leavenworth area wildfire resilience project · leavenworth area wildfire resilience project –...

Draft Environmental Assessment

Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Project Leavenworth, Chelan County, WA January 2018

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) DR #4188

Prepared for: FEMA Region X 130 228th Street, SW Bothell WA 98021

Prepared by: Booz Allen Hamilton 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Contract No. HSFE60-15-D-0016 Task Order HSFE60-16-J-0231

Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Project – Draft Environmental Assessment i

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CAA – Clean Air Act CCD – Cascadia Conservation District CCFD#3 – Chelan County Fire District #3 CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality CFR – Code of Federal Regulations CHU – Critical Habitat Unit CWA – Clean Water Act CWPP – Community Wildfire Protection Plan CWSC – Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship

Coalition DDT – Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DPS – Distinct Population Segment EA – Environmental Assessment Ecology – State of Washington Department of

Ecology EO – Executive Order ESA – Endangered Species Act ESU – Evolutionary Significant Unit FEMA – Federal Emergency Management

Agency FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA – Farmland Protection Policy Act GHG – Greenhouse Gas GIS – Geographic Information Systems HMGP – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program LSR – Late-successional Reserve MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program NFPA – National Fire Protection Act

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRA – National Recreation Area NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation

Service NRHP – National Register of Historic Places OHWM – Ordinary High Water Mark PM – Particulate Matter SHPO – State Historic Preservation Officer TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load U.S.C. – United States Code USEIA – United States Energy Information

Administration USEPA – United States Environmental

Protection Agency USFS – United States Forest Service USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife

Service USGS – United States Geological Survey WDFW – Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife WISAARD – Washington Information System

for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data

WSDOH – Washington State Department of Health

WUI – Wildland-urban Interface

Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Project – Draft Environmental Assessment ii

Glossary

Alluvium: Loose, unconsolidated soils that have been eroded and reshaped by water in some form.

Area of Potential Effect: Geographic area or areas within which an Undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The Area of Potential Effect is influenced by the scale and nature of the Undertaking.

Best Management Practice: Environmental protective measure for conducting projects in an environmentally responsible manner.

Colluvium: Loose, unconsolidated soils that have been deposited at the base of hillslopes.

Defensible Space: Clearings between wildland vegetation and structures.

Fuels Reduction: Removal of excess flammable vegetation through thinning, limbing, or other methods to reduce the potential for severe wildfires.

Limbing: Removal of large tree limbs to reduce fuel load and the potential for crown fires.

Loam: Well-drained soils composed of sand, silt, and clay in relatively even proportions.

Loess: Deposits of silt that have been laid down by wind action.

Ordinary High Water Mark: Point on a bank or shore up to which the presence and action of the water leaves a distinct mark by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or other easily recognized characteristic.

Residuum: Remaining soil after soluble elements have dissolved.

Prescribed Burn: Any fire ignited for vegetation management.

Slash: Vegetative debris created by property clearing, right-of-way clearing, and forest management activities.

Suppression: Response to wildland fire that results in the curtailment of fire spread and elimination of all identified threats from the fire.

Thinning: Partial removal of trees, branches, or shrubs from a stand to reduce fuel loads.

Wildfire: Unwanted wildland fire.

Wildland-Urban Interface: Line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with vegetative fuels in wildlands.

Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Project – Draft Environmental Assessment iii

Table of Contents

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

SECTION TWO: PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................. 2

SECTION THREE: ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 4 3.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Consideration ...................... 7

SECTION FOUR: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ............................. 8 4.1 Physical Resources ..................................................................................................... 8

4.1.1 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 9 4.1.3 Climate .......................................................................................................... 10 4.1.4 Consequences of Alternatives ....................................................................... 10

4.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 11 4.2.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................ 11 4.2.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................ 12 4.2.3 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 13 4.2.4 Floodplains .................................................................................................... 13 4.2.5 Consequences of Alternatives ....................................................................... 14

4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 15 4.3.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Wildlife and Fish ............................................................................................ 16 4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat ............................ 17 4.3.4 Other Special Status Species ......................................................................... 23 4.3.5 Consequences of Alternatives ....................................................................... 25

