina

Bromus tectorum

Carex rossii

Chamerion angustifolium

Collomia sp.

Cornus nuttallii

Cryptogramma crispa

Dactylus glomerata

Elymus glaucus

Hieracium sp.

Holodiscus discolor

Juncus sp.

Lomatium brandegii

Mahonia nervosa

Moehringia macrophylla

Paxistima myrsinites

Pinus ponderosa

Plantago lanceolata
Appendices 

498 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Poa bulbosa

Poa pratensis

Pseudoregneria spicatum

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Rubus ursinus

Sambucus racemosa

SANCRA

Tragopogon dubius

Taraxacum officinale

Vaccinium membranaceum

McGregor Meadows Abundance

Acer douglasii C

Acer macrophyllum C

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Agoseris sp. U

Amelanchier alnifolia C

Apocynum androsaemifolium C

Arnica cordifolia C

Asarum caudatum U

Aster engelmannii C

Athyrium filix-femina U

Balsamorhiza sagittata U

Calamagrostis rubescens C

Carex rossii U

Collinsia sparsiflora U

Cornus nuttallii A

Delphinium nuttallianum U

Disporum hookeri U

Elymus glaucus C

Festuca idahoensis A

Galium triflorum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Lupinus latifolia U

Mahonia nervosa C

Moehringia macrophylla C

Mycelis muralis A

Orthilia secunda U

Osmorhiza chilense U

Paxistima myrsinites U

Penstemon serrulatus U

Philadelphus lewisii C

Pinus ponderosa C

Polystichum munitum U

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Pteridium aquilinum C

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus ursinus U

Sanicula bipinnatifida U

Silene seelyi U

Spirea betula C

Symphoricarpos albus C
Appendix 8 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 499 

Skinny Wilson's Abundance

Acer circinatum C

Acer macrophyllum C

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Agrostis capillaris C

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Apocynum androsaemifolium U

Iris sp. C

Calamagrostis rubescens C

Chimaphila umbellata U

Convallaria sp. C

Cornus nuttallii U

Cytisus scoparius C

Dactylus glomerata A

Dianthus barbatus C

Disporum hookeri U

Elymus glaucus C

Galium triflorum U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Lathyrus latifolius C

Linaria sp. U

Lonicera ciliosa U

Lupinus latifolia U

Mahonia nervosa C

Osmorhiza chilense U

Paxistima myrsinites U

Phleum pratense C

Prunus emarginata C

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Pteridium aquilinum C

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus parviflorus U

Rubus ursinus U

Sambucus racemosa C

Smilacina racemosa U

Spirea betula C

Taraxacum officinale C

Thuja plicata C

Trifolium pratense C

Trifolium repens C

Vinca major A

Viola sp. U

Getty/Griffin/Dineen Properties Abundance

Acer macrophyllum C

Achillea millefolium C

Agropyron repens C

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Arctostaphylos nevadensis U

Aspidotis densa R

Aster engelmannii C

Bromus hordeaceus U

Bromus tectorum C

Calamagrostis rubescens U

Carex rossii R
Appendices 

500 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Centaurea sp. U

Collinsia sparsiflora R

Collomia grandiflora R

Collomia linearis R

Dactylus glomerata C

Elymus glaucus C

Equisetum sp. R

Festuca idahoensis U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Hieracium scouleri U

Holodiscus discolor U

Koeleria cristata U

Lathyrus latifolius U

Syringa vulgaris U

Lomatium brandegii U

Moehringia macrophylla C

Mahonia nervosa U

Melilotus alba U

Meticago sativa U

Montia parviflora U

Osmorhiza chilense U

Paxistima myrsinites U

Penstemon serrulatus U

Pinus ponderosa C

Poa bulbosa C

Prunus emarginata U

Pseudotsuga menziesii C

Pteridium aquilinum U

Rubus discolor U

Rubus luecodermis U

Rumex acetosa C

Sambucus racemosa U

Symphorocarpus alba U

Trifolium repens C

Vinca major C

Vulpia sp. U

Riverside Park Abundance

Acer circinatum A

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Artemesia sp. U

Asarum caudatum U

Calypso bulbosa U

Chimaphila umbellata U

Disporum hookeri U

Festuca sp. U

Galium triflorum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Lonicera ciliosa U

Philadelphus lewisii C

Populus balsamifera C

Pteridium aquilinum C
Appendix 8 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 501 

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus parviflorus C

Smilacina racemosa U

Trillium ovatum U

Trisetum cernuum U

dense Acer circinatum thickets

Behind school Abundance

Acer macrophyllum C

Achillea millefolium U

Acnatherum lemmonii U

Agoseris sp. U

Antenaria sp. U

Arctostaphylos nevadensis U

Brodiaea sp. U

Calamagrostis rubescens U

Carex rossii U

Cheilanthes gracillima U

Collinsia sp. U

Collomis linearis U

Cytisus scoparius U

Dactylus glomerata C

Elymus glaucus U

Festuca idahoensis U

Hieracium scouleri U

Koeleria cristata U

Mahonia nervosa U

Moehringia macrophylla U

Penstemon serrulatus U

Poa pratensis C

Polystichum munitum U

Pseudoregneria spicatum U

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Pteridium aquilinum U

Spirea betula U

Taraxacum officinale U

Vulpia bromoides A

Keller Park / Castle Abundance

Abies grandis A

Acer circinatum A

Acer macrophyllum A

Achillea millefolium U

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Agoseris sp. U

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Anaphalis margaritacea U

Artemesia sp. U

Aster engelmannii C

Bromus tectorum A

Ceanothus sanguineus C

Collomia linearis R
Appendices 

502 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Cornus nuttallii U

Dactylus glomerata A

Elymus glaucus A

Festuca idahoensis A

Festuca scabrella A

Galium triflorum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Hieracium scouleri C

Holodiscus discolor C

Lonicera ciliosa C

Mahonia nervosa C

Moehringia macrophylla C

Oryzopsis exigua R

Osmorhiza chilense U

Paxistima myrsinites U

Penstemon sp. U

Philadelphus lewisii U

Pinus ponderosa C

Poa commutata C

Poa pratensis C

Polystichum munitum U

Pseudoregneria spicatum C

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Pteridium aquilinum U

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus luecodermis U

Rubus ursinus U

Smilacina sp. U

Spirea betula C

Symphorocarpus alba C

Tragopogon dubius U

Taraxacum officinale U

Trifolium pratense C

Peterson Property Abundance Origin

Trees

Abies grandis C N

Acer macrophyllum A N

Cornus nuttallii U N

Pinus ponderosa U N

Populus balsamifera ssp. 

trichocarpa

C N

Pseudotsuga menziesii var. 

menziesii

A N

Shrubs

Acer circinatum C N

Amelanchier alnifolia U N

Berberis aquifolium C N

Berberis repens R N

Cornus sericea ssp. sericea U N

Holodiscus discolor C N

Paxistima myrsinites C N

Philadelphus lewisii C N

Rosa gymnocarpa C N

Rubus parviflorus var. 

parviflorus

U N

Rubus ursinus ssp. 

macropetalus

A N
Appendix 8 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 503 

Sambucus cerulea var. 

cerulea

U N

Spiraea betulifolia var. lucida U N

Symphoricarpos albus var. 

laevigatus

C N

Graminoids

Bromus mollis C E

Bromus tectorum U E

Calamagrostis rubescens U N

Carex geyeri U N

Dactylis glomerata C E

Elymus glaucus ssp. glaucus C N

Elymus repens A E

Festuca idahoensis var. 

idahoensis

U N

Festuca rubra ssp. rubra U E

Melica subulata var. subulata U N

Poa pratensis C E

Stipa occidentalis var. minor R N

Trisetum canescens R N

Ferns/Allies

Pteridium aquilinum var. 

pubescens

A N

Herbs

Achillea millefolium U N

Adenocaulon bicolor U N

Agoseris heterophylla var. 

heterophylla

U N

Chimaphila umbellata var. 

occidentalis

U N

Corallorrhiza maculata var. 

maculata

R N

Cryptantha sp. R N

Disporum hookeri U N

Eucephalus engelmannii C N

Fragaria vesca U N

Galium triflorum U N

Gnaphalium microcephalum 

var. thermale

U N

Habenaria sp. R N

Hieracium albiflorum C N

Hieracium scouleri U N

Holosteum umbellatum U N

Lactuca muralis U E

Linaria vulgaris U E

Maianthemum racemosum 

ssp. racemosum

U N

Microsteris gracilis U N

Microsteris gracilis var. 

humilior

U N

Moehringia macrophylla U N

Osmorhiza chilensis C N

Plantago lanceolata C E

Rumex acetosella C E

Sanicula sp. R N

Taraxacum officinale U E

Thalictrum occidentale U N

Tragopogon dubius U E

Trifolium pratense U E

Trifolium repens U E

Veronica arvensis U N
Appendices 

504 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Ward Property Abundance Origin

Trees

Abies grandis C N

Acer macrophyllum C N

Cornus nuttallii A N

Pinus ponderosa R N

Pseudotsuga menziesii var. 

menziesii

A N

Shrubs

Amelanchier alnifolia C N

Arctostaphylos nevadensis U N

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi U N

Berberis aquifolium C N

Berberis repens R N

Ceanothus velutinus U N

Paxistima myrsinites U N

Philadelphus lewisii U N

Rosa gymnocarpa U N

Rubus leucodermis U N

Spiraea betulifolia var. lucida U N

Symphoricarpos albus var. 

laevigatus

C N

Graminoids

Bromus tectorum U E

Calamagrostis rubescens C N

Carex geyeri C N

Deschammpsia elongata R N

Elymus glaucus ssp. glaucus C N

Festuca occidentalis U N

Mellica subulata var. subulata U N

Poa pratensis U E

Pseudoroegneria spicata U N

Stipa occidentalis var. minor U N

Ferns &Allies

Pteridium aquilinum C N

Herbs & Forbs

Achillea millefolium U N

Adenocaulon bicolor U N

Apocynum androsaemifolium C N

Arenaria macrophylla U N

Asarum caudatum U N

Collinsia parviflora U N

Collomia grandiflora U N

Galium triflorum U N

Gnaphalium microcephalum 

var. thermale

U N

Goodyera oblongifolia U N

Hieracium albiflorum C N

Hieracium scouleri C N

Holosteum umbellatum U N

Lomatium brandegeei U N

Lomatium triternatum ssp. 

platycarpum

U N

Lonicera ciliosa C N

Osmorhiza chilensis C N

Rumex acetosella U E

Taraxacum officinale U E

Viola glabella R N
Appendix 8 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 505 

CAMPS

Purple Point Horse Camp Abundance

Achillea millefolium U

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Calamagrostis rubescens A

Elymus glaucus A

Festuca sp. A

Hieracium scouleri U

Lonicera ciliosa U

Moehringia macrophylla U

Pinus ponderosa A

Poa pratensis A

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Symphorocarpus alba U

Bullion Camp Abundance

Acer macrophyllum A

Achillea millefolium U

Amelanchier alnifolia A

Arctostaphylos nevadensis U

Aster engelmannii C

Calamagrostis rubescens C

Carex rossii U

Castilleja miniata U

Ceanothus sanguineus C

Chamerion angustifolium C

Collomis linearis U

Collinsia sparsiflora U

Comandra umbellatum C

Elymus glaucus A

Epilobium minutum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Hieracium scouleri U

Holodiscus discolor C

Lomatium brandegii U

Lupinus latifolia C

Mahonia nervosa U

Paxistima myrsinites C

Pinus ponderosa A

Poa pratensis A

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Rumex acetocella C

Sambucus racemosa U

Spirea betula U

Proposed Rainbow Falls Camp Abundance

Achillea millefolium U

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Apocynum androsaemifolium U

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi C

Aspidotis densa U

Bromus tectorum A

Calamagrostis rubescens C
Appendices 

506 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Carex rossii U

Collomia heterophylla U

Hieracium albiflorum U

Hieracium scouleri U

Holodiscus discolor C

Paxistima myrsinites C

Penstemon serrulatus U

Pinus ponderosa A

Poa pratensis A

Polystichum munitum U

Pseudoregneria spicatum C

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Spirea betula C

Vulpia bromoides C

Purple Point Overflow Abundance

Achillea millefolium U

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Calamagrostis rubescens C

Elymus glaucus C

Festuca sp. C

Hieracium scouleri U

Lonicera ciliosa U

Pinus ponderosa A

Poa pratensis A

Pseudotsuga menziesii A

Symphorocarpus alba C

Proposed Company Creek Camp Abundance

Abies grandis U

Acer circinatum A

Acer glabrum A

Achillea millefolium C

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Alnus rubra A

Amelanchier alnifolia C

Apocynum androsaemifolium C

Arctostaphylos nevadensis U

Arnica cordifolia C

Arnica latifolia C

Asarum caudatum U

Aster sp. U

Athyrium filix-femina R

Calamagrostis rubescens U

Carex rossii R

Chimaphila umbellata U

Clintonia uliflora U

Cornus nuttallii C

Cornus sericea C

Disporum hookeri U

Elymus glaucus A

Festuca idahoensis A

Galium aparine U

Goodyera oblongifolia U
Appendix 8 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 507 

Hieracium albiflorum U

Holodiscus discolor C

Lilium sp. R

Lonicera hispidula U

Mahonia nervosa U

Oplopanax horridus C

Orthilia secunda U

Osmorhiza chilense C

Paxistima myrsinites C

Pinus monticola R

Pinus ponderosa U

Populus balsamifera U

Pseudoregneria spicatum C

Pseudotsuga menziesii C

Pteridium aquilinum U

Pyrola asarifolia U

Pyrola picta U

Rhamnus purshiana U

Ribes sanguineum U

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus parviflorus U

Rubus ursinus U

Salix scouleri U

Sambucus racemosa U

Streptopus sp. R

Symphoricarpos albus C

Thuja plicata C

Trillium ovatum U

Trisetum cernuum R

Viola sempervirens R

Company Creek Camp Abundance

Acer macrophyllum C

Achillea millefolium C

Acnatherum lemmonii U

Agoseris sp. R

Amelanchier alnifolia U

Anaphalis margaritacea U

Antennaria sp. U

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi C

Bromus tectorum A

Cares rossii U

Carex sp. U

Centaurea sp. U

Collinsia sparsiflora U

Collomia linearis U

Dactylus glomerata A

Elymus repens A

Hieracium scouleri C

Holodiscus discolor U

Luina media U

Mahonia nervosa U

Moehringia macrophylla C

Philadelphus lewisii C

Plantago lanceolata C
Appendices 

508 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Poa bulbosa A

Poa pratensis A

Pseudoregneria spicatum A

Pseudotsuga menziesii C

Rosa gymnocarpa U

Rubus ursinus U

Rumex acetosa C

Salix sp. U

Spirea betula U

Taraxacum officinale C

Tragopogon dubius C

Vulpia bromoides A

RAFT LAUNCH

Stehekin River Mouth Abundance

Abies grandis A

Acer circinatum A

Acer macrophyllum A

Adenocaulon bicolor U

Asarum caudatum R

Athyrium filix-femina R

Carex deweyana C

Cornus nuttallii C

Disporum hookeri U

Equisetum sp. A

Galium triflorum U

Goodyera oblongifolia U

Lonicera ciliosa U

Philadelphus lewisii U

Populus balsamifera A

Rosa sp. U

Rubus parviflorus C

Rubus ursinus U

Rumex sp. C

Smilacina sp. U

Symphorocarpus alba U

Thuja plicata A

Trillium ovatum U

Viola sp. U
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 509 

APPENDIX 9: PROPOSED CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND DEED 

RESTRICTIONS (CCRS) 

 All site development and building construction plans would be reviewed and approved by the 

National Park Service. 

 The primary residential building would not exceed 30 feet in height and accessory buildings 

would not exceed 25 feet in height. 

 Cottage craft uses would be limited to hand manufactured art objects and personal use 

products. 

 Proposed new construction could be of a contemporary design, construction, and color that 

blends with other structures in the Valley. New construction would be in harmony and 

continuity with the Valley’s traditional character and style, scale and orientation, color, and 

texture of exterior surface. 

 Structures would be screened to be unobtrusive from public use roads, trails, and viewpoints, 

including from the Stehekin Valley Road. 

 Energy efficient standards would be incorporated to the extent possible. 

 No building would be served by aerial (overhead) electric or utility lines. 

 All construction would comply with local, state, and federal ordinances and regulations. 

 Native noninvasive species would be used for any plantings and any invasive nonnative 

species would be eliminated. 

 No mobile homes, travel trailers, or similar would be used even temporarily unless approved 

by the National Park Service. 

 No rubbish, junked or salvaged equipment, vehicles, or other materials would be disposed of 

or accumulate on the property. 

 The location of radio antenna towers taller than the roof peak of the primary building on the 

site or of dish antennas would require approval by the National Park Service. 

 Except as needed for approved construction, there would be no cutting, destroying, or 

removing of trees, live or dead, 12 inches in diameter or larger, at 4.5 feet (diameter breast 

high), unless approved by the National Park Service. 

 Pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals for weed and pest control for other than household 

uses would be prohibited. 