4.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 28 4.4.1 Ethnographic Context .................................................................................... 28 4.4.2 Historical Context .......................................................................................... 29 4.4.3 Identification of Historic Properties .............................................................. 31 4.4.4 Summary of Documented Cultural Resources .............................................. 33 4.4.5 Native American Consultation ...................................................................... 34 4.4.6 Consequences of Alternatives ....................................................................... 34

4.5 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................................................ 36 4.5.1 Public Safety .................................................................................................. 36 4.5.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................... 36 4.5.3 Consequences of Alternatives ....................................................................... 37

4.6 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 37 4.6 1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 37

Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Project – Draft Environmental Assessment iv

4.6.2 Consequences of Alternatives ....................................................................... 38 4.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................. 38

SECTION FIVE: AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................ 40

SECTION SIX: PERMITTING, PROJECT CONDITIONS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......... 42

SECTION SEVEN: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 44

SECTION EIGHT: LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................ 45

SECTION NINE: REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 46

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix A Maps and Figures ..................................................................................... 54 Appendix B Biological Assessment .............................................................................. 60 Appendix C SHPO Concurrence Letter ...................................................................... 115

SHPO Concurrence Letter ..................................................................................... 116 Appendix D Tribal Consultation Letters .................................................................... 117

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation ................................................. 118 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation ....................................... 126

Appendix E Tribal Concurrence Letter ...................................................................... 134 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation ................................................. 135

Appendix F USFWS Concurrence Letter .................................................................... 136 Appendix G Initial Public Notice, Fact Sheet and Public Comments Received ......... 144

Initial Public Notice to Prepare an Environmental Assessment ........................... 145 Fact Sheet ............................................................................................................. 146

Appendix H Public Notice .......................................................................................... 148

Introduction

Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Project – Draft Environmental Assessment Page 1

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION Chelan County Fire District #3 (CCFD#3) in the State of Washington has applied for funding under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for financial assistance for the Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience project in Chelan County in central Washington (Proposed Action). The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 5121-5207), and is administered by the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD). These HMGP funds are available from the 2014 Presidential major disaster declaration FEMA-DR 4188 WA. The purpose of the HMGP is to help communities implement hazard mitigation measures following a Presidential major disaster declaration. The Proposed Action targets the Chumstick Creek watershed, Icicle Valley, and Mountain Home Road area of Leavenworth in Chelan County, Washington. Appendix A, Figure 1, shows the project area.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4327); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to implement NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508); Department of Homeland Security Instruction 023-01; and FEMA’s NEPA implementing procedures (FEMA Instruction 108-01-1). FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions or projects.

The purpose of this EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience project. FEMA will use the findings in this EA to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required or if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) should be issued.

Purpose and Need


SECTION TWO: PURPOSE AND NEED The HMGP provides grants to States, federally-recognized Tribes, and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. Hazard mitigation is any action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards. The purpose of the Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience project is to improve the safety of residents and firefighters and reduce the risk of wildfire-related impacts in the Leavenworth area. The project is also consistent with wildfire mitigation objectives outlined in the Washington State Enhanced Mitigation Plan (2013) and the Chelan County Multi Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011). The need for this action is detailed below.

Chelan County has an ongoing fire mitigation program between the Cascadia Conservation District (CCD), the Fire Marshal’s Office, local fire districts, other emergency personnel, Federal and State agencies, and citizens. In 2003, the CCD (formerly Chelan County Conservation District), CCFD#3, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and residents assessed fuel loading in the Leavenworth area to begin the process of developing a community-specific wildfire plan (CCCD, 2005).

The Leavenworth Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Leavenworth CWPP) was released in 2005 as a community-specific fire protection plan to identify and implement projects that would protect residents and emergency personnel from injury of loss of life, in addition to minimizing or preventing damage or loss of property and essential infrastructure as a result of wildfire. The Leavenworth CWPP encompasses approximately 55,121 acres surrounding the town of Leavenworth, and includes the Chumstick Creek watershed and private lands in the Icicle Creek valley, areas identified as having extreme fire risk by the Washington Department of Natural Resources in 2012 (Appendix A, Figure 1) (CCCD, 2005; Washington EMD, 2013). Within the Leavenworth area, approximately 31 percent (16,964 acres) is privately-owned lands, 50 percent (27,734 acres) is federally-managed, 3 percent (1,813 acres) is State-owned lands, and 16 percent is industrial timber lands (CCCD, 2005). The Leavenworth CWPP describes the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) as areas in the community where structures and related public infrastructure meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The WUI poses high risks to life, property, and infrastructure, and is one of the most dangerous and complicated situations encountered by firefighters. There are many primary and secondary residences and State and Federal lands in Chelan County with dangerous levels of high-hazard fuels adjacent to the extreme wildfire risk areas that are included in the Leavenworth CWPP. These areas create additional hazards for wildfire in the larger vicinity due to the risk of windblown embers to areas outside the WUI.

The Leavenworth CWPP lists the following wildfire risk factors for the three communities:

• Chumstick Creek watershed – One way in/one way out access to smaller side canyons; residences along the valley wall and side canyons do not have sufficient defensible space; common areas and undeveloped lots with high fuel loads; timber mixed with light fuel that can lead to fast moving wildfires; and no hydrants throughout the area.

Purpose and Need


• Icicle Valley – Upper valley residences are spread out and have one way in/one way out access; residences located at the base of the valley walls are difficult to defend; and large areas of open forest.

• Mountain Home Road area – Single lane dirt road and access is difficult during winter months (CCCD, 2005).

The Chumstick Creek, Icicle Valley, and Mountain Home Road areas were not developed in the traditional subdivision method and vary in the type of fire protection mechanisms in place. For example, there are no hydrants throughout the Chumstick Creek area; some homes in Icicle Valley are outside the fire protection district and some homes in the Mountain Home Road area have implemented fuels reduction projects around homes. Washington adopted the 2015 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (International Code Council, 2014) that requires property owners of new construction to meet building construction and defensible space requirements (Washington Administrative Code chapter 51-54A). However, Chelan County does not have the authority to mandate these requirements for properties developed and homes built prior 2015 or for new construction. Some property owners have participated in the Firewise program (explained further in Section 3.2), but very few homes have implemented defensible space. CCFD#3 has determined that some financial assistance might be needed to assist some landowners to implement the Firewise program and defensible space on their property (CCCD, 2005).

In the 2013 and 2014 fire seasons, two major fires occurred in Chelan County (Eagle fire and Chiwaukum fire). These fires resulted in the burning of 15,600 acres, the loss of an outbuilding, 4 damaged structures, and $35.5 million in fire suppression and repair of damaged properties (HMGP Application, 2015). Smaller wildfires have also occurred near Leavenworth, including the Suncrest Fire which burned about 400 acres in 2016; and the Spromberg Fire which burned about 40 acres and Jack Creek Fire which burned about 4,600 acres in 2017 (NWCG, 2017).

Alternatives


SECTION THREE: ALTERNATIVES This section discusses the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action to which FEMA funding would contribute, and the alternatives that were considered and dismissed.

3.1 No Action Alternative A No Action Alternative is required to be included in this EA in accordance with CEQ NEPA implementing regulations. The No Action Alternative is defined as maintaining the status quo (baseline conditions) without Federal agency involvement. The No Action Alternative is used to evaluate the effects of not conducting FEMA-funded wildfire resiliency activities and provides a benchmark against which other alternatives may be evaluated.

Under the No Action Alternative, no FEMA funded wildfire resiliency activities would occur in the project area. Wildfire risk in the WUI would continue as a result of existing, untended heavy ladder fuels and poor access for emergency responders. At-risk property owners would continue to implement wildfire mitigation activities on their own initiative or as otherwise assisted by the homeowner’s insurance provider. For purposes of this EA, under the No Action Alternative, at-risk property owners and Chelan County would have to rely on savings, insurance, loans, or other forms of assistance to conduct wildfire resilience and mitigation activities.