 State and local laws, ordinances, and regulations would be enforceable on these premises and 

would apply to all parties using the premises. 

 The property could not be subdivided. 

 The National Park Service could enter the property, with prior notification, to inspect for 

compliance with deed restrictions. 

 Property would be used primarily for residential purposes, including cottage craft uses. 
Appendices 

510 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Residential development would consist of one single-family residence with a footprint not to 

exceed 2,500 square feet (excluding basement). 

 Residential uses may include gardening. 

 Additional conditions covenants and restrictions would be determined on a case-by-case basis 

by the National Park Service. 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 511 

APPENDIX 10: 1995 LAND PROTECTION PLAN RANKING OF 

PRIVATE LANDS 

Tract Name Acres Priority

01-100 Wall 23.3 High

01-101 Barnhart 7.21 High

01-102 McKellar 5.5 High

01-103 Lewman 30.8 High

02-102 Brewster Hgts 0.7 Medium

02-104 Blue Grade Par. 6.65 High

02-105 Pinnow 17.9 High

02-106 Kinman, et ux 0.3 Medium

02-107 Blue Grade Par. 2.49 High

02-108 Blue Grade Par. 2.35 High

02-109 Blue Grade Par. 6.28 High

03-100 Stifter 40.07 High

03-108 Stevens 0.11 Low

03-125 Clayson 1 High

03-131 Purple Cr. 0.16 Low

04-100 Hegge 1.73 High

04-101 Hegge 1.73 High

04-102 Flint 1.74 High

04-103 Thompson 5 High

04-104 Darvill 4.24 High

04-105 Williams 0.37 Low

04-106 Bell 4.24 High

04-108 Waddell 0.59 Low

04-110 Peterson 0.5 Low

04-112 Blomberg 4.09 High

04-114 Clark 10 High

04-116 Ste. R. Resort 10.28 High

04-117 Moriarity 0.14 Low

04-120 Blackburn 0.69 Low

04-124 McLean 0.58 Low

04-127 Bluhm 0.2 Low

04-128 Bridges 0.34 Low

04-130 Pearl 0.36 Low

Tract Name Acres Priority

04-131 Parks 0.21 Low

04-136 Carleton 0.2 Low

04-137 Katz 0.18 Low

04-139 Glenn 0.71 Medium

04-143 Behie 0.33 Low

04-144 Pritt 0.28 Low

04-145 Freeman 0.22 Low

04-147 Hubbard 0.2 Low

04-148 Dinwiddie 0.62 Low

04-149 Harvey 0.24 Low

04-150 Dinwiddie 0.24 Low

04-153 The Cedar 

Company

0.2 Low

04-154 Buehler 0.53 Medium

04-155 Bohn 0.32 Medium

04-156 Williams 0.64 Medium

04-157 Stehekin Chapel 0.55 Medium

04-158 Higgins 0.48 Medium

04-162 Morehead 0.55 Medium

04-163 Hayes 0.71 Medium

04-164 Glenn 0.2 Medium

04-165 Loynes 0.52 Low

04-166 Blackburn 0.66 Low

04-172 Parks 0.72 Low

04-173 Blackburn 0.75 Low

04-177 Graham 0.48 Low

04-178 Calvin 0.48 Low

04-179 Gaukroger 1.1 High

04-181 Parks 0.03 Low

04-184 Mathews 0.48 Low

04-186 Harvey 0.21 Low

04-187 Holcomb 0.35 Low

04-188 Parks 3.65 High

04-189 Dinwiddie 0.22 Low
Appendices 

512 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Tract Name Acres Priority

04-190 Courtney 0.18 Low

04-191 Libby 0.38 Low

04-192 Karapostoles 0.38 Low

04-193 Parsons 1.24 Medium

04-194 Lesmeister 0.48 Low

04-195 Theubet 0.48 Low

04-196 Clayson 0.25 Low

04-197 Kelly 0.48 Low

04-198 Baker 0.48 Low

04-199 Robson 0.48 Low

05-102 Kelly 1.68 High

05-104 Gans 2 Medium

05-107 Sherer 27 High

05-108 Bowles 1.52 High

05-109 Spirk 0.76 Low

05-110 Malone 0.76 Low

05-111 Mathews 0.76 Low

05-112 Jacobson 0.76 Low

05-113 Weagant 0.76 Low

05-119 Hammett 0.7 Low

05-120 Scutt 0.76 Low

05-121 Courtney 5.46 High

05-124 Morehead 0.21 Low

05-125 Caffell 0.41 Low

05-126 Denning 0.85 Low

05-127 Torcaso 0.85 Low

05-128 Stewart 0.85 Low

05-130 Courtney 0.43 Low

05-133 Staley 0.85 Low

05-135 Beuhler 27.65 High

05-136 Saul 0.36 Medium

05-140 Hayes 2.13 High

05-141 Sargo 2.17 High

05-142 Gans 2.48 High

05-144 Morehead 0.21 Low

05-145 Hutson 0.65 Low

Tract Name Acres Priority

05-147 Morehead 0.42 Low

05-148 Stone 0.77 High

05-150 Courtney 0.58 Low

05-157 Hammett 2.99 High

05-158 Breeze 3.03 High

05-159 Warner 1.21 High

05-160 Breeze 1.65 High

06-102 Fultz 4.06 High

06-106 McConnell 2.9 Medium

06-111 Boyd 0.21 Low

06-113 Miles 0.18 Low

06-114 Stevens 0.24 Low

06-116 Bardin 0.7 Low

06-119 Peterson 6.7 High

06-120 Gianulis 0.32 Low

07-100 McConnell 4.36 Medium

07-105 Blomberg 0.59 Low

07-107 Courtney 1.12 High

07-109 McKinley 0.71 Low

07-110 Webb 0.68 Low

07-112 Avery 0.66 Low

07-114 Wilsey 4 High

07-116 Neuzil 1.6 High

07-121 Williams 0.41 Low

07-122 Williams 2.32 High

07-124 Ralphs 1.18 High

07-125 Stegeman 2.07 High

07-127 Winkel 2.18 High

07-130 Linston 2 High

07-131 Bingham 0.97 Low

07-133 Winkel 6.89 High

07-138 Scutt 2 High

07-142 Scherer 9.95 High

07-145 Pitts 0.97 Low

07-147 Pitts 0.71 Low

07-149 Jenkins 0.61 Low
Appendix 10 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 513 

Tract Name Acres Priority

07-150 Barnhart 1.01 High

07-153 Fellows 0.9 Low

07-157 Leader 28.7 High

07-161 Quoidbach 0.63 Low

07-166 Taylor 0.32 Low

07-168 Pitts 0.47 Low

07-172 Dickerson 1.24 High

07-176 Baker 2.48 High

07-177 Otto 0.64 Low

07-179 Nawalinski 0.9 Low

07-184 Quoidbach 0.8 Low

07-185 Byerly 0.97 Low

07-186 Mitchell 3.53 High

07-187 O'Neal 0.1 Low

07-188 Unknown 0.61 Low

Tract Name Acres Priority

07-189 Ralphs 0.58 Low

07-190 Morrison 0.53 Low

07-191 Garfoot 2.99 High

07-192 Robbins 1.42 High

07-193 Courtney 1.98 High

07-194 Courtney 2.02 High

07-195 Courtney 2.01 High

07-196 Courtney 2.01 High

07-197 Courtney 2.02 High

07-198 Courtney 2.02 High

07-199 Danielson 4.97 High

07-200 Bowles 1.74 Medium

07-201 Ramos 3 Medium

08-101 Courtney 20 High

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 515 

APPENDIX 11: ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3 PROPOSED RANKING OF 

PRIVATE LANDS FOR THE REVISED LAND PROTECTION PLAN 

Tract Name Acres Priority

01-101 Barnhart, Michael J. et ux 8.38 High

01-102 McKellar, Richard V., et al 6.39 High

01-103 Lewman, Darrel, et al 30.72 High

02-102 C& M I, LLC 0.70 Low

02-104 Kaminski, Perry 6.65 High

02-105 Pinnow, Edward M., et al 17.90 High

02-106 Kinman, David, F., et us 0.30 Medium

02-107 Kaminski, Perry 2.49 Medium

02-108 Britt, James M., et us 2.35 High

02-109 McMurry, John, et ux 6.28 Medium

03-100 Stifter, William F., et ux 12.95 Medium

03-108 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.11 Medium

03-125 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 1.00 High

03-131 Purple Creek Corp. 0.16 Medium

04-100 Hegge, Gary L., et ux 1.73 Medium

04-101 Hegge, Gary L., Trustee 1.73 Medium

04-102 Bouslaugh, Tom A., et ux 1.74 Medium

04-104 Darvill, Fred T., Jr. 4.31 High

04-105 Ellis, James L., et ux 0.37 Medium

04-106 Bell, Lloyd 3.65 High

04-108 Bishop, James L., et ux 0.59 Medium

04-110 Petersen, Gregory H., et al 0.50 Medium

04-112 McGinness, Collin 4.09 High

04-114 Clark, James D. 1.69 Medium

04-115 Weavtel LLC 1.69 Medium

04-116 Morse Resort Inc. 11.67 High

04-117 Fesler, Rick L., et ux 0.14 Medium

04-120 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.69 High

04-121 Clark, Judith 6.62 High

04-124 McLean, Mark A 0.58 High

04-127 Griffiths, William S., et al 0.20 Medium

04-128 Bridges, Ardee M., et al 0.16 High

04-130 Pearl, Warren L. 0.36 Medium
Appendices 

516 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Tract Name Acres Priority

04-131 Parks, Terry V. 0.21 Low

04-136 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.20 Medium

04-137 Stewart, Mark P. 0.18 Medium

04-139 Glenn, Nicholas A. 0.91 Medium

04-143 Sherman, Angela C. 0.33 Medium

04-144 Breeze, William E. 0.28 High

04-145 Freeman, Lillian A., et al 0.22 High

04-147 Hubbard, Duane L., et ux 0.20 High

04-148 Dinwiddie, Randall R. 0.70 High

04-149 Harvey, Curtis S., et al 0.24 High

04-150 Dinwiddie, Randall R., et ux 0.24 High

04-153 Libbey, Caroline L. 0.20 Medium

04-154 Buehler, Walter E., et al, Trustees 0.53 High

04-155 Bohn, Willis C., et al, Trustees 0.32 High

04-156 Liberty, Janet L., et al 0.64 High

04-157 First United Methodist Church 0.55 High

04-158 Higgins, Ben C., et al 0.48 High

04-162 Morehead, Harriet O., Trustee 0.55 Medium

04-163 Hazell, Marjorie J. 0.71 Medium

04-165 Cook, Melanie J., et al 0.56 Medium

04-166 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.66 Medium

04-169 Parks, Terry 0.42 Medium

04-172 Parks, Terry 0.72 Medium

04-173 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.75 Medium

04-177 Kelly, Patrick J., et al 0.48 Medium

04-178 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 0.48 Medium

04-179 Gaukroger, James G. 0.55 Medium

04-180 Gaukroger, Robin R. 0.55 Medium

04-181 Parks, Terry 0.03 Medium

04-183 Griffith, Jimmy E., et al 0.18 High

04-184 Gordon, Carole B., Custodian 0.48 High

04-186 Skidz LLC 0.21 Medium

04-187 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.35 High

04-188 Parks, Terry 3.65 High

04-189 Noble, Daniel, et ux 0.22 High

04-190 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 0.18 Medium
Appendix 11 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 517 

Tract Name Acres Priority

04-191 Libbey, Caroline 0.38 Medium

04-192 Karapostoles, Caitlin, et al 1.00 Medium

04-193 Parsons, Jeffrey L., et ux 1.18 Medium

04-194 Courtney, Mistaya M. (CP) 0.48 Medium

04-195 Theubet, James H., Trustee 0.48 Medium

04-197 Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 0.48 Medium

04-198 Seemiller, Joseph 0.48 Medium

04-199 Griffith, Frederick L., et al 0.48 Medium

05-102 Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 1.68 Medium

05-104 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2.00 Medium

05-107 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 4.05 High

05-109 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 0.76 Medium

05-110 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 0.76 Medium

05-111 Mathews, Don D., et ux 0.76 Medium

05-112 Jacobson, Neal, et ux 0.76 Medium

05-113 Weagent, Rodney W., et al 0.76 High

05-119 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.70 Medium

05-120 Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 0.76 High

05-121 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 6.76 High

05-123 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 22.15 High

05-124 Morehead, Dwight T., et ux 0.21 Medium

05-125 Courtney, Reed 0.41 Medium

05-126 Denning, Michael 0.85 Low

05-127 Hudak, Renee Y., et al 0.85 Medium

05-128 Ward (Stewart), Norma V. 0.85 Medium

05-130 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.43 Medium

05-132 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 7.15 Medium

05-133 Staley, James E., et al 0.85 High

05-135 Buehler, Thomas M., et al 27.65 Medium

05-136 Nielsen, Robert C., et ux 0.34 Medium

05-140 Hayes, Adrienne, et al 2.13 Medium

05-141 Sargo, Herbert J., et al 2.17 High

05-142 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2.48 High

05-144 Morehead, Lawrence E., et ux 0.21 Medium

05-145 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.65 Medium

05-147 Morehead, Kenneth, et ux 0.42 Medium
Appendices 

518 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Tract Name Acres Priority

05-150 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.58 Medium

05-157 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 2.99 Medium

05-158 Gaskill, Karl B. 3.03 Medium

05-159 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.21 Medium

05-160 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.65 Medium

06-102 Fultz, Elizabeth R. 4.06 High

06-106 Ward, Vince, et ux 2.90 Medium

06-111 Boyd, Gail C. 0.21 Medium

06-113 Miles, Michael, R. 0.18 High

06-114 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.24 Medium

06-116 Gempko, Vicki et vir 0.70 High

06-119 Peterson, B. Jean 6.70 High

06-120 Gianulis, Deborah A., et al 0.32 Medium

07-100 McConnell, Carolyn A. 4.36 High

07-105 Blomberg, John 0.50 Medium

07-107 Courtney, James O., Trustee 1.12 High

07-109 Mundal, Anne S., et al 0.71 High

07-110 Walker, Allan E., III, et al, Trustees 0.68 High

07-114 Duke, Loretta 2.15 High

07-115 Thompson, Laura J., et al 2.15 Medium

07-116 Neuzil Family Trust 1.60 High

07-121 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 0.41 Medium

07-122 Saulsbury, David, et ux 2.32 High

07-124 Goold, Jeffrey B., et al 1.18 Medium

07-125 Evans, Linda R., et al 2.48 High

07-127 Winkel, Walter G. 2.18 High

07-130 Burhen, William S. 2.00 High

07-131 Bingham, John R., et ux 0.97 Medium

07-133 Winkel, Walter G. 6.19 High

07-134 Winkel, Alvy, et ux 0.70 Medium

07-138 Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 2.00 High

07-142 Scherer, Jonathan, et ux 9.95 High

07-145 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.97 Medium

07-147 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.71 Medium

07-149 Barnhart, Michael J. 0.61 Medium

07-150 Barnhart, Michael J. 1.01 Medium
Appendix 11 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 519 

Tract Name Acres Priority

07-153 Schmid, Walter D. 0.90 Medium

07-157 Leader, Thomas W., et al 28.70 High

07-166 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.32 Medium

07-168 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.47 Medium

07-176 Leaf, Christopher C. 2.48 High

07-177 Thompson Family Trust 0.64 High

07-179 Nawalinski, Thomas E., et ux 0.90 Medium

07-184 Woodward, Douglas L. 0.80 Medium

07-185 Lehman, Robert A., et ux, Trustees 0.97 High

07-186 Mitchell, Robert D., Jr., et al 3.53 Medium

07-187 Parlette, Linda O'Neal, et al 0.10 Medium

07-188 Unknown (Company Creek Road) 0.61 Medium

07-189 Kurth, David W., et ux 0.58 Medium

07-190 Morrison, Randy C. 0.53 Medium

07-191 Garfoot, Phillip L., et ux 3.00 High

07-192 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 1.40 High

07-193 Courtney, James O. 2.99 Low

07-195 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 3.02 Medium

07-196 Courtney, Mark L. 2.01 Medium

07-197 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 Medium

07-198 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 Medium

07-199 Danielson Stehekin Cabin Mgt, LLC 4.97 High

07-200 Bowles, Stephen B., et ux, Trustees 1.74 High

07-201 Ramos, Myra 3.00 High

07-202 Blomberg, John 0.09 Medium

08-101 Ray and Esther Courtney Family, LLC, et al 20.00 High

08-105 Courtney, Clifford G. 5.60 Medium

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 521 

APPENDIX 12: ALTERNATIVE 4 PROPOSED RANKING OF PRIVATE 

LANDS 

Tract Name Acres Priority

01-101 Barnhart, Michael J. et ux 8.38 High

01-102 McKellar, Richard V., et al 6.39 High

01-103 Lewman, Darrel, et al 30.72 High

02-102 C& M I, LLC 0.70 Low

02-104 Kaminski, Perry 6.65 High

02-105 Pinnow, Edward M., et al 17.90 High

02-106 Kinman, David, F., et us 0.30 Low

02-107 Kaminski, Perry 2.49 Medium

02-108 Britt, James M., et us 2.35 High

02-109 McMurry, John, et ux 6.28 Medium

03-100 Stifter, William F., et ux 12.95 Low

03-108 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.11 Low

03-125 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 1.00 Low

03-131 Purple Creek Corp. 0.16 Low

04-100 Hegge, Gary L., et ux 1.73 Medium

04-101 Hegge, Gary L., Trustee 1.73 Medium

04-102 Bouslaugh, Tom A., et ux 1.74 Low

04-104 Darvill, Fred T., Jr. 4.31 Medium

04-105 Ellis, James L., et ux 0.37 Low

04-106 Bell, Lloyd 3.65 Medium

04-108 Bishop, James L., et ux 0.59 Low

04-110 Petersen, Gregory H., et al 0.50 Low

04-112 McGinness, Collin 4.09 Medium

04-114 Clark, James D. 1.69 Medium

04-115 Weavtel LLC 1.69 Medium

04-116 Morse Resort Inc. 11.67 Medium

04-117 Fesler, Rick L., et ux 0.14 Low

04-120 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.69 Medium

04-121 Clark, Judith 6.62 High

04-124 McLean, Mark A 0.58 Medium

04-127 Griffiths, William S., et al 0.20 Low

04-128 Bridges, Ardee M., et al 0.16 Medium

04-130 Pearl, Warren L. 0.36 Medium
Appendices 

522 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Tract Name Acres Priority