3.2 Proposed Action The description of the Proposed Action is primarily based on the 2015 HMGP application, information collected during a site visit in December 2016, and updates from CCFD#3. The Proposed Action would be coordinated by the Chumstick Wildfire Stewardship Coalition (CWSC). The Proposed Action consists of the following components which would be implemented only for the property owners in the project area who elect to participate in the Proposed Action.

• Assessment of the wildfire threat to the property. • Creation of defensible space around the property. • Implementation of fuels reduction projects. Excess vegetation would be removed by a

variety of equipment that could include: rotary disc masticators, chippers, chainsaws, hand saws, pruning poles, loppers, weed whackers, and other assorted hand tools. Limited to no ground disturbance would occur during the fuels reduction activities. Vegetative debris would be chipped on-site and broadcast, or collected and burned in piles per Chelan County fire hazard codes.

• Roof retrofit of select structures with ignition-resistant material.

The Proposed Action would be implemented according to the Firewise principles for defensible space as outlined in Firewise Toolkit: Firewise Principles, the Chelan County General Forestry Prescription, and guidelines from the Woodland Fish and Wildlife Group as discussed below.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Firewise program is sponsored by the USFS, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Association of State Foresters. The Firewise principles for defensible space include the following:

Alternatives


• Create a defensible space zone with at least a 30-foot radius and out to 200 feet around a structure’s foundation. The radius may be expanded to provide additional defensible space around structures on steep slopes. Fuels reduction could occur on properties as large as 29 acres, but treatment would be more intense close to structures in the defensible space zone.

• Plant grass and small islands of fire-resistant plants in the defensible space. • Trim trees in the defensible space so the lowest branches are 6 to 10 feet above the

ground. • Space plants in the defensible space so the plants or plant canopies do not touch; use

wider spacing along slopes. • Plant fire- or drought-resistant plants in the defensible space. • Do not remove all vegetation in the defensible space because doing so could increase

soil erosion, especially on the sloped areas, which are found in much of the project area (NFPA, 2016).

Appendix A, Figure 2 illustrates the Firewise principles, and Figure 3 shows an example of a treated property that was protected from a wildfire.

The Chelan County General Forestry Prescription provides methodology for thinning trees, pruning trees, removing ladder fuels, and slash disposal. The General Forestry Prescription includes the following:

• Thin suppressed, poor crowned trees less than 8 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) to promote health and growth of the larger overstory trees. Preference should be to leave ponderosa pine, but avoid leaving only one species.

• Prune live limbs between September and March. Dead limbs may be pruned at any time.

• Cut any live or dead brush that may act as ladder fuels to adjacent tree crowns. Leave brush not considered to be ladder fuels for wildlife cover.

• Slash may be disposed of by: cut and scatter, pile and burn, chipping, and mulching (Schellhaas Forestry, LLC).

Guidelines developed by the Woodland Fish and Wildlife Group (2016) address snags and logs, old growth trees, timing, pruning, and seeding. These guidelines would be implemented as applicable and where possible per parcel in the parcel assessment and treatment prescription. The guidelines include the following:

• Strive for 6 foraging snags per acre and 1 to 2 cavity nesting snags per acre. Strive for snags and logs greater than 15 feet long and greater than 12 inches in diameter.

• Keep any old growth trees, including defective trees and strive for 2 to 3 old growth trees per acres.

• Beyond the approximately 200-foot defensible space around the structure, openings can vary from 0.1 to 5 acres in size and can comprise 5 to 15 percent of the landscape and have irregular shapes.

Alternatives


• Beyond an approximately 200-foot defensible space around the structure, patches can be 30 to 50 feet across, 100 to 300 feet in length, and comprise 10 to 20 percent of the landscape.

• Build habitat piles of 5 layers with larger material on the bottom. Piles should be 20 feet in diameter, 6 feet high, and 1 to 3 piles per acre.

• Maintain the best shrub species and keep them in clumps beyond overhanging limbs from adjacent trees.

• Schedule activities during the fall when it is the best time to avoid wildlife nesting and denning and insect outbreaks.

• For trees beyond the approximately 200-foot defensible space around the structure, leave 5 to 10 percent of the trees unpruned. When pruning, retain 1/3 of the total live branches to maintain tree vigor.

• Clear brush and undergrowth around unpruned trees to reduce the risk of crown fires. • Prune trees during October through March when they are dormant to avoid insect

infestation and disturbance of bird species during nesting season. If work needs to occur outside of October through March, then an avian and nest survey may be required.

• When seeding disturbed soils or areas of burned soil use only native and certified weed free seed mixes.

The Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) requires cities and counties to have regulations to protect critical areas, including: wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. As applicable, work will be consistent with Chelan County’s and the City of Leavenworth’s current critical areas ordinances. Project activities would be prohibited between March 1 and July 31 in wildlife habitat conservation areas and suitable habitat for the Northern spotted owl. Areas within critical habitat, conservation habitat, and dispersal habitat of the Northern spotted owl as delineated in the Biological Assessment (Appendix B) would not be thinned below the 40 percent crown closure to retain classification as dispersal habitat.

Additionally, no vegetation management activities would be allowed within 50 feet of a stream’s ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for non-fish bearing streams or within 75 feet of the OHWM for fish bearing streams. An exception could be considered for hazard trees such as snags or infested trees. Removal of trees 8 inches in dbh or greater would be prohibited within 100 feet from the OHWM of water bodies with known presence of fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531– 1544). No work would be allowed in wetlands.

Up to 40 properties could be protected depending on property owner participation and funding under the Proposed Action. This would comprise up to approximately 273 total acres treated, as distributed across the 3 target communities. Participating property owners would be required to sign a 10-year maintenance contract with the CWSC that specifies the necessary annual maintenance activities. Homeowners would be responsible for maintaining defensible space and hazardous fuels reduction projects for 10 years. The homeowner would be responsible for

Alternatives


funding the completion of this work. Homeowners would be responsible for maintaining fire-resistant structural modifications for 10 years at their expense.

3.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Consideration One alternative treatment method, reduction of fuel loads through prescribed burning, was considered and dismissed. Prescribed burning was considered for areas beyond the 30-foot radius of structures, but the risk of an escaped fire could be high. Multiple burn locations would be required throughout the project area to effectively manage fuel loads. Prescribed burning is most effective in areas with light fuel loads. The risk to the residual forest increases where fuels are heavy and at higher elevations. Thick stands of large and old pine and fir trees in Chelan County create an increased potential risk for fire. Insects and diseases are increasing accumulations of fuels and changing growth patterns that increase the risk for fire (USFS, 2011). The prescribed burning alternative was dismissed because of the potential risk presented by the existing ignitable fuels, the lack of trained prescribed burning contractors, and smoke dispersal barriers created by topography and weather patterns.

Affected Environment and Potential Impacts


SECTION FOUR: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section discusses the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action on six categories of environmental resources (physical, water, biological, cultural, socioeconomic, and recreation). The potential cumulative environmental impacts are also discussed (see Section 4.7).

The impact analysis follows the same approach for all resource categories. When possible, quantitative information is provided to establish potential impacts, and the potential impacts are evaluated qualitatively based on the criteria listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Evaluation Criteria for Potential Impacts

Impact Scale Criteria

None/negligible The resource area would not be affected, or changes would either be non-detectable or if detected, the effects would be slight and local. Impacts would be well below regulatory standards, as applicable.

Minor Changes to the resource would be measurable, but the changes would be small and localized. Impacts would be within or below regulatory standards, as applicable. Mitigation measures would reduce any potential adverse effects.

Moderate Changes to the resource would be measurable and have both localized and regional impacts. Impacts would be within or below regulatory standards, but historical conditions would be altered temporarily. Mitigation measures would be necessary, and the measures would reduce any potential adverse effects.

Major Changes to the resource would be readily measurable and would have substantial consequences on local and regional levels. Impacts would exceed regulatory standards. Mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects would be required to reduce impacts, but long-term changes to the resource would be expected.

Impacts are predicted based on the degree of change or loss of the resource from the baseline conditions. Impacts may be direct or indirect. Direct impacts are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect impacts are caused by an action and occur later or are farther removed from the area but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR Part 1508).