04-131 Parks, Terry V. 0.21 Low

04-136 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.20 Low

04-137 Stewart, Mark P. 0.18 Low

04-139 Glenn, Nicholas A. 0.91 Low

04-143 Sherman, Angela C. 0.33 Low

04-144 Breeze, William E. 0.28 Medium

04-145 Freeman, Lillian A., et al 0.22 Medium

04-147 Hubbard, Duane L., et ux 0.20 Medium

04-148 Dinwiddie, Randall R. 0.70 High

04-149 Harvey, Curtis S., et al 0.24 Medium

04-150 Dinwiddie, Randall R., et ux 0.24 Medium

04-153 Libbey, Caroline L. 0.20 Low

04-154 Buehler, Walter E., et al, Trustees 0.53 Medium

04-155 Bohn, Willis C., et al, Trustees 0.32 Medium

04-156 Liberty, Janet L., et al 0.64 Medium

04-157 First United Methodist Church 0.55 Medium

04-158 Higgins, Ben C., et al 0.48 Medium

04-162 Morehead, Harriet O., Trustee 0.55 Low

04-163 Hazell, Marjorie J. 0.71 Low

04-165 Cook, Melanie J., et al 0.56 Medium

04-166 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.66 Low

04-169 Parks, Terry 0.42 Low

04-172 Parks, Terry 0.72 Low

04-173 Blackburn, Ovidia L., et al 0.75 Low

04-177 Kelly, Patrick J., et al 0.48 Low

04-178 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 0.48 Low

04-179 Gaukroger, James G. 0.55 Low

04-180 Gaukroger, Robin R. 0.55 Low

04-181 Parks, Terry 0.03 Low

04-183 Griffith, Jimmy E., et al 0.18 Low

04-184 Gordon, Carole B., Custodian 0.48 Medium

04-186 Skidz LLC 0.21 Medium

04-187 Davis, Lewis V., et ux 0.35 High

04-188 Parks, Terry 3.65 High

04-189 Noble, Daniel, et ux 0.22 Medium

04-190 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 0.18 Low
Appendix 12 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 523 

Tract Name Acres Priority

04-191 Libbey, Caroline 0.38 Low

04-192 Karapostoles, Caitlin, et al 1.00 Low

04-193 Parsons, Jeffrey L., et ux 1.18 Low

04-194 Courtney, Mistaya M. (CP) 0.48 Low

04-195 Theubet, James H., Trustee 0.48 Low

04-197 Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 0.48 Low

04-198 Seemiller, Joseph 0.48 Low

04-199 Griffith, Frederick L., et al 0.48 Low

05-102 Kelly, William L., et ux, Trustees 1.68 Medium

05-104 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2.00 Medium

05-107 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 4.05 Medium

05-109 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 0.76 Medium

05-110 Raymond, Charles F., et ux 0.76 Low

05-111 Mathews, Don D., et ux 0.76 Low

05-112 Jacobson, Neal, et ux 0.76 Low

05-113 Weagent, Rodney W., et al 0.76 Medium

05-119 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.70 Low

05-120 Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 0.76 Medium

05-121 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 6.76 Medium

05-123 Sherer, Wesley, M., et ux 22.15 Medium

05-124 Morehead, Dwight T., et ux 0.21 Low

05-125 Courtney, Reed 0.41 Low

05-126 Denning, Michael 0.85 Low

05-127 Hudak, Renee Y., et al 0.85 Low

05-128 Ward (Stewart), Norma V. 0.85 Medium

05-130 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.43 Low

05-132 Courtney, Cragg, et ux, Trustees 7.15 Medium

05-133 Staley, James E., et al 0.85 Medium

05-135 Buehler, Thomas M., et al 27.65 Medium

05-136 Nielsen, Robert C., et ux 0.34 Low

05-140 Hayes, Adrienne, et al 2.13 Medium

05-141 Sargo, Herbert J., et al 2.17 Medium

05-142 Gans, William C., Jr., et al 2.48 Medium

05-144 Morehead, Lawrence E., et ux 0.21 Low

05-145 Story, Michael J., et ux 0.65 Low

05-147 Morehead, Kenneth, et ux 0.42 Low
Appendices 

524 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Tract Name Acres Priority

05-150 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 0.58 Low

05-157 Goodwin, Richard H., Jr., et al 2.99 Low

05-158 Gaskill, Karl B. 3.03 Low

05-159 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.21 Medium

05-160 Gaskill, Karl B. 1.65 Low

06-102 Fultz, Elizabeth R. 4.06 Medium

06-106 Ward, Vince, et ux 2.90 Medium

06-111 Boyd, Gail C. 0.21 Medium

06-113 Miles, Michael, R. 0.18 Medium

06-114 Stevens, John T., et ux 0.24 Low

06-116 Gempko, Vicki et vir 0.70 Medium

06-119 Peterson, B. Jean 6.70 Medium

06-120 Gianulis, Deborah A., et al 0.32 Low

07-100 McConnell, Carolyn A. 4.36 Medium

07-105 Blomberg, John 0.50 Low

07-107 Courtney, James O., Trustee 1.12 Medium

07-109 Mundal, Anne S., et al 0.71 Medium

07-110 Walker, Allan E., III, et al, Trustees 0.68 Medium

07-114 Duke, Loretta 2.15 Low

07-115 Thompson, Laura J., et al 2.15 Medium

07-116 Neuzil Family Trust 1.60 Medium

07-121 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 0.41 Low

07-122 Saulsbury, David, et ux 2.32 Medium

07-124 Goold, Jeffrey B., et al 1.18 Low

07-125 Evans, Linda R., et al 2.48 Medium

07-127 Winkel, Walter G. 2.18 Medium

07-130 Burhen, William S. 2.00 Medium

07-131 Bingham, John R., et ux 0.97 Low

07-133 Winkel, Walter G. 6.19 High

07-134 Winkel, Alvy, et ux 0.70 High

07-138 Scutt, Ronald W., et ux, Trustees 2.00 High

07-142 Scherer, Jonathan, et ux 9.95 High

07-145 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.97 Low

07-147 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.71 Low

07-149 Barnhart, Michael J. 0.61 Low

07-150 Barnhart, Michael J. 1.01 Low
Appendix 12 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 525 

Tract Name Acres Priority

07-153 Schmid, Walter D. 0.90 Low

07-157 Leader, Thomas W., et al 28.70 Medium

07-166 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.32 Low

07-168 Pitts, Edward D., et ux 0.47 Low

07-176 Leaf, Christopher C. 2.48 Medium

07-177 Thompson Family Trust 0.64 Medium

07-179 Nawalinski, Thomas E., et ux 0.90 Low

07-184 Woodward, Douglas L. 0.80 Low

07-185 Lehman, Robert A., et ux, Trustees 0.97 Medium

07-186 Mitchell, Robert D., Jr., et al 3.53 Low

07-187 Parlette, Linda O'Neal, et al 0.10 Low

07-188 Unknown (Company Creek Road) 0.61 Low

07-189 Kurth, David W., et ux 0.58 Low

07-190 Morrison, Randy C. 0.53 Low

07-191 Garfoot, Phillip L., et ux 3.00 Medium

07-192 Robbins, Jeffrey C., et ux 1.40 Medium

07-193 Courtney, James O. 2.99 Low

07-195 Courtney, Thomas H., et ux, trustees 3.02 Low

07-196 Courtney, Mark L. 2.01 Low

07-197 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 Low

07-198 Courtney, Clifford G. 2.02 Low

07-199 Danielson Stehekin Cabin Mgt, LLC 4.97 Medium

07-200 Bowles, Stephen B., et ux, Trustees 1.74 Medium

07-201 Ramos, Myra 3.00 Medium

07-202 Blomberg, John 0.09 Medium

08-101 Ray and Esther Courtney Family, LLC, et al 20.00 Medium

08-105 Courtney, Clifford G. 5.60 Medium

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 527 

APPENDIX 13: REVISED LAND PROTECTION PLAN 

(DETACHED) 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 529 

APPENDIX 14: CARBON EMISSION ESTIMATES AND CALCULATIONS

Note: Fuel efficiency assumptions are as follows: 6 gallons/hour for excavator and roller use; 5 miles per 

gallon for dump trucks and asphalt truck with 40 cubic yards transported per trip (round-trip assumed to 

be 15 miles); 200 gallons of fuel per barge trip; and 22.2 pounds of carbon are burned per 1 gallon of 

diesel fuel (EPA 2009). 

TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVE 1 EMISSIONS

Alternative 1

Road Rehabilitation and/or 

Reroutes

9,887 cubic yards of fill: 741.5 gallons of diesel fuel 

1,439 cubic yards of asphalt: 108 gallons of diesel fuel

600 hours of excavator use: 3,600 gallons of diesel fuel

350 hours of roller use: 2,100 gallons of diesel fuel

62 trips on the barge: 12,400 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 18,950 gallon of diesel fuel

22.2 pounds of carbon burned per gallon of fuel (EPA 2009)

210 tons of carbon total

Erosion Protection Measures 4,317 cubic yards of asphalt: 108 gallons of diesel fuel

400 hours of roller use: 2,400 gallons of diesel fuel

20 trips on the barge: 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 6,724 gallons of diesel fuel

74 tons of carbon total

Construction of New Maintenance 

Building, Housing, and Helipad

774 cubic yards of concrete: 58 gallons of diesel fuel

20 trips on the barge: 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 4,058 gallons of diesel fuel

45 tons of carbon total

Recreational Improvements Negligible

Totals 330
Appendices 

530 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

TABLE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2 EMISSIONS

Alternative 2

Road Rehabilitation and/or 

Reroutes

3,571 cubic yards of fill: 268 gallons of diesel fuel 

2,054 cubic yards of asphalt: 154 gallons of diesel fuel

1,134 hours of excavator use: 3,600 gallons of diesel fuel

150 hours of roller use: 900 gallons of diesel fuel

76 trips on the barge: 15,200 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 517,834 gallon of diesel fuel

22.2 pounds of carbon burned per gallon of fuel (EPA 2009)

259 tons of carbon total

Erosion Protection Measures 580 cubic yards of fill: 44 gallons of diesel fuel

30 trips on the barge: 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel

40 hours of excavator use: 240 gallons of diesel fuel

4317 cubic yards of asphalt: 324 gallons of diesel fuel

400 hours of roller use: 2,400 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 199,978 gallons of diesel fuel

100 tons of carbon total

Construction of New Maintenance 

Building, Housing, and Helipad

774 cubic yards of concrete: 58 gallons of diesel fuel

20 trips on the barge: 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 4,058 gallons of diesel fuel

45 tons of carbon total

Recreational Improvements Negligible

Totals 404 tons of carbon
Appendix 14 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 531 

TABLE 3: ALTERNATIVE 3 EMISSIONS

Alternative 3

Road Rehabilitation and/or 

Reroutes

3,285 cubic yards of fill: 246 gallons of diesel fuel 

2,054 cubic yards of asphalt: 154 gallons of diesel fuel

1,050 hours of excavator use: 6,300 gallons of diesel fuel

100 hours of roller use: 600 gallons of diesel fuel

69 trips on the barge: 13800 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 468,420 gallon of diesel fuel

22.2 pounds of carbon burned per gallon of fuel (EPA 2009)

234 tons of carbon total

Erosion Protection Measures 580 cubic yards of fill: 44 gallons of diesel fuel

35 trips on the barge: 7,000 gallons of diesel fuel

60 hours of excavator use: 360 gallons of diesel fuel

4,317 cubic yards of asphalt: 324 gallons of diesel fuel

400 hours of roller use: 2,400 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 146,682 gallons of diesel fuel

112 tons of carbon total

Construction of New Maintenance 

Building, Housing, and Helipad

774 cubic yards of concrete: 58 gallons of diesel fuel

20 trips on the barge: 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 4,058 gallons of diesel fuel

45 tons of carbon total

Recreational Improvements Negligible

Totals 391
Appendices 

532 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

TABLE 4: ALTERNATIVE 4 EMISSIONS

Alternative 4

Road Rehabilitation and/or 

Reroutes

9,887 cubic yards of fill: 741.5 gallons of diesel fuel 

1,439 cubic yards of asphalt: 108 gallons of diesel fuel

600 hours of excavator use: 3,600 gallons of diesel fuel

350 hours of roller use: 2,100 gallons of diesel fuel

62 trips on the barge: 12,400 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 18,950 gallon of diesel fuel

22.2 pounds of carbon burned per gallon of fuel (EPA 2009)

210 tons of carbon total

Erosion Protection Measures 4,317 cubic yards of asphalt: 108 gallons of diesel fuel

400 hours of roller use: 2,400 gallons of diesel fuel

48 trips on the barge: 9,600 gallons of diesel fuel

1,480 of cubic yards fill: 111 gallons of diesel fuel

40 excavator hours: 240 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 12,459 gallons of diesel fuel

138 tons of carbon total

Construction of New Maintenance 

Building, Housing, and Helipad

774 cubic yards of concrete: 58 gallons of diesel fuel

20 trips on the barge: 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Total of 4,058 gallons of diesel fuel

45 tons of carbon total

Recreational Improvements Negligible

Totals 393
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 533 

APPENDIX 15: LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES WHITEPAPER 

Select Laws, Regulations and Policies Concerning Flood Control and Erosion 

Prevention in the Lower Stehekin Valley, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Stehekin River in vicinity of Lake Chelan NRA 
Appendices 

534 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Introduction 

The Lower Stehekin Valley is located at the head of Lake Chelan in Chelan County Washington. Land 

ownership in the Lower Stehekin Valley includes a patchwork of public land managed by the National 

Park Service (NPS) as part of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, and approximately 460 acres of 

private lands referred to as the Community of Stehekin. The Stehekin Community is an unincorporated 

settlement of year-round and summer homes and scattered tourism-related businesses. The Stehekin 

Community was founded in the late 1800’s, and some of the residents who live there today are 

descendents of the original homesteaders to the area. 

One common thread that binds the valley is the Stehekin River, a beautiful, free-flowing river that drains 

into upper Lake Chelan. The Stehekin River has meandered throughout the Lower Stehekin Valley over 

time immemorial, routinely changing its course in response to the dynamic conditions of the surrounding 

landscape it flows through. Those who first homesteaded in the area often settled in the floodplain 

because it was only flat, relatively fertile ground. This pattern of development continued for many years 

because there were relatively few notable floods and there was a general lack of regulatory oversight in 

the area. 

In the early to middle 20th century the river channel was modified using available technology in order to 

mine gravel, remove logjams and to attempt to reduce the impacts of flooding and erosion on private 

property and government facilities. These efforts continued through the early years following designation 

of the area as a unit of the National Park Service. Since then, federal and state laws, regulations and 

policies have changed—generally moving away from permitting river manipulation toward encouraging 

greater protection of natural resources and recognizing the long-term fiscal impacts of ongoing 

manipulation. Since the creation of Lake Chelan NRA other significant legislation has been enacted by 

Congress and Washington State, further contributing to the complex body of federal, state and local laws, 

regulations and policies affecting Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and the private lands within the 

unit. 

In the last 15 years, the Stehekin Valley has experienced a sustained increase in the magnitude and 

frequency of flooding. Houses have been damaged and destroyed, and areas that never flooded or eroded 

in the past are now threatened--even during relatively modest flows such as those that accompany spring 

snowmelt. These conditions present a considerable challenge to landowners and residents who live in the 

floodplain and are seeking solutions to protect their property. These circumstances also present a 

considerable challenge to the National Park Service, which must protect and manage an infrastructure of 

roads and facilities that are impacted by this dynamic river. 

Any flood protection and erosion control work in or near water involves a complicated regulatory 

framework. The National Park Service, in consultation with various the various regulatory agencies, has 

compiled this whitepaper in an effort to inform all stakeholders about the laws, regulations and policies 

that may directly or indirect affect actions along the river. This whitepaper is by no means a treatise on all 

relevant laws and policies. Rather, it is a starting point for fostering a collective discussion, understanding 

and awareness of the regulatory constraints governing flood protection and erosion control. 

Enabling Legislation for Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The Enabling Legislation for Lake Chelan National Recreation Area states: 

In order to provide for the public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of portions of the 

Stehekin River and Lake Chelan, together with surrounding lands, and for the 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 535 

conservation of the scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to public 

enjoyment of such lands and waters... (Sec. 202, Public Law 90-544, October 2, 1968). 

Relevance to Lake Chelan and Stehekin River 

The enabling legislation for Lake Chelan NRA does not speak specifically to issues regarding flooding on 

the Stehekin River. Rather, it designates the National Park Service as the federal land management 

agency with administrative jurisdiction over the federal lands within the area, and it directs the NPS 

to...“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.” (Title IV, Administrative Provisions). 

Title III, Section 301 of the Enabling Legislation authorizes the NPS to acquire lands by donation, 

purchase, or exchange as follows: 

Within the boundaries of the park and 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. 

The NPS has used this authority, in part, to acquire private lands adjacent to the Stehekin River in order to 

protect the river and its floodplain. 

Section 301 of the Enabling Legislation also protects the rights of the private landowner by prohibiting 

the NPS from acquiring land "so long as the lands are devoted to uses compatible with the purposes of the 

enabling Act." There is no statutory definition of a "compatible use" in the Enabling Legislation. Instead, 

the issue of compatibility is specifically addressed in the Land Protection Plan Elements of the 1995 

General Management Plan for Lake Chelan NRA. These elements outline the criteria the NPS would 

consider to ensure private land uses are compatible with the purposes for which Lake Chelan NRA was 

established. The criteria are not intended to duplicate county zoning standards or other applicable land use 

practices that are the proper purview of Chelan County. Rather, the criteria are intended to guide park 

management and private landowners in determining which land use proposals and practices are 

incompatible with the purposes of Lake Chelan NRA. If incompatible uses are indentified, they could 

subject the property to potential acquisition via the use of federal eminent domain powers—but only 

when all other prudent and reasonable attempts to remove or mitigate the incompatibility have failed. 

The NPS has never exercised eminent domain powers in Stehekin. However, the NPS does have the 

authority to do so if, for example, adverse flood protection and/or erosion control measures on private 

land substantially threaten the resources and values of Lake Chelan NRA, including the Stehekin River. 

Again, the NPS would only exercise such authority if all other prudent and reasonable attempts to remove 

or mitigate the incompatible use have failed. 

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 

This law (and subsequent amendments) created the National Park Service and authorized it to manage 

lands under its jurisdiction as follows: 

[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas 

known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified... by such 
Appendices 

536 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, 

monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same 

in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations. 

Since 1916, Congress has established hundreds of areas of land and water as units of the National Park 

System. Today the system includes National Parks, National Monuments, National Seashores, National 

Lakeshores, National Historic Parks, Parkways, and National Recreation Areas, and National Recreation 

Areas, including Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. 

Congress amended this Act on March 27, 1978 (the act expanding Redwoods National Park) with the 

addition: 

The authorization of activities shall be construed in light of the high public value and 

integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in degradation of the 

values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may 

have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (16 USC 1a-1)

The NPS Organic Act, as amended in 1978 (10 year after creation of Lake Chelan NRA) is significant to 

Lake Chelan NRA because Congress made it clear that all units of the system, including Lake Chelan 

NRA, are equally protected by law without regard to the various titles (e.g., National Park versus National 

Recreation Area). It further emphasized that while each unit of the System is to be managed according to 

its specific enabling legislation, each unit is also subject to the purposes and mandates established by the 

Organic Act to the extent that those mandates do not conflict with the provisions of the units enabling 

legislation. 

Relevance to Lake Chelan and Stehekin River 

The NPS Organic Act and subsequent laws related to the Nation Park System further clarify that the NPS 

does not have the discretion to authorize activities that are incompatible with, or would otherwise impair, 

the recreational, scenic, scientific, historic, and other values of Lake Chelan NRA, including Lake Chelan 

and the Stehekin River. 

Appropriations Bill for the Department of Interior, H.R. 1977, Title I, Section 117 

Congress, in response to the identified need in the Lake Chelan GMP/EIS for legislation to authorize the 

NPS to maintain the Company Creek Road, provided the following authorization: 

Notwithstanding Public Law 90-544, as amended, the National Park Service is authorized 

to expend appropriated funds for maintenance and repair of the Company Creek Road in 

the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area: Provided that appropriated funds shall not be 

expended for the purpose of improving the property of private individuals unless 

specifically authorized by law. 

Relevance to Lake Chelan and Stehekin River 

This law authorizes, but does not mandate, the NPS to maintain the Company Creek and repair it in the 

event of flood damage. The law specifically prohibits the NPS from spending money to “improve”

private property; this includes spending NPS funds to protect private property from impacts caused by 

flooding. 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 537 

The current General Management Plan for Lake Chelan NRA provides the following criteria for 

determining whether or not the NPS would take action to protect public roads from flooding: 

1. There are no feasible alternatives; 

2. Funds are available; 

3. The actions will have less impacts than other alternatives; 

4. The actions are permitted by county, state, and other federal agencies. 

To date the NPS has successfully worked within these criteria to repair and maintain roads in the Lower 

Stehekin Valley, including the Upper Company Creek Road. But given the consistent increase in flood 

frequency and intensity experienced in the past decade, foreseeable circumstances could arise (e.g., lack 

of funds or severe flood damage) in which these criteria could no longer be met and the NPS would be 

forced to abandon maintaining the Upper Company Creek Road. 

National Park Service Management Policies 2006 

Management of Lake Chelan National Recreation area must be guided by the Constitution, public laws, 

proclamations, Executive Orders, regulations and directives of the Secretary of the Interior. This 

collective legal and regulatory framework has various ambiguities and details not addressed by Congress, 

the President and/or the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, like other federal state and local agencies the 

NPS develops policy to interpret ambiguities and provide an objective, consistent framework for all 

management decisions. The NPS Management Policies are periodically updated, and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 is the latest version. Completed after extensive public and agency review and comment, this 

document applies to all units in the national park system, including Lake Chelan National Recreation 

Area. The following service wide policies regarding §4.6 Water Resources Management, apply to 

potential erosion and flood control measures in Lake Chelan NRA: 

Water Quality, §4.6.3 

The pollution of surface waters and groundwaters by both point and nonpoint sources can impair the 

natural functioning of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and diminish the utility of park waters for visitor 

use and enjoyment. The Service will determine the quality of park surface and groundwater resources and 

avoid, whenever possible, the pollution of park waters by human activities occurring within and outside 

the parks. The Service will: 

 work with appropriate governmental bodies to obtain the highest possible standards available 

under the Clean Water Act for the protection for park waters; 

 take all necessary actions to maintain or restore the quality of surface waters and 

groundwaters within the parks, consistent with the Clean Water Act and all other applicable 

federal, state, and local laws and regulations; and 

 enter into agreements with other agencies and governing bodies, as appropriate, to secure 

their cooperation in maintaining or restoring the quality of park water resources. 
Appendices 

538 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Floodplains, §4.6.4 

In managing floodplains on park lands, the National Park Service will (1) manage for the preservation of 

floodplain values; (2) minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding; and 

(3) comply with the NPS Organic Act and all other federal laws and executive orders related to the 

management of activities in flood-prone areas, including Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain 

Management), the National Environmental Policy Act, applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, and 

the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. Specifically, the Service will: 

 protect, preserve, and restore the natural resources and functions of floodplains; 

 avoid the long- and short-term environmental effects associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains; and 

 avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions that could adversely 

affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood risks. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate human activities to a site 

outside and not affecting the floodplain, the Service will: 

 prepare and approve a statement of findings, in accordance with procedures described in 

Director’s Order 77-2 (Floodplain Management); 

 use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and 

property while minimizing the impact to the natural resources of floodplains; 

 ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the 

standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR Part 60). 

Wetlands, §4.6.5 

The Service will manage wetlands in compliance with NPS mandates and the requirements of Executive 

Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 

1899, and the procedures described in Director’s Order 77-1 (Wetland Protection). The Service will (1) 

provide leadership and take action to prevent the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands; and (3) avoid direct and indirect 

support of new construction in wetlands unless there are no practicable alternatives and the proposed 

action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. The Service will implement a 

“no net loss of wetlands” policy. In addition, the Service will strive to achieve a longer term goal of net 

gain of wetlands across the national park system through restoration of previously degraded or destroyed 

wetlands. 

When natural wetland characteristics or functions have been degraded or lost due to previous or ongoing 

human actions, the Service will, to the extent practicable, restore them to predisturbance conditions. The 

Service will conduct or obtain parkwide wetland inventories to help ensure proper planning with respect 

to the management and protection of wetland resources. Additional, more detailed wetland inventories 

will be conducted in areas that are proposed for development or are otherwise susceptible to degradation 

or loss due to human activities. 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 539 

In managing floodplains on park lands, the National Park Service will (1) manage for the preservation of 

floodplain values; (2) minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding ; and (3) 

comply with the NPS Organic Act and all other federal laws related to the management of activities in 

flood-prone areas. Specifically, the Service will: 

 protect, preserve, and restore the natural resources and functions of floodplains; 

 avoid the long- and short-term environmental effects associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains; and 

 avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions that could adversely 

affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood risks. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate human activities in a site 

outside and not affecting the floodplain, the Service will: 

 prepare and approve a statement of findings... 

 use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and 

property while minimizing the impact to the natural resources of floodplains; 

 ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the 

standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR Part 60). 

When practicable, the Service will not simply protect but will seek to enhance natural wetland values by 

using them for educational, recreational, scientific, and similar purposes that do not disrupt natural 

wetland functions. For proposed new development or other new activities, plans, or programs that are 

either located in or otherwise could have adverse impacts on wetlands, the Service will employ the 

following sequence: 

 Avoid adverse wetland impacts to the extent practicable. 

 Minimize impacts that cannot be avoided. 

 Compensate for remaining unavoidable adverse wetland impacts by restoring wetlands that 

have been previously destroyed or degraded. 

Compensation for wetland impacts or losses will require that at least 1 acre of wetlands be restored for 

each acre destroyed or degraded. 

Actions proposed by the Park Service that have the potential to cause adverse impacts on wetlands must 

be addressed in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. If the preferred 

alternative will result in adverse impacts on wetlands, a statement of findings must be prepared and 

approved in accordance with Director’s Order #77-1: Wetland Protection. 

Watershed and Stream Processes, §4.6.6 

The Service will manage watersheds as complete hydrologic systems and minimize human-caused 

disturbance to the natural upland processes that deliver water, sediment, and woody debris to streams. 

These processes include runoff, erosion and disturbance to vegetation and soil caused by fire, insects, 

meteorological events, and mass movements. 
Appendices 

540 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

The Service will manage streams to protect stream processes that create habitat features such as 

floodplains, riparian systems, woody debris accumulations, terraces, gravel bars, riffles, and pools. 

Stream processes include flooding, stream migration, and associated erosion and deposition. 

The Service will protect watershed and stream features primarily by avoiding impacts on watershed and 

riparian vegetation and by allowing natural fluvial processes to proceed unimpeded. When conflicts 

between infrastructure (such as bridges and pipeline crossings) and stream processes are unavoidable, 

NPS managers will first consider relocating or redesigning facilities rather than manipulating streams. 

Where stream manipulation is unavoidable, managers will use techniques that are visually nonobtrusive 

and that protect natural processes to the greatest extent practicable. 

General Management Plan, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NPS 1995) 

The 1995 General Management Plan for Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NPS, 1995) provides the 

most site-specific policy guidance to the NPS for administration of Lake Chelan NRA. The General 

Management Plan (GMP) provides guidance on managing visitor use, natural and cultural resources, 

development and operation of Lake Chelan NRA according to the previously cited enabling legislation for 

Lake Chelan NRA, the Organic Act, and other laws and regulations affecting management of the NRA. 

The following sections of the 1995 GMP and its associated Implementation Plans provide the policy 

guidance relevant to flood and erosion control measures (page numbers provided for reference): 

 The Park Service would not manipulate the Stehekin River to protect federal property except 

roads and bridges according to the following criteria. Existing public roads would be 

protected in erosion/river conflict zones only if (1) there are no feasible alternatives, (2) funds 

are available, (3) proposed actions would have lesser impacts than other alternatives, and 

(4) the proposed actions are permitted by the county, state, and other federal agencies. No 

new road construction would be proposed in active river/erosion conflict zones (p. 20). 

 The Park Service would not manipulate the river to protect private property. No actions 

would be taken to prevent private owners from manipulating the river on their land to protect 

private property unless such actions would significantly harm recreation area resources or 

were in violation of local, state, or federal ordinances, regulations or laws (p.20). 

 The National Park Service would manipulate woody debris in the Stehekin River or its 

tributaries only to protect public roads and bridges...Woody debris would not be removed 

from the river system in any case. The Park Service would not remove or manipulate woody 

debris on public land or water to protect private property (p. 23) 

 The Company Creek Road would be maintained in its current alignment and condition. Three 

erosion control systems along the upper Company Creek road would be removed and 

replaced. The structures would be designed to keep the road from eroding during frequently 

recurring flood events (i.e., 10- to 25-year recurrence interval), and they would be made from 

rock, soil, and native vegetation (p.34). 

 Sand, Rock, and Gravel Plan: Sand, rock, and gravel will be conserved and recycled 

whenever possible...To ensure conservation of sand, rock, and gravel, the National Park 

Service proposes to limit the use of in-park material to 1,400 cubic yards per year: 1,200 

cubic yards for NPS use and 200 cubic yards per year for private use over a proposed 10-year 

excavation cycle...In the event of a large flood, the remaining 10-year stockpile could be 

used in one year... The superintendent will have the option to exceed the established limit in 

the event of an emergency such as a major flood (pp.3, 10, 11). 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 541 

 Transportation Plan: Erosion control systems along the Upper Company Creek Road will 

be removed and replaced, designed to keep the road from eroding during frequently recurring 

flood events (i.e., 10- to 25-year recurrence interval), and will be made from rock, soil, and 

native vegetation...public roads will be protected in active river erosion zones only if 

(1) there are no feasible alternatives; (2) funds are available; (3) the actions will have less 

impacts than other alternatives; and (4) the actions are permitted by county, state, and other 

federal agencies (p.9). 

 Stehekin Landing and Valley Development Concept Plan: The natural character of the 

lake and river edge on public lands (which includes areas within 200 feet of the lake and river 

shoreline) will be restored (p.1). 

Clean Water Act, as Amended 

The “Clean Water Act” refers to several pieces of legislation including the Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, and the Water 

Quality Act (Clean Water Act) of 1987. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to make Nation’s waters 

fishable, swimmable and drinkable by restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological 

integrity of the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act is far reaching. This discussion focuses 

specifically on Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, since those sections would partially govern 

actions on the Stehekin River, its tributaries or adjacent wetlands. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Corps 

of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. The 

Corps must base its permit decisions on guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 

conjunction with the Corps. EPA has the authority to veto any permit granted by the corps. The Corps 

issues either General (or “Nationwide”) Permits or Individual permits, depending upon the nature of 

the proposed work. Nationwide permits are issued for smaller projects involving less potential for impact 

to waters of the United States than individual permits. 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

Authority for administration of Section 401 in Washington State is delegated to the Department of 

Ecology. A water quality certification is required for any activities that (a) might result in a discharge of 

dredge or fill material into water or non-isolated wetlands; or (b) involve excavation in water or nonisolated wetlands and require a federal permit or license. The 401 Certification can cover both the 

construction and operation of the proposed project. Issuance of a 401 Certificate means that the 

Department of Ecology anticipates that the applicant’s project will comply with state water quality 

standards and other aquatic resource protection requirements under Ecology's authority. Conditions of the 

401 Certification become conditions of the permit issued by the Corps. 

The Department of Ecology has already reviewed and approved, denied or partially denied the various 

Nationwide permits issued by the Corps. If a specific nationwide permit has already been approved, no 

further 401 Certification review by Ecology is required. If a nationwide permit has been partially denied, 

then an individual certification or Letter of Verification from Ecology may be required. If a nationwide 

permit has been denied, then an individual certification is required for all activities under that nationwide 

permit. 
Appendices 

542 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Relevance to Stehekin River and Lake Chelan 

Lake Chelan, the Stehekin River and its tributaries, and adjacent wetlands are all waters of the United 

States and thus regulated in part under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Proposals for flood protection 

and/or erosion control that may affect these waters must obtain a 404 permit and/or 401 water quality 

certification before proceeding. In Washington State, a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application 

(JARPA) initiates the Corps’ review under Section 404, and Ecology’s review for shoreline, floodplain 

and 401 certification requirements. Both the Corps and Ecology can place conditions on permit 

applications as they relate to these programs. 

Contacts 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch, Seattle District 

Post Office Box 3755 

Seattle, WA 98124-2255 

Telephone (206) 764-3495 

Department of Ecology, Office of Regulatory Assistance 

Environmental Permitting Service 

300 Desmond Drive 

PO Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

Regional Contact: 

Gary Graff, Washington Department of Ecology 

Central Regional Office 

15 West Yakima Ave., Suite 200 

Yakima, WA 98902-3401 

gagr461@ecy.wa.gov 

(509) 454-4260 

Internet Links 

More information on Nationwide permits can be obtained online at: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/nationwide_permits.htm 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 established a national policy that certain selected rivers 

of the nation and their immediate environments shall be preserved and protected for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act specifically preserves designated rivers (or river 

segments) and their adjacent environments if they are free-flowing and “...possess outstandingly 

remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values...”

Rivers, or sections of rivers designated under the Act must be preserved in their “free-flowing 

condition” and cannot be dammed or otherwise modified in such a manner that would adversely affect 

the “outstandingly remarkable values” which contribute to designation. 

The Act provides three levels of designation for rivers or river sections: wild rivers, scenic rivers and/or 

recreational rivers. Wild river areas are considered the most primitive and pristine; they must be 

unpolluted, free of impoundments and generally inaccessible (except by trail), with undeveloped 

watersheds and shorelines. Scenic rivers must also be free of impoundments and have largely primitive 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 543 

shorelines, but can be accessible in places by roads. Recreational rivers or sections of rivers can be readily 

accessible by road, may have some shoreline development, and may have undergone some impoundment 

or diversion in the past. 

Rivers can be added to the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System in one of two ways. 

The traditional way is for Congress to pass Wild and Scenic legislation that is signed into law by the 

President (similar to wilderness). The other way is for the Governor of a state to petition the Secretary of 

the Interior to add a river to the system. 

Wild and Scenic designation does not affect a private landowners' ability to develop privately owned 

lands within the river corridor. On federally owned land, however, future development along a designated 

wild, scenic or recreational river is allowed as long as it is consistent with the river's classification, and 

does not harm the values which contributed to designation. 

Relevance to Stehekin River and Lake Chelan 

The Stehekin River and its tributaries have never been designated as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. In addition, neither the Stehekin River nor any of its tributaries are part of the Washington state 

Scenic Rivers System. Therefore, currently the only way the river could be included in the system is via 

affirmative congressional action, and no action is believed pending or contemplated by Congress as of 

this writing. 

As an internal matter the NPS in 2002 evaluated the Stehekin River and its tributaries for its eligibility for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and determined the entire watershed of the 

Stehekin River is eligible for designation (Finlayson, 2002). The eligibility analysis was prompted by 

management guidance in the 1995 General Management Plan for Lake Chelan NRA, and the 

miscellaneous provisions of a 1991 Consent Decree1 between the Secretary of the Interior and the North 

Cascades Conservation Council. A brief summary of the eligibility report follows, along with its 

implications for river-related management actions on the part of the NPS. 

The eligibility analysis used two criteria to evaluate the river’s eligibility in accordance with the Act: (1) 

the “Free-flowing” condition of the river; and (2) the river’s “Outstandingly Remarkable Values”

including fish, wildlife, vegetation, prehistoric and historic resources, geology, scenery and recreation. 

The “Free-flowing” criterion was evaluated by dividing the river into three segments in light of 

differences in human activity and development along its shoreline. Segment 1 extends from the mouth of 

the Stehekin River to High Bridge (the segment within Lake Chelan NRA); segment 2 extends from High 

bridge to Cottonwood Camp; and segment 3 from Cottonwood Campground to the headwaters. To 

evaluate the “outstandingly remarkable values” criterion, all three segments were considered 

collectively. 

All three segments of the Stehekin River were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System due to its generally free-flowing condition and outstandingly remarkable values, 

including wildlife, fish, prehistoric, historic, geologic, scenic and recreational resources. The river’s 

 

1

 A judgment whereby the defendant agrees to stop the activity that was asserted to be illegal, without admitting 

wrongdoing or guilt. 
Appendices 

544 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

vegetation, however, was found to be exceptional but not sufficiently unusual to contribute to eligibility. 

Segment 1 was classified as “Recreational” due to higher levels of development and road/bridge 

accessibility. Segment 2 was classified as “Scenic” in light of very limited road accessibility and 

shoreline development. Segment 3 was classified as “Wild” because except for a few trails it is 

completely undeveloped. 

The Stehekin River Eligibility Report places the Stehekin River in the category of an “Agency 

Identified, 5(d)(1) Study River”. This administrative determination carries no direct legal authority, but 

does lay the foundation for future designation of the river should the U.S. Congress choose to do so. The 

eligibility finding does, however, influence NPS management actions that could potentially affect the 

river’s “Free-flowing” characteristics or the various “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” that 

contribute to its eligibility. In accordance with guidance from the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Coordinating Council, and Section 4.3.4 of NPS Management Policies 2006, the NPS must avoid taking 

management actions that would adversely affect the “Free-flowing Condition” and “Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values” that qualify the river for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

Various sections of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prevent unauthorized obstruction or alteration of 

any navigable water of the United States. The most frequently exercised authority is contained in Section 

10 (33 U.S.C. 403) which covers construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under 

such navigable waters, or any work which would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of 

those waters. 

The jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 includes all navigable waters of the United States, 

defined in 33 CFR Part 329 as, “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are 

presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or 

foreign commerce.” Note: The Clean Water Act also uses the term “navigable waters”; however, the 

term “navigable waters” in section 404 of the Clean Water Act generally encompasses Section 10 

waters plus their tributaries and adjacent wetlands and isolated waters where the use, degradation or 

destruction of such waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce. 

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Corps of Engineers, is authorized to issue Section 10 

permits. The basic form of authorization used by Corps is the individual permit. In Washington, the 

process for obtaining a Section 10 permit begins with submittal of a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit 

Application. Once a complete application is received by the Corps, the formal review process begins. This 

process involves a public notice and evaluation of the impacts of the project and all comments received. 

The permit decision document includes a discussion of the environmental impacts of the project, the 

findings of the public interest review process, and any special evaluation required by the type of activity. 

Relevance to Stehekin River and Lake Chelan 

The Corps has designated Lake Chelan as a navigable water, so a Section 10 Permit is required for any 

actions that could obstruct or otherwise affect navigation on Lake Chelan proper. The Corps has not 

designated the Stehekin River as a navigable river. Instead, the Corps considers the Stehekin River as a 

“traditional navigable water” (pers. comm. Debbie Knaub, ACOE, 8/30/07). As a “traditional 

navigable water”, the Corps does not regulate the Stehekin River under Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act. The Corps does, however, regulate the Stehekin River, its tributaries and adjacent wetlands 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 545 

Contact 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch, Seattle District 

Post Office Box 3755 

Seattle, WA 98124-2255 

Telephone (206) 764-3495 

Endangered Species Act, as Amended 

The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they 

depend. It is administered by the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS has primary 

responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly 

marine species such as salmon and whales. 

Under the ESA, species may be listed as either “endangered” or “threatened.” Endangered means a 

species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened means a 

species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects and non-native species, are 

eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. 

The ESA protects listed species and their habitats by prohibiting the “take” of listed animals and the 

interstate or international trade in listed plants and animals, including their parts and products, except 

under federal permit. Such permits generally are available only for certain conservation and scientific 

purposes. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect 

or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Through regulations, the term “harm” is defined as “an 

act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral 

patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Listed plants are not protected from take, although 

it is illegal to collect or maliciously harm them on federal lands. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies including the NPS to use their legal authorities to 

promote the conservation purposes of the law. This section also requires federal agencies to consult with 

the FWS or NMFS to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize listed 

species. 

Section 10 of the ESA provides relief to private landowners who want to develop land inhabited by listed 

species. Landowners can receive a permit for the take of a listed species that may occur incidental to 

otherwise legal activities, provided they have developed an approved habitat conservation plan (HCP). 

HCPs include an assessment of the likely impacts on the species from the proposed action, the steps that 

will be taken to minimize and mitigate those impacts, and the funding available to carry out those steps. 

When the FWS approves the HCP, the landowner can apply for an “incidental take” permit, which 

allows him/her to proceed with the proposed action. HCPs benefit not only the landowners but also the 

species by securing and managing important habitat. 

Washington State-Listed Species 

Washington State has various administrative codes that are somewhat analogous to the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act. The state maintains a “Species of Concern List” that includes species native to 

Washington and listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive, or as Candidates. The designations of 
Appendices 

546 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species are legally established in Washington Administrative 

Code 232-12-297, Endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species classification. Candidate species 

are established by WDFW policy. Washington Administrative Code 232-12-01l provides that wildlife 

classified as protected shall not be hunted or fished. 

Relevance to Stehekin River and Lake Chelan 

Several federal and state-listed species are believed to be present in the Lower Stehekin Valley within 

Lake Chelan NRA (table I). NPS Management Policies require the agency to preserve state-listed species 

in a manner similar to that of federally listed species, so those species currently listed under the 

Washington State Species of Concern List are also provided in table I. 

Bull trout (Threatened) are the only federally listed species of fish historically found within the Stehekin 

River; however, the last confirmed catch of bull trout was in 1957 (Brown 1984). Once a tremendous 

attraction for anglers, bull trout may be extirpated because they have not been documented for 50 years 

despite numerous surveys. 

TABLE I. WASHINGTON STATE AND FEDERAL ENDANGERED (E), THREATENED (T), CANDIDATE (C) AND OTHER 

SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR WHICH THERE IS SUITABLE HABITAT IN THE LOWER STEHEKIN VALLEY. 

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Federal State

Gray Wolf* Canus lupus E E

Grizzly Bear* Ursus arctos T E

Canada Lynx* Lynx canadensis T T

Pacific Fisher* Martes pennanti pacifica C E

California Wolverine* Gulo gulo luteus C

Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus griseus T

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii C

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T T

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina T E

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis C

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos C

Merlin Falco columbarius C

Flammulated Owl* Otus flammeolus C

Vaux’s Swift* Chaetura vauxi C

Lewis’ Woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis C

Black-backed Woodpecker* Picoides albolarvatus C

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus C

Bull Trout* Salvelinus confluentus T

Western Toad Bufo boreas C

Columbia Spotted Frog* Rana luteiventris C C

Species unlikely to be present (or extirpated) are noted with an asterisk; these species are not tolerant of human 

activity (e.g., residential development, motorized vehicle use) or they lack sufficient habitat.
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 547 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, the NPS is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding any action that may affect a listed species. Private landowners are generally 

exempt from the Endangered Species Act unless their actions harm a listed species or require approval 

from a federal agency. For example, a private landowner may be required to develop a Biological 

Evaluation (i.e., an analysis of potential adverse effects to federally listed species) in conjunction with a 

404 permit application depending upon the nature of the proposed action. This requirement is necessary 

because the Army Corps of Engineers cannot knowingly issue a permit that may violate the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Regional Contact: 

David Morgan, Biologist 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Central WA Field Office 

215 Melody Lane, Suite 119 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

509-665-3508 extension 24 

Internet Links 

More information on the Endangered Species Act can be obtained online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered 

Washington State Hydraulic Code 

A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Department of Fish and Wildlife under 75.20 RCW is 

required if a project includes construction or other work, that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the 

natural flow or bed of any fresh or salt water of the state. The purpose of this law is to ensure that 

construction or other related activities are done in a manner to prevent damage to the state's fish, shellfish, 

and their habitat. By applying for and following the provisions of the HPA issued under Chapter 77.55 

RCW, most construction activities that affect the bed or flow of state waters can be allowed with little or 

no adverse impact on fish or shellfish. More information is available online at: 

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/hpapage.htm

Relevance to Stehekin River and Lake Chelan 

Generally speaking, work below the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Stehekin River (or its tributaries) 

requires an HPA. In some instances, this requirement extends to dry channels and upland areas adjacent to 

water if the action has the potential to affect fish or fish habitat. For example, felling of trees from the 

bank into the Stehekin River, or removing a logjam, typically require an HPA. 

Contact 

Bob Steele, Area Habitat Biologist 

WDFW, Region 2 

3860 Chelan Hwy. N. Wenatchee, WA 98801 

(509) 662-0503 
Appendices 

548 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Washington State Floodplain Management Act 

The Washington State Floodplain Management Act (Flood Plain Management Chapter 86.16 RCW; 

Chapter 173-158 Flood Plain Management WAC) governs development, including fills, grading, in 

stream restoration, bank stabilization and other structures that occur within Flood Plain and Shoreline 

jurisdictions. The state Flood Plain Management Code requires a permit, typically issued by the local 

government, for any development as well as filling or grading activities within the 100 year floodplain. 

Proposed projects are reviewed and conditions imposed on any permits issued to reduce the potential for 

damage from floodwater. Permits are required for any development as well as for filling or grading 

activities in the floodplain. State law requires that local entities have a local floodplain ordinance that 

meets or exceeds National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. Ecology has approval authority 

over these ordinances. 

In Washington, communities with designated floodways must restrict land uses in the floodways by 

prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of residential structures except for: 

 Repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground 

floor area; 

 Repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure the cost of which does not exceed 

fifty percent of the market value of the structure either 

- Before the repair, reconstruction, or improvement is started 

- If the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. 

 Work done on structures to comply with existing health, sanitary, or safety codes which have 

been identified by the local code enforcement or building official and are the minimum 

necessary to assure safe living conditions shall not be included in the fifty percent 

determination. 

A residential dwelling located partially within a designated floodway is considered totally within a 

designated floodway and must comply with floodplain management regulations. Exemptions to the 

prohibitions include existing farmhouses in designated floodways that meet the provisions of WAC 173-

158-075, or to residential dwellings other than farmhouses that meet the depth and velocity and erosion 

analysis provisions of WAC 173-158-076, or to structures identified as historical places. 

When a regulatory floodway for a stream has not been designated, the Stehekin Community may require 

that applicants for new construction and substantial improvements reasonably utilize the best available 

information from a federal, state, or other source to: 

 Consider the cumulative effect of existing, proposed and anticipated future development. 

 Determine that the increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood will not be more 

than one foot at any point in the Stehekin Community. 

Building and development near streams without a designated floodway shall comply with the 

requirements of 44 CFR 60.3 (b)(3) and (4), and (c)(10) of the NFIP regulations 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 549 

Agencies and Responsibilities 

The Department of Ecology is responsible for coordinating the flood plain management regulation 

requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Local governments participating in the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

are required to review proposed development projects to determine if they are in identified floodplains as 

shown on the FEMA maps. If a project is located in a mapped 100-year floodplain (A or V zone), the 

local government must require that a permit be obtained prior to development. 

While the local government (in this case Chelan County) issues the permit, Ecology has the authority to 

examine, approve or reject designs and plans for any structure or works, public or private, to be erected, 

built, reconstructed or modified along the banks, over the channel, over or across the floodway of any 

stream or body of water in Washington. Also, any other development, including filling and grading, must 

be reviewed and permitted by the local government. Ecology may also review proposed actions that are 

initiated under the Shoreline Management Act. 

Other Ecology responsibilities under the Flood Plain Management Code include: 

 Provide guidance and assistance to local governments in development and amendment of 

their flood plain management ordinances; 

 Provide technical assistance to local governments in the administration of their flood plain 

management ordinances; 

 Provide assistance to local governments in enforcement actions against any individual or 

individuals performing activities within the flood plain that are not in compliance with local, 

state, or federal flood plain management requirements 

 Establish minimum state requirements that equal minimum federal requirements for the 

national flood insurance program 

 Assist counties, cities, and towns in identifying the location of the one hundred year flood 

plain, and petitioning the federal government to alter its designations of where the one 

hundred year flood plain is located if the federally recognized location of the one hundred 

year flood plain is found to be inaccurate 

 Assist communities in developing effective flood hazard management plans that reduce flood 

hazards and minimize environmental degradation 

 Support communities in implementing flood damage reduction projects 

 Conduct community evaluation visits to monitor their floodplain management programs and 

assure compliance with federal and state regulations 

 Provide training to communities in floodplain management methods and procedures 

 Provide materials and methods to improve public awareness of flood hazards 
Appendices 

550 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

 Evaluate flood characteristics to develop recommendations on repairing or replacing 

substantially damaged residential structures located in regulatory floodway. Replacement or 

repair can only be recommended where: 

- Flood depths cannot exceed more than three feet; flood velocities cannot exceed more 

than three feet per second. 

- No evidence of flood-related erosion. Flood erosion will be determined by location of the 

project site in relationship to channel migration boundaries adopted by the local 

government. Absent channel migration boundaries, flood erosion will be determined by 

evidence of existing overflow channels and bank erosion. 

 At the request of local government, the department will prepare a report of findings and 

recommendations for local government concurrence on repair or replacement of substantially 

damaged residential structures located in the regulatory floodway. Without a recommendation 

from the department for the repair or replacement of a substantially damaged residential 

structure located in the regulatory floodway, no repair or replacement is allowed. 

Legal Authority 

 Chapter 173-158 Flood Plain Management WAC 

 Chapter 86.16 Flood Plain Management RCW 

 Title 42, Ch 50, S 4001 et seq USC 

 Title 44, Ch I, S 60.3 CFR 

Relevance to Lake Chelan and Stehekin River 

Portions of Lake Chelan National Recreation Area and the Stehekin Community are within the 100-year 

floodplain of the Stehekin River. Chelan County has an Ecology-approved floodplain management 

ordinance administered under County Code Chapter 3.20, Flood Hazard Development. The Chapter 

prohibits encroachments, including fill and other development, unless hydrologic and hydraulic analysis 

done by a registered professional engineer shows the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood 

levels during a 100-year flood event. The Stehekin River FEMA-approved flood plain study included a 

floodway designation. Structures within the floodway with damage greater than 50 percent market value 

cannot be replaced. 

Chelan County also regulates structures in frequently flooded overlay district, which they define as the 

100-year floodplain (Chapter 11.84 Chelan County Code). This section restricts development within the 

floodway including: 

(a) New lots may be created within frequently flooded areas, provided: 

A designated buildable area in each lot is provided for outside the floodway and is identified on 

the face of the final plat, short plat or binding site plan mylar; 

All improvements, including parking areas, are located outside the floodway; 

Roads necessary to access permitted improvements may cross the floodway if no reasonable route 

exists outside the floodway; 

Open space lots may be located within the one hundred-year floodplain; 

(b) No residential structures may be built or placed within a designated floodway. 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 551 

Contact 

Chuck Steele, Floodplain Manager Ecology Northwest and Central Regions 

Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office 

3190 160th Ave SE 

Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 

(425) 649-7139, E-mail chst461@ecy.wa.gov 

Washington State Shoreline Management Act 

Development within Shoreline jurisdiction may require shoreline development permits including 

conditional use, substantial development and variance. Each local government has development 

regulations in its Shoreline Master Program. The local government shoreline regulations identify the 

“conditional uses,” i.e., uses that are not preferred but may be permitted when specified conditions are 

met. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are sent to Ecology for approval or disapproval. Ecology may add 

its own conditions during its review process. 

A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is a written permit issued by local government for 

development on shorelines. All non-exempt developments and uses exceeding $5,718 fair market value as 

defined in RCW 90.58.030(3) and WAC 173-27-030(8) may require this permit. After completion of the 

local process the permits are sent to Ecology for filing but Ecology does not have authority to approve or 

deny them. 

Agencies and Responsibilities 

The local government and Washington Department of Ecology are responsible for managing and 

regulating development along state shorelines. All permit applications start at the local level but some 

require Ecology approval also. The local government then supplies the information to the Washington 

Department of Ecology. 

Shoreline Conditional Use and Variance Permits are sent to Ecology for approval or disapproval. Ecology 

may add its own conditions during its review process. The state Shoreline regulations (173-27-160 WAC) 

establish criteria for reviewing conditional use permits. Conditional uses may be authorized provided that 

the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 

 That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master 

program; 

 That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 

 That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized 

uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and 

shoreline master program; 

 That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment 

in which it is to be located; 

 That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. 

 The cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area must be considered. 

For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area 

where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain 
Appendices 

552 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 (Shoreline Management Act) and shall not 

produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 

 Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be 

authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the 

requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in the master 

program. 

Internet Links 

Chapter 173-27 WAC: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-27&full=true 

Chapter 90.58 RCW: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.58&full=true 

Shoreline Management Act home page: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/index.html 

Shorelines Hearings Board: http://www.eho.wa.gov/Boards/SHB.asp 

Relevance to Stehekin River and Lake Chelan 

Under Chelan County’s Shoreline Master Program, shoreline conditional use, substantial development 

and variance permits may be required for bank stabilization projects. Excavation of > 250 yd3 within 200 

yards of shorelines of state significance (e.g., Stehekin River and Lake Chelan) may require a substantial 

development permit. 

The Stehekin River and upper Lake Chelan have Conservancy Environment shoreline designation. In 

Chelan County’s Shoreline Master Program Conservancy is defined as: 

7.2.280.5 CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT – An area characterized by a potential for diffuse outdoor 

recreation activities timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, passive agricultural uses such as pasture 

and range lands, and other related development. 

Activities permitted in the Conservancy designation under the Chelan County Shoreline Master Program 

are: 

 Agriculture permitted in the Conservancy designation cannot involve major construction or 

other activities which substantially change the character of the environment (Section 12.3.1). 

 Timber harvesting is subject to Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest 

Practices Regulation. Within Shorelines only selective commercial timber harvest, a 

maximum of 30 percent merchantable trees in any 10 year period may be permitted (Section 

14.1.2). In the Conservancy Environment designation, roads must be maintained to minimize 

erosion, or be permanently closed, water barred, reforested, or planted and seeded with 

appropriate ground cover (Section 14.3.2). 

 Mining operations may be permitted in conformance with WDFW Hydraulic Permit and 

WDNR mining regulations. 

 Single family residences with lot size and height restrictions (Section 16.1.2, 16.3.2) 

 Multi-family residences may be permitted as Planned Development with restrictions on 

height (35 feet), setback (common line from OHWM), and parking lots 

 Only water-related and water-dependent commercial development may be permitted 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 553 

 Shoreline protection and structures (e.g., bulkheads and docks) may be permitted provided 

they don’t substantially change the character of the environment and are part of a project 

defined as water dependent or water related and project would be not be feasible without the 

structures. 

 Channelization of streams is prohibited except as provided in RCW 90.58.030 (3) (e) 

(Shoreline Management Act). There is no provision under this section of the Act that would 

allow channelization of the Stehekin River. 

 Land filling is prohibited (Section 22.3) except it may be permitted when: 

- Fill is landward of the OHWM and does not affect aquatic habitat or organisms and water 

quality. 

- Needed to provide a minimum single-family residence building site where there would be 

no ability to build even given variances, the property is not more than 70 percent below 

the OHWM, there is public sewer or adequate on-site sewage treatment area, the property 

landward of the OHWM is owned by the land owner, the residence is < 2000 square feet, 

the land fill waterward of the OHWM follows the natural shoreline contours and is the 

minimum necessary to provide a buildable site. This provision mostly applies to Lake 

Chelan where water levels fluctuate due to dam operations. 

- Water dependent use that is recreational in nature and could not occur except by land 

filling. 

- Dredging may be permitted to accommodate water dependent uses (Section 23.3) 

provided spoils are placed landward of OHWM and where they won’t cause 

environmental harm (e.g., avoid wetlands). 

- Public roads and bridges may be permitted where it is necessary to cross water and roads 

are setback from OHWM (Section 26.3). 

- Low intensity recreational uses such as nature trails, unimproved beaches, semideveloped campgrounds allowing vehicle access (Section 28.3). 

Chelan County Code also includes geologic hazards overlay district where a development permit may be 

denied based upon an evaluation of the inability of to reduce risks associated with the geologically 

hazardous areas which include channel erosion and migration. Performance standards to be utilized 

include: 

(1) Construction methods should be used which minimize risks to structures and do not increase 

the risk to the site, or to adjacent properties and their structures, from the geologic hazard. 

Development shall not increase instability or create a hazard to the site or adjacent properties, or 

result in a significant increase in sedimentation or erosion. 

(2) Site planning should minimize disruption of existing topography and vegetation, and should 

incorporate opportunities for phased clearing. 

Other important information 

Chelan County has received grant money from Ecology to update their Shoreline Master Program. Under 

the revised Shoreline Management regulations, Chelan County is required to map channel migration 

zones (CMZ). Within the channel migration zone, development or structures are limited to those which 

won’t interfere with channel migration and won’t require future bank stabilization, dikes or other control 
Appendices 

554 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

structures. Channel migration regulations are mostly addressed under the flood hazard reduction 

provisions of the state Shoreline Management regulations: 

 Flood hazard provisions: 

- WAC 173-26-221(3)(b): Establishing general principle that SMP should limit 

development and shoreline modifications that would result in interference with the 

process of channel migration that may cause significant adverse impacts to property or 

public improvements and or result in a net loss of ecological functions associated with the 

rivers and streams. 

- WAC 173-26-221(3)(b)(i) - (vii): Describes more specific flood hazard prevention 

principles, including encouragement to plan for and facilitate removal of artificial 

restrictions to natural channel migration. 

- WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(i): Standard generally prohibiting new development in shoreline 

jurisdiction where it would require new dikes or levees within the channel migration 

zone. Includes list of specific developments that may be appropriate exceptions to the 

standard. 

 Modifications and Use provisions: 

- WAC 173-26-231(3): Fills must protect shoreline ecological functions, including channel 

migration processes. 

- WAC 173-26-231(3)(f): Requiring conditional use permit for disposal of dredge material 

on shorelands or wetlands within CMZs. 

- WAC 173-26-241(3)(ii)(E): Requiring conditional use permit for mining within channel 

migration zone. 

Since Ecology has provided funding for the Stehekin River flood management plan (FCAAP grant) and 

the Shoreline Master Program update (Shoreline grant), Ecology’s role in coordination between the two 

activities will be important and necessary. 

Regional Contacts 

Shoreline Master Program and Update 

Clynda Case, Shoreline Programmer 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Central Regional Office 

15 West Yakima Ave., Suite 200 

Yakima, WA 98902-3401 

clca461@ecy.wa.gov 

(509)457-7125 
Appendix 15 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 555 

Shoreline Permit Review, Wetlands, Critical Areas 

Gary Graff, 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Central Regional Office 

15 West Yakima Ave., Suite 200 

Yakima, WA 98902-3401 

gagr461@ecy.wa.gov 

(509) 454-4260 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act 

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) provides a way to identify possible 

environmental impacts that may result from governmental decisions. These decisions may be related to 

issuing permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, policies or 

plans. Information provided during the SEPA review process helps agency decision-makers, applicants, 

and the public understand how a proposal will affect the environment. This information can be used to 

change a proposal to reduce likely impacts, or to condition or deny a proposal when adverse 

environmental impacts are identified. 

In most cases, one state or local agency will be designated as the "SEPA lead agency". This agency is 

responsible for evaluating the proposal and determining if the proposal is likely to impact the 

environment. For most private projects, the SEPA lead agency will be the city or county where the project 

is located. 

Any proposal that requires a state or local agency decision to license, fund, or undertake a project, or the 

proposed adoption of a policy, plan, or program can trigger environmental review under SEPA (See WAC 

197-11-704 for a complete definition of agency action). SEPA is a process, not a permit. A schematic 

describing the SEPA process is provided in attachment I of WAC 197-11-704. The SEPA lead agency 

will review the environmental checklist and may request additional information or special studies. 

Internet Links 

The State Environmental Policy Act Home Page http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html 

Statewide Contact 

Washington Department of Ecology, SEPA Unit 

Headquarters 

SEPA Unit 

PO Box 47703 

Olympia, WA 98504-7703 

Website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html

References 

Brown, Larry G. 1984. Lake Chelan Fishery Investigations. Unpublished report, Washington Department 

of Game. 

Finlayson, Leslie. 2002. Stehekin Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report. NPS Report. May, 2002. 48 

pp.
Appendices 

556 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Firestone, David B. and Frank C. Reed. 2004. Environmental Law for Non-lawyers. South Royalton, 

Vermont: SoRo Press. 331 pp. 

Louter, David. 1998. Contested Terrain: North Cascades National Park Service Complex, an 

Administrative History. National Park Service. 331 pp. 

National Park Service, 1995. Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Lake 

Chelan National Recreation Area, Volume 1 of 2. NPS D-174A, June 1995. 493 pp. 

Plater, Zygmunt J.B. et al. 2004. Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law and Society, 3rd Edition. 

New York: Aspen Publishers. 1,312 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985. Memorandum from Office of the Regional Solicitor to 

Superintendent, North Cascades National Park Complex. Subject: The Regulation of Lands, Waters and 

Activities within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Administratively Restricted document, file 

code NPS.PN.0164, July 8, 1985. 
Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 557 

APPENDIX 16: CURRENT KNOWLEDGE BASE WHITEPAPER 

(DETACHED) 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 559 

APPENDIX 17: DRAFT FLOODPLAINS STATEMENT OF FINDINGS 

Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Statement of Findings for Floodplains 

North Cascades NPS Complex 

Sedro Woolley, Washington 

Recommended:

Superintendent, North Cascades NPS Complex Date

Concurred:

Chief, Water Resources Division Date

Concurred:

Regional Safety Officer Date

Approved:

Pacific West Regional Director Date
Appendices 

560 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Introduction 

This Statement of Findings (SOF) was proposed as part of the Stehekin River Corridor Implementation 

Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SRCIP DEIS). The Stehekin River Valley is the focal point 

of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA) (Figure 1). Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain 

Management) requires the NPS to evaluate likely impacts of actions in floodplains. NPS Director’s Order 

#77-2 (Floodplain Management) provides policy and procedural guidance for complying with these 

orders. This SOF documents compliance with these orders. 

This SOF pertains to the NPS preferred alternative, Alternative 2, of the SRCIP DEIS, which is focused 

on protecting resources and NPS administrative facilities (Figure 2). While all major actions in this plan 

follow NPS policy to enhance natural floodplain values, two types of actions in Alternative 2 (preferred 

alternative) would impact floodplain values. One is the installation of erosion protection measures at four 

locations along the Stehekin River to protect the main Stehekin Valley Road. Three of the four locations 

are at the edge of the channel migration zone where the road cannot be relocated without major slope 

modification or extensive new road construction and where impacts to floodplain values are relatively 

moderate (Figure 3). The fourth site is within the channel migration zone near the Stehekin River mouth, 

where continued bank erosion could threaten the Stehekin Valley Road and water quality. 

The other main action proposed in the SRCIP DEIS that impacts floodplain values is to change 

management of large woody debris on the lower 0.25 mile of the Stehekin River, below the outlet of 

Boulder Creek. This area is within the backwater zone of Lake Chelan and has seen a large increase in the 

volume of large wood. Under emergency conditions, large logjams in this area could be manipulated in 

the floodplain to relieve flooding of the main valley road and septic drain fields in the densely developed 

river mouth. However, the wood taken from this area could only be used in the channel migration zone 

for erosion protection and/or riparian restoration projects. The NPS and private landowners could obtain 

large woody debris off the tops of large logjams in the backwater zone for erosion protection/restoration 

projects under a permit system and strict conditions to protect the integrity of jams. 

The Stehekin Valley Road would be rerouted out of flood-prone McGregor Meadows, allowing the 

floodplain to utilize this section of the valley and the river to eventually create new riparian habitat. An 

access road would be maintained for private residents, but the road would be at grade and subject to 

periodic flooding. The access road would be about 0.8 mile long, with about 0.25 mile in the floodplain. It 

would end at the last parcel of private property in McGregor Meadows, and could be shortened if private 

parcels were acquired. 

Several new recreation opportunities, including a lower valley trail and footbridge over the Stehekin 

River trail and raft takeout near the river mouth are also proposed. These actions will occur in or near the 

floodplain. In the case of the footbridge, existing concrete bridge abutments will be used, if possible, in 

this stable reach of the river. 

If the proposed alternative were implemented, only two sections of the Stehekin Valley Road would 

remain in the floodplain; about 1 mile near the river mouth and several hundred feet at Frog Island. One 

other section of the road near the Stehekin Valley Ranch would also remain in the channel migration 

zone. Other road sections such as the upper two miles of the Company Creek Road and the access road to 

McGregor Meadows would also remain in the floodplain. 

The NPS maintenance facility, fuel storage, and three housing units near Harlequin Bridge would be 

relocated out of the floodplain onto the adjacent alluvial fan of Company Creek. Numerous additional 

restoration projects within riparian areas of the floodplain are proposed under this alternative. 
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 561 

FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF THE STEHEKIN RIVER WATERSHED AND THE SRCIP DEIS PROJECT AREA
Appendices 

562 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 2. MAJOR ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES AND ALTERNATIVE 2 
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 563 

Proposed Actions 

Under the preferred alternative the management actions that could negatively affect the Stehekin River 

floodplain are as follows. 

1. Erosion Protection Measures: In Alternative 2, new erosion protection measures would be installed at 

four sites along the main river channel. These sites include the river mouth, Boulder Creek, Frog Island, 

and Wilson Creek (Figures 2 and 3). Impacts to floodplain values are relatively minor at three of the sites 

because they are located at the edge of the channel migration zone. Impacts to floodplains at the river 

mouth bank stabilization site, however, are moderate and long term because it is located within the 

channel migration zone. Work at this sites would involve construction of a small logjam, installation of 3 

rock barbs, removal of about 100 feet of rip-rap, and dense replanting with native shrubs. This site is 

within the backwater influence of Lake Chelan. The six to eight rock barbs and two logjams proposed for 

these sites add to a growing number of structures along the lower Stehekin River in two main depositional 

zones. 

2. Large Woody Debris Management: Changes to the management of large woody debris on the lower 

0.25 mile of the Stehekin River are proposed in Alternative 2, within the backwater influence zone of 

Lake Chelan (Chelan Public Utilities District 2001). In this area, extensive accumulation of logs is 

influenced by unnatural manipulation of the Lake Chelan surface elevation. Proposed changes in 

management would allow for limited administrative and private use of large wood from the tops of 

logjams in the backwater zone below Boulder Creek. Conditions of use would include (1) wood taken 

only above ordinary high water mark, (2) removal could not destabilize logjams, and (3) all wood 

removed stays in the channel migration zone for restoration or erosion management. 

The other change in management of large wood would also be focused on the lake backwater zone, and 

would allow for limited manipulation of a large logjam under certain conditions. These include (1) logjam 

manipulation would be at the minimum necessary to relieve threat to the Stehekin Valley Road or water 

quality from flooded septic systems and (2) all wood remains in the channel migration zone. 

3. Relocate Some Private Property from the Floodplain and onto Alluvial Fans: The Lake Chelan 

National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan would be revised to encourage relocation of private 

property outside of the channel migration zone and away from the river using land exchange or land 

acquisition from willing sellers. Over the long term, removal of development from flood prone areas will 

greatly enhance floodplain values by precluding incorporation of septic systems and other debris into the 

river. 

The NPS proposes to concentrate some future private development out of the Stehekin River channel 

migration zone onto alluvial fans and terraces. Twenty-four acres on these landforms are identified for 

exchange with private developed land in the floodplain near river. Occupation of alluvial fans, while not 

ideal, represents a more sustainable site, given the flood-prone nature of the Stehekin River and the 

decreased spring flood magnitude on east side tributaries with decreased snow fall in the past century. 

Potential exchange lands are not within the more active channel migration zones on the alluvial fans. 

4. Creation of Recreational Opportunities: A new raft takeout would be provided near the Stehekin 

River mouth, which would require construction of 300-foot-long access road in the floodplain and a 30-

foot-long ramp down a steep cut bank. The Lower Valley Trail would be constructed in a single complete 

project to connect Stehekin Landing with High Bridge using sections of existing trail (6.9 miles) and 

construction of new trail (6.3 miles) some of which would be in the channel migration zone. A 150-footlong foot bridge over the Stehekin River would connect the Valley Trail to the existing river trail. 
Appendices 

564 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 3. CHANNEL MIGRATION ZONE IN THE LOWER STEHEKIN VALLEY
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 565 

Several actions in the plan would enhance floodplain values, and mitigate some of the impacts of 

retaining the road in the floodplain. These include focusing NPS planning on the Stehekin River channel 

migration zone rather than on static floodplain boundaries (geomorphically active), and maintenance of 

floodplain utilization as a management concept rather than unsustainable and ecologically damaging 

practices of dredging and levee construction. Specific actions include: 

1. Removal of the NPS Maintenance Facility, Fuel Storage, and Housing from the Floodplain: 

Because the maintenance area and fuel storage facility are class I and class II actions, respectively, and 

are within regulatory floodplains, they continue to have adverse effects on floodplain values. Relocation 

of this five acre site would result in major beneficial effects from the restoration of a riparian wetland and 

adjacent floodplain, as well as reduce the potential for pollution from fuel storage and vehicles. 

2. Rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road: A major section of the Stehekin Valley Road would be rerouted 

out of the floodplain around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field (1.89 miles). An access road (0.75 

miles long) would be retained into McGregor Meadows to the last parcel of private property (07-157). 

Beyond the access road, approximately one mile of road would be converted to become part of the Lower 

Valley Trail and another approximately 0.25 miles of the road would be used to maintain grade-control 

structures near Milepost 6.8. 

3. Restoration and Bioengineering: Riparian restoration and/or bioengineering (layered planting 

associated with rock barbs or logjams) would also enhance riparian vegetation along the banks of the 

river, including at the Lower Field, Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, Wilson Creek, Frog Island 

and the river mouth. 

Site Description 

The project area includes the Lower Stehekin Valley, from High Bridge to the head of Lake Chelan, 

including Weaver Point (Figures 1-3). Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA) includes 

approximately 400 acres of private land, much of which lies within the floodplain and channel migration 

zone of the Stehekin River. All of the project area is outside designated wilderness. 

Change in Flood Frequency and Magnitude on the Stehekin River 

The lower Stehekin River is flood-prone because of the circular shape of its watershed, steep slopes 

within the watershed, and the location of the headwaters on the wet Pacific Crest (Figure 1). Water 

delivered from three main tributaries merges in narrow bedrock box canyons above the lower valley. 

There is no storage of wood, gravel, or water within the canyons and some potential for the formation of 

temporary debris dams exists, which adds a hazardous element to flooding in the lower valley. 

The Stehekin River is also flood-prone because it can flood at two times each year. The headwaters of the 

Agnes Creek tributary and the main Stehekin River are far enough to the west to be within a rain-on-snow 

zone. Heavy, warm November and December rainfall trigger rapid snowmelt and flooding on these 

tributaries. The entire watershed receives most of its precipitation in the winter as snow, and warm spring 

temperatures and rain can trigger rapid snowmelt and flooding. Unlike fall flood peaks, which typically 

pass within a few days, spring floods are smaller, but last for several weeks between May and June. 

Prior to the late 20th century, the Stehekin River was dominated by spring snowmelt flooding, like most 

east-slope Cascade Rivers. Since the 1970s, however, the Stehekin River has become prone to large fall 

rain-on-snow floods, which rise quickly and occur from mid-October through December (Figure 4). 

Hydrologic data collected on the river since 1911 confirm the significance of this shift, as analyzed by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The passage of large fall floods in 1995, 2003 and 2006 has led to 
Appendices 

566 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

significant changes in the Stehekin River channel, and redefined the boundaries for the 100-year 

floodplain. As a result, recreational and administrative facilities and developments once thought to be safe 

from the river are now threatened by flooding and bank erosion, while other sites in the floodplain have 

been compromised by larger, more frequent floods. Until now, the NPS has addressed problems on a 

case-by-case basis throughout the valley with the passage of each of these large floods. 

FIGURE 4. MAGNITUDE AND TIMING OF THE ANNUAL PEAK FLOOD ON THE STEHEKIN RIVER

In the past 15 years, the Stehekin River has had the three largest floods on record (Table 1). The 

November 1995 event was believed to have a 100-year recurrence interval, while the October 2003 event 

(25,000 cfs) has a recurrence interval estimated by the USGS at 100 - 500 years. In addition to these 

exceptionally large floods, significant fall events occurred in 1989 and 1990 and significant spring floods 

passed in 1997 and 1999. 

TABLE 1. LARGEST FLOODS ON RECORD FOR THE STEHEKIN RIVER. 

Date Discharge (cfs)

October 20, 2003 25,600 

November 29, 1995 21,000 

May 29, 1948 18,900 

June 20, 1950 18,400 

December 26, 1981 17,300 

June 16, 1974 16,600 

November 24, 1990 14,700 

June 2, 1969 14,400 

June 10, 1972 14,400 
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 567 

Small, steep, straight tributaries to the Stehekin River carry debris flows during large precipitation events. 

Debris flows occur about once every 25 years or so, and are often triggered by summer cloud-bursts, 

which are an unexpected but important contributor to flood hazards in the valley. 

Stehekin Valley Floodplain and Landforms 

The Stehekin River floodplain is located along the floor of the Stehekin Valley in a deep glacial canyon, 

with peaks rising more than 7,000 feet above the river. The valley floor contains a long lateral moraine, 

debris cones from small tributaries, alluvial fans from three larger tributaries, and the Stehekin River and 

its floodplain. The terraces are composed of gravel, cobbles, and boulders and are crossed by numerous 

old flood channels. Debris cones have slopes steeper than 10 degrees and are covered with boulders, 

levees, and unstable channels at junctions with the Stehekin River floodplain. 

Boulder, Rainbow, and Company Creeks deposited extensive alluvial fans on the Stehekin Valley floor. 

Parts of these landforms are above active parts of the fans, and are called fan terraces. Fan terraces 

represent stable sites above the floodplain and active alluvial fan surfaces. Due to the shift toward fall 

flooding, the alluvial fans have become less active because the headwaters for these tributaries are located 

in a more arid climate farther east of the Stehekin River headwaters. 

Areas of sediment storage in the lower valley are marked by channel instability and wide floodplains. 

These deposition zones occur at McGregor Meadows where valley width increases three-fold, where the 

river meets the lake, and between the alluvial fans. Between deposition zones, the floodplain and river 

channel are relatively narrowed on the upstream edge of the three alluvial fans. Within these areas the 

channel is stable, and there is relatively little storage of wood, gravel, or water. 

Justification for Use of the Floodplain 

Why Proposed Actions are Located in Floodplains 

Most of the proposed actions under this alternative would seek to remove current NPS facilities from the 

floodplain and channel migration zone. While private development would remain in the floodplain, the 

revised Land Protection Plan would provide a mechanism for removal of those most threatened. It is 

beyond the scope of this plan to remove all development from the floodplain. In addition to some private 

property, sections of the Company Creek Road and main Stehekin Valley Road would remain in the 

floodplain. 

Actions that would occur in the floodplain include installation of erosion protection measures and rock 

barbs at three sites along the Stehekin Valley Road. In the case of these site locations, the road is between 

the river and the steep valley wall. Moving the road out of the floodplain and/or away from river conflicts 

would require blasting and/or heavy excavation work across cliffs or unstable slopes, or cause major 

impacts to undisturbed wetlands. 

A major goal of the proposed plan is to allow large floods to occupy the floodplain (flood utilization), 

thereby reducing flood and erosion damage to all areas in the lower valley. The NPS has rejected 

alternatives involving large scale levee construction or channel dredging due to cost, sustainability, and 

impacts to floodplain values. The Boulder Creek logjam and grade control (avulsion sill) are designed to 

maintain sheet flow into the extensive floodplain and development down valley. More than a dozen 

similar structures have been installed on both sides of the river in McGregor Meadows since the 1995 

flood. 
Appendices 

568 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

A change in management of large wood debris in the river mouth area acknowledges the incredible buildup of wood in the last 25 years and the effect of lake level manipulation on wood accumulation. This shift 

in policy also recognizes the impact flooding can have on water quality in this area, and the value of using 

wood in restoration and erosion management projects. 

There are recreation sites currently in, or proposed to be in, the floodplain. Harlequin Campground is the 

largest camp in the NRA and is located in the floodplain. The site is low relative to the river and typically 

floods in both the spring and fall. NPS relocated the vault toilet to high ground in 2009, but the camp sites 

remain in a regulatory floodplain. Flooding at the site occurs over a period of days or hours; flood 

conditions are summarized in Table 2. 

TABLE 2. SITE SPECIFIC 100–YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL FLOOD CONDITIONS FOR PARTS OF THE STEHEKIN 

RIVER FLOODPLAIN OCCUPIED BY NPS FACILITIES, VISITORS, OR PRIVATE RESIDENTS. 

Site Main Channel Depth 

and Velocity

Side Channel Depth 

and Velocity

Overbank Depth and 

Velocity

McGregor Meadows (left 

bank)

8 feet

10 - 12 feet/second

6 - 10 feet

4 - 6 feet/second

3 feet

2 - 3 feet/second

Upper Company Creek Road 

(right bank)

8 feet

10 - 12 feet/second

2 - 4 feet

4 - 5 feet/second

1 - 2 feet

1 - 4 feet/second

Harlequin Bridge and Camp 

(right bank)

11 feet

10 - 11 feet/second

5 - 6 feet

4 - 6 feet/second

3 - 4 feet

2 - 3 feet/second

River Mouth near the Bakery 

(left bank)

13 - 15 feet

6 - 8 feet/second

4 - 6 feet

4 - 5 feet/second

1 - 3 feet

4 - 6 feet/second

It is not feasible to construct the raft take-out and access road out of the floodplain. The 300-foot-long 

access road will follow the route of an old road, and require removal of few trees. Construction of this raft 

take-out would give visitors a place to exit the river without disturbing private land owners or additional 

riparian areas in the floodplain. The takeout would provide an access point to the head of Lake Chelan for 

non-motorized boats. 

Most of the Company Creek Road near Harlequin Bridge and above Company Creek alluvial fan is also 

within the 100-year floodplain. In the preferred alternative, floodwaters would be able to overtop 

riverbanks, except in the vicinity of the existing 400-foot long Company Creek levee. The current height 

of the levee along the Company Creek Road is four to six feet above the road. It continues to take 

pressure off the Company Creek Road by keeping floodwater from a small part of the floodplain. (The 

GMP calls for maintaining the Company Creek Road in its existing location.)

Investigation of Alternative Sites

The NPS has considered and rejected numerous other alternatives in the preparation of the Draft 

Environmental Assessment Impact Statement (DEIS) for each of the action sites mentioned above. 

At Frog Island and Wilson Creek, moving the road away from the eroding bank would require substantial 

blasting and/or heavy excavation work on steep valley walls, leading to potential slope instability and 

rock fall hazards. Therefore the road is proposed to remain in place and not be rerouted on the valley wall. 

Proposed actions at Boulder Creek are also located on the edge of the channel migration zone. At this site, 

the proposed grade control (avulsion sill) and extended logjam would be on the edge of the Boulder Creek 

alluvial fan. No other sites were considered because no other location offers the same advantages. 
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 569 

No other options exist for the location of the raft takeout on federal land. Dense private development and 

a lack of existing access roads eliminated other sites for consideration. 

Use of large woody debris from other parts of the Stehekin River was considered in the SRCIP DEIS 

under Alternative 4, where woody debris could be manipulated (under the same conditions as the 

preferred alternative) and taken from areas below the Bullion raft launch, including at McGregor 

Meadows. 

Relocation of private property to alluvial fans and alluvial fan terraces, while not ideal, is much less 

hazardous then leaving private property in the floodplain. This is especially true in McGregor Meadows 

where the potential exists for a major channel avulsion. Further, most of the valley floor is within the 

floodplain, and the NPS can only offer land for exchange that was once private. Alluvial fans and alluvial 

fan terraces represent one of the most stable landforms in the Lower Stehekin Valley, are out of the reach 

of the main river, and represent the best location for safe and sustainable development in the valley. No 

exchange properties are proposed in the most active parts of the alluvial fans. 

Several options were considered for relocation of the Stehekin Valley Road out of the floodplain at 

McGregor Meadows. Rerouting the road along the Company Creek Road on the opposite side of the river 

was considered but rejected. Reasons included that major sections of the Company Creek Road are also 

within the floodplain and this would require a new bridge and approaches. The preferred reroute crosses

several debris cones, which are prone to debris flows and snow avalanches. 

Description of Site-Specific Flood Risk 

Recurrence Interval of Flooding 

Information on flood recurrence interval comes from USGS stream gauging data collected since 1911, 

recordings of flood heights from the 1995, 2003, and 2006 floods, a HEC2 floodplain model constructed 

by the NPS (Riedel, 1993), 2-D models constructed by the NPS Water Resources Division at two sites, 

and a study of paleo peak flows (Jarrett 1996). Results are summarized in Table 2. 

The recurrence interval for flooding on the Stehekin River varies by the time of year and type of flood 

(Table 3). When spring and fall events are combined, as is typically done by federal agencies, the ‘100 

year flood’ has a discharge of about 21,400 cfs. When the spring and fall flood populations are considered 

separately, the 100 year fall event discharge is 33,500 cfs, and the 20,000 cfs discharge occurs about once 

every 10 years. 

TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR DETERMINING FLOOD MAGNITUDE AND FREQUENCY ON THE 

STEHEKIN RIVER BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USING A LOG PEARSON III ANALYSIS. 

Recurrence interval

(probability in given 

year)

Discharge (cfs) for combined 

fall and spring floods

(# events 85)

Discharge (cfs) for

spring floods alone

(# events = 70)

Discharge (cfs) for

fall floods alone

(#events = 16)

10 - year (0.1) 14,950 13,740 21,360 cfs 

20 -year (0.04) 17,560 15,100 26,220 cfs 

50 - year (0.02) 19,490 16,190 29,850 cfs 

100 - year (0.01) 21,400 17,910 33,490 cfs 
Appendices 

570 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Hydraulics of Flooding at the Site (Depths, Velocities) 

Information on flood flows and floodplain risk comes from recorded flood heights from the 1995, 2003, 

and 2006 floods, a HEC2 floodplain model constructed by the NPS (Riedel, 1993), 2-D models 

constructed by the NPS Water Resources Division at two sites, and a study of paleo peak flows (Jarrett, 

1996). Results are summarized in Table 2. 

Flood conditions in three main areas where NPS roads and visitor use facilities such as camps and trails 

will remain in the 100 year floodplain are summarized in Table 2. At Frog Island, where the Stehekin 

Valley Road is on the edge of the floodplain and erosion management structures are proposed, conditions 

during the 100-year flood would include water depths on the road of 1 - 3 feet, with velocity of 

approximately 2 - 3 feet/second. 

Along the proposed reroute, severe rainfall could trigger debris flows that inundate parts of several debris 

cones with water, mud and boulders to depths of 5 feet or more. Debris flow events are thought to occur 

about once every 25 years on a given system, although flooding occurs more frequently. 

Time Required for Flooding to Occur (Amount of Warning Time Possible) 

The amount of time required for warning of possible flooding in the lower Stehekin Valley ranges from a 

few hours to a day, depending on the nature of the flood hazard. The largest floods on the Stehekin River 

can take a week or more to build. During fall floods the Stehekin River can go from 10,000 to 20,000 cfs 

in a matter of hours, but the flood crest passes within one day. Most flood peaks occur at night or in the 

early morning, when most hazardous sites are unoccupied, but people are more unsuspecting. The 

National Weather Service has developed a flood warning system for the valley. Since the 2003 flood 

valley residents and visitors have the ability to view flood forecasts specifically for the Stehekin River on 

the internet. There is also a call-in system established by the NPS. 

Spring floods take weeks to build, providing ample warning time for most events. Heavy spring rain, or 

high temperatures on a large, late, melting snow pack can bring peak events within days. River discharge 

for the largest spring events are 14 - 15,000 cfs. 

There is the possibility that a natural log or landslide dam could form in the canyons in the upper Stehekin 

River, and release a large, somewhat unexpected flood event on the lower valley. Such an event has not 

been recorded in the last 100 years, nor has it been identified by deposits or landforms in the valley. 

Summer debris flows from small steep canyons can rise from intense thunderstorms in a few hours. These 

occur primarily on the north side of the valley where most development is located. On the steep debris flow 

canyons and debris cones along the proposed reroute, there may be only an hour or less or warning time. 

Opportunity for Evacuation of the Site in the Event of Flooding 

Evacuations for the Stehekin River floodplain would involve the public, valley residents, NPS employees, 

and others from several sites. In McGregor Meadows, people would move about 0.5 mile down the access 

road to high ground on the Stehekin Valley Road. From here the road would provide access to the 

Landing, although it would pass through the floodplain near the river mouth. Along the upper Company 

Creek Road, there is a small piece of high ground across from the McGregor Meadows. The Company 

Creek alluvial fan terrace is above the highest flood levels, but would be isolated down valley by flooding 

at Harlequin Bridge. Flooding of the Stehekin Valley Road at the river mouth would temporarily cut-off 

the valley from the Stehekin Landing. During extensive flooding, the Stehekin Valley and Company 

Creek Roads would cross hazards at debris cones and bridges. Harlequin Bridge campground would be 

seasonally closed in during the fall and spring flood season. 
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 571 

Geomorphic Considerations (Erosion, Sediment Deposition, Channel 

Adjustments) 

Geomorphic considerations are outlined in a white paper prepared for the SRCIP DEIS (Riedel 2008). 

The Stehekin River is remarkable for the dramatic changes it undergoes in the lower valley. Above 

McGregor Meadows, the river transports small boulders, but within seven miles the river is stilled by the 

deep water of Lake Chelan. Superimposed on this pattern is a series of net wood and gravel transport and 

deposition zones. 

Gradient is steep in reaches with straight, narrow channels where the river encounters large tributary 

alluvial fans of Company, Rainbow and Boulder Creeks. The relatively straight, steep reaches are net 

transport zones for sediment and large wood, and as a result are areas of relative channel stability. Wood 

and sediment storage zones between these reaches are characterized by the existence of massive log jams, 

multiple side channels, and channel instability. Within these unstable zones, erosion on the outside of 

river bends since 1962 ranges from 10 to more than 200 feet. 

Dense private development occurs in two deposition zones. At McGregor Meadows, an increase in 

floodplain width and decrease in stream gradient led to massive gravel deposition in the 2003 flood. At 

the river mouth, gravel and wood deposition is influenced by the lake backwater zone. Bank erosion and 

increases in floodplain width are occurring at both sites. 

Annual total sediment load of the Stehekin River is estimated at 32,000 yd3/year; with about 17 percent or 

5,600 yd3/year, transported along the bed of the river as gravel. Larger quantities of sediment move in 

waves during large flood events causing aggradation and channel instability in deposition zones (Riedel 

2008). 

Description and Explanation of Flood Mitigation Plans 

This plan includes only a few specific measures to reduce hazards to human life and property because all 

action alternatives propose to remove NPS facilities from regulatory floodplains. Relocation of the main 

Stehekin Valley Road around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field will, however, expose visitors 

along the road to debris flow and snow avalanche hazards. These events typically occur during the winter 

and fall, when visitation is low. NPS proposes to mitigate these hazards by placing interpretive and 

warning signs at selected pullouts. These signs will inform people about the nature of the hazards and 

what precautions to take during periods of heavy rainfall. These precautions would include avoidance of 

bridges and culverts, where small streams are likely to carry debris flows. 

These signs are proposed to be located along the road and would have a negligible impact to the natural 

resources of the floodplain. Parts of the road, camps, and trails would remain within the floodplain, 

however. 

Actions proposed in the preferred alternative at several sites would enhance floodplain values and reduce 

flood hazard. These include restoration of riparian zones at McGregor Meadows, Lower Field, and 

Buckner Homestead hayfield and pasture, and removal of the Stehekin Valley Road, fuel storage 

facilities, NPS Maintenance Shops, and three NPS housing units from regulatory floodplains. 

In this plan the NPS structures and facilities will be removed from the channel migration zone. Roads, 

trails, and campgrounds that remain in the floodplain will be subject to periodic flooding. Chelan County 

enforces the National Flood Insurance Program on the more than 400 acres of private land in the NRA. 

Private structures and facilities will, however, remain within the regulatory floodplain, and standards and 

criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60) are administered by Chelan County. 
Appendices 

572 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

Summary 

This statement of findings accompanies a DEIS for the Stehekin River floodplain for actions designed in 

the SRCIP. 

Recent major floods and resultant channel changes on the lower Stehekin River have intensified flood and 

erosion threats to NPS facilities and natural resources within Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. The 

three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River have occurred within the past 15 years, and in 

response the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood 

damage. Roads, visitor facilities and private homes once thought to be safe from the river are now 

threatened. Recognizing a shift to a large fall flood dominated flood regime and changes wrought by the 

recent floods, the NPS will use the more conservative approach of the channel migration zone to direct 

planning actions in the lower Stehekin Valley. 

The proposed actions in the preferred alternative, Alternative 2, will reduce flood risk by removing NPS 

facilities and parts of the Stehekin Valley Road from the floodplain. The primary negative impacts to the 

floodplain in this alternative are impacts from keeping the 400-foot-long Company Creek levee, which 

inhibits floodplain utilization, erosion protection measures installed over time along the river, and from 

allowing the road to remain adjacent to the floodplain and/or channel migration zone where reroutes 

cannot be undertaken. In addition, large woody debris procurement in the Lake Chelan backwater zone 

would be allowed from the tops of large logjams (with NPS permitting approval) for erosion control 

projects. Logjam manipulation would be allowed under specific emergency circumstances in this 

backwater zone. New recreational opportunities proposed would also be within the channel migration 

zone. 

Impacts to floodplain values are offset by several proposed management actions. These include (1) removal 

of the maintenance area from the floodplain, (2) rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road out of McGregor 

Meadows, (3) removal of private development from the floodplain through land exchange/purchase from 

willing owners to improve public safety and so that homes and septic systems do not become incorporated in 

logjams in future flood events, and (4) restoration of riparian areas in several locations in conjunction with the 

creation of new recreational opportunities 

Conclusion 

Floodplain values are impacted by several actions proposed in the SRCIP DEIS, including placement of 

new erosion control structures, manipulation of large woody debris in the Lake Chelan backwater zone, 

and retention of some road segments and visitor use facilities in floodplains. For facilities that remain in 

floodplain, flood hazards are relatively minor (depth < 3 feet, velocity <3 ft/second) and advance warning 

of hours to days is likely. 

These impacts are mitigated, to some extent, by several actions that enhance floodplain values. These 

include removal of NPS housing, maintenance buildings, and fuel storage from the floodplain, relocation 

of 1.8 miles of the main valley road from the floodplain, restoration of two riparian areas, and a revamped Land Protection Plan that proposes the removal of private development via willing seller land 

exchanges before it is claimed by the river. 

References 

Chelan Public Utilities District. 2001. Evaluation of the Backwater Hydraulic Profile of the Lower 

Stehekin River. Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project 637. 12p. 
Appendix 17 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 573 

Jarrett. R.D. 1996. Paleoflood Investigation to Assess maximum Flooding in the Chelan River Basin, 

Washington. Unpublished study by Chelan Public Utility District. 36p. 

National Park Service. 1996. Stehekin River Hydraulic Modeling Project 2-D flow Analysis. Technical 

Memorandum 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. Director’s Order #77-2; Floodplain 

Procedural Manual. Washington, D.C. 

Riedel, J.L. 1993. Stehekin River Floodplain Mapping Project. Technical Report 

NPS/PNRNOCA/NRTR-93/011. 23p. 

Riedel, J.L. 2008. Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan White Paper. National Park Service, 

North Cascades National Park Service Complex, January 18, 2008, 42p. 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 575 

APPENDIX 18: ESTIMATES OF GRAVEL ACCUMULATION IN TWO 

REACHES OF THE STEHEKIN RIVER 

Estimates of gravel accumulations in two reaches of the Stehekin River were calculated in order to 

evaluate the basic cost of dredging the Stehekin River. The lower reach is defined as the river mouth 

(river kilometer 0) to river kilometer 1. Cross-sections from a survey done in 1999 by the Chelan County 

Public Utility District (PUD) were resurveyed in 2009. Four cross-sections were chosen as a basis of 

comparison of gravel accumulation in the lower kilometer of the river. Based on this data, in a ten year 

period it is estimated that 59,000 cubic yards of gravel accumulated in this lower reach. The upper reach 

is defined as just above the McGregor Meadows logjam to river kilometer 11. Gravel accumulation was 

estimated by comparing cross-sectional data done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1986 to a 

White Shield Inc. survey done in 2007. In a 21-year period it is estimated that 44,000 cubic yards of

gravel accumulated in this reach. 

This brings the total gravel accumulation to 103,000 cubic yards when these two sections of the river are 

combined. We note these are overall high estimates since incision was not accounted for in this study. 

Pebble counts done in 2007 estimated the mean grain size at 2.6 inches at river kilometer 1, 3.5 inches at 

river kilometer 10, and 5.9 inches at river kilometer 11. A potential gravel storage area is the Company 

Creek Gravel Pit, but current policy limits the footprint of the gravel pit to 2 acres, which is too small to 

accept 103,000 cubic yards of material. When this estimate of gravel was given to the Army Corps of 

Engineers, they calculated that the one-time cost of dredging the Stehekin River would cost around 12.5 

million dollars. Therefore the maintenance of the dredging option on the decadal scale would cost 

millions of dollars to maintain and was thus not considered one of the preferred alternatives. 

Below is a description of the data used in this study and the assumptions and calculations made in order to 

estimate gravel accumulation in the Stehekin River for these two reaches. 

Cross-section Data 

The lower reach in this study is defined as the river mouth (kilometer 0) to 1 kilometer up river (figure 1). 

In this section of the river, surveys were conducted Chelan County PUD in October of 1999 and again in 

March of 2009. Both surveys are tied to the USGS Purple Point Gage, located in upper Lake Chelan. The 

vertical datum for both surveys is the USC and GS Datum at Lake Chelan (NAVD 88) and the horizontal 

datum is NAD 83. The locations of cross-sections in this lower reach are provided in figure 2 while the 

cross-sections follow in figures 3-6. 

The upper reach of this study is defined as river kilometer 10 to 11, in the McGregor Meadows section of 

the Stehekin Valley (figure 1). Surveys were conducted by the USGS in 1986 and again in 2007 by White 

Shield Inc. The 1986 USGS survey used vertical datum NGVD 29, while the 2007 survey used the 

current vertical datum of NAVD 88. Thus an adjustment of 3.82 feet is added to each data point in the 

1986 survey in order to compare it to the 2007 survey. This adjustment figure is based on calibrations 

done by White Shield Inc. relating to gage stations in the valley (White Shield Inc. 2007). Horizontal 

datum for both surveys is NAD 83. The locations of cross-sections in this upper reach are provided in 

figure 7 while the cross-sections follow in figures 8-11. 
Appendices 

576 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 1. THE LOCATION OF THE TWO REACHES EVALUATED FOR GRAVEL ACCUMULATION ON THE STEHEKIN 

RIVER

FIGURE 2. THE LOCATIONS OF CROSS-SECTIONS IN THE LOWER KILOMETER OF THE STEHEKIN RIVER
Appendix 18 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 577 

Calculations of Gravel Accumulation 

Lower Reach 

At the mouth of the river, PUD-5 shows an average increase of 1.5 feet of gravel over the ten-year period 

(figure 3). For PUD-11 incomplete data was provided for the 1999 survey, as shown in figure 4. The main 

channel has clearly incised close to the left bank since the 1999 survey with concomitant lateral growth of 

a “point” gravel bar. The average gravel accumulation was estimated at 2.3 feet across the channel. For 

PUD-15, slight erosion has occurred at the right bank of the river with minor deposition across the left 

bank gravel bar of 0.8 feet (figure 5). The final section of the lower reach is at PUD-18 (figure 6). The 

cross-section data clearly shows this section accumulated gravel in the last 10 years. The average 

accumulation across the channel was 3 feet. 

FIGURE 3. CROSS-SECTION PUD-5 IN THE 1999 AND 2009 SURVEYS
Appendices 

578 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 4. CROSS-SECTION PUD-11 IN THE 1999 AND 2009 SURVEYS

FIGURE 5. CROSS-SECTION PUD-15 IN THE 1999 AND 2009 SURVEYS
Appendix 18 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 579 

FIGURE 6. CROSS-SECTION PUD-18 IN THE 1999 AND 2009 SURVEYS

Between river kilometer 0 and 1, we will assume that that average gravel accumulation shown in the 

cross-sections, 1.9 feet, is constant over this 2,900 foot stretch of river. By approximating the area of the 

channel to be a trapezoid that consist of one rectangle 250 feet by 1.9 feet (main channel) and two 

triangles each 5 feet long (edges of channel), this section has an estimated volume of 59,000 cubic yards 

of gravel accumulated in the 21-year period. Pebble counts done in this section of the river in 2007 

estimated the mean grain size to be 2.6 inches. 

Upper Reach 

Gravel accumulation was more challenging to estimate in the upper reach in McGregor Meadows since 

the locations of comparing cross-sections in most cases are not identical (figure 7). Just above the major 

logjam in McGregor Meadows, cross-sections USGS-Z and WSI-10 are compared. Slight erosion is noted 

in the main channel and a large gravel bar has been deposited on the right bank (figure 8). It is also 

revealed that another channel has been scoured into the far right bank of the river. Further up-river of the 

logjam, there is again accumulation of gravel in the main channel, revealed by comparing cross-sections 

USGS-AA to WSI-12 (figure 9). USGS-AB and WSI-13 also reveal more accumulation in the main 

channel as the river has shifted closer to the right bank (figure 10). The final cross-section comparison, 

USGS-AC and WSI-16 reveals slight scour, but mostly deposition of gravel in the main channel 

(figure 11). 

Between cross-section WSI-10 and USGS-AC, we will assume that that average gravel accumulation 

shown in the cross-sections, approximately 2 feet is constant over the 2,900 foot stretch of river. By 

approximating the area of the channel to be a trapezoid that consist of one rectangle 200 feet by 2 feet 

(main channel) and two triangles each 5 feet long (edges of channel), this section has an estimated volume 

of 44,000 cubic yards of gravel accumulated in the 21-year period. Pebble counts done in this section of 

the river in 2007 estimated the mean grain size to be 3.5 inches at river kilometer 10 and 5.9 inches at 

kilometer 11. 
Appendices 

580 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 7. THE LOCATIONS OF CROSS-SECTIONS IN THE MCGREGOR MEADOWS REACH OF THE STEHEKIN RIVER

FIGURE 8. CROSS-SECTION USGS-Z AND WSI-10 FROM THE 1986 AND 2007 SURVEYS
Appendix 18 

Draft Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan 581 

FIGURE 9. CROSS-SECTION USGS-AA AND WSI-12 FROM THE 1986 AND 2007 SURVEYS

FIGURE 10. CROSS-SECTION USGS-AB AND WSI-13 FROM THE 1986 AND 2007 SURVEYS
Appendices 

582 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 

FIGURE 11. CROSS-SECTION USGS-AC AND WSI-16 FROM THE 1986 AND 2007 SURVEYS

Potential Storage Site 

Potential gravel storage areas in the lower Stehekin Valley are severely limited by current public and 

private land use, as well as the Stehekin River. The National Park Service currently operates one gravel 

pit in the valley, known as the Company Creek Gravel Pit. Current policy outlined in the 1995 General 

Management Plan for use of this material limits the footprint of the gravel pit to 2 acres, which is too 

small to accept 103,000 cubic yards of material. Nonetheless, the Company Creek Gravel Pit is the most 

attractive site for storage. It is located 3 miles from the upper reach and 3.5 miles from the lower reach 

analyzed in this study. 
NPS / DSC / August 2010 / 168 / 105080 

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. 
North Cascades National Park Service Complex:

Lake Chelan National Recreation Area

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service