4.1 Physical Resources

4.1.1 Geology and Soils Chelan County lies along the eastern portions of the Cascade Mountains in Central Washington. Icicle Valley, in the western portion of the project area, is situated at between 2,500 and 2,600 feet above sea level; elevations drop from west to east throughout the valley (USFS, 2015a). Near Leavenworth, in the southern portion of the project area, elevations are at just over 1,100 feet above sea level along the Wenatchee River; mountainous areas to the west of Leavenworth,



including Tumwater Mountain, top out at over 4,400 feet above sea level (USFS, 2006). Chumstick Valley, along the Chumstick Creek in the northeastern portion of the project area, generally varies between 1,800 and 2,200 feet above sea level, with elevations decreasing from east to west (USFS, 2015b).

The geology of the area consists of Continental Sedimentary Rocks from structurally folded sedimentary bedrock of early Tertiary Age. Rocks derive from the consolidation of continental sediments rapidly deposited into fault-controlled basins. The bedrock structure and the varying degree of resistance to weathering and erosion contributes to the topography (USFS, 2011). The topography of the area includes valley bottoms and steep, high relief mountain slopes (USFS, 2004).

Soil types throughout Chelan County are generally derived from six different types of bedrock, to include: gneiss, schist, serpentine, sandstone, granite, and basalt. Soil characteristics are generally a reflection of the type of bedrock from which the soil was generated. Soils formed in gneiss have a high percentage of angular rock fragments. Soils formed in schist may have flat fragments of sandstone, shale, slate, limestone, or schist and a high percentage of the fragments are weathered, soft, and can be easily broken. Soils formed in the Chumstick sandstone have fewer rock fragments. Soils formed in granite or granodiorite commonly have less than 35 percent rock fragments and dominantly have fine gravel-sized fragments. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, there are 374 soil types that occur in the areas that include and immediately surround the project areas (NRCS, 2007).

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 4201 et seq.), requires that Federal agencies minimize the extent to which their programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance to non-agricultural uses. Farmlands subject to FPPA requirements may be forestland, pastureland, or cropland but cannot be urban built-up land. There are 4,266 acres of prime farmlands in the project area (ESRI, 2017).

4.1.2 Air Quality The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7661) requires that States adopt ambient air quality standards. The standards have been established to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants.

Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) establishes primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary air quality standards protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as people with asthma, children, and older adults. Secondary air quality standards protect public welfare by promoting ecosystems health and preventing decreased visibility and damage to crops and buildings (USEPA, 2017). The USEPA has set national ambient air quality standards for the following six criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead (USEPA, 2017).



Wildfires, which are a regular occurrence during the summer in Central Washington, emit smoke that is a mixture of gases and fine particles which include ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM 2.5). Communities exposed to wildfire smoke are advised to check current State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) air quality information and public health messages. Other recommendations include staying inside as much as possible, avoiding outdoor physical activity, keeping windows and doors closed, and recirculating air conditioners. Generally, those that are most at risk by wildfire smoke are older adults, children, pregnant women, smokers, and individuals with respiratory infections or diabetes (WSDOH, 2017).

There are no nonattainment or maintenance areas for air quality within the project area, Leavenworth, or Chelan County, Washington (USEIA, 2017). The nearest air quality monitoring station to the project area is in Leavenworth. Typically, the station has an air quality advisory rating of “good,” which indicates that the air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk (Ecology, 2017a).

4.1.3 Climate Chelan County is east of the Cascade Mountains and west of the Columbia River and has warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters. Leavenworth has 24 inches of average annual precipitation and 95 inches of average annual snowfall. Temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit range from highs in the 80s in the summer to the 30s in winter and lows in the 40s in the summer to the 20s in the winter (Western Regional Climate Center, 2016). The types of severe weather events that occur in Chelan County are damaging high winds; severe thunderstorms with high winds and hail; snowfall, ice, or freezing rain associated with winter storms; and flash flooding (Chelan County, 2011).

Global and regional climate conditions are expected to change in the coming decades. According to the Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, temperatures could increase by 2 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2020s, 3.2 degrees by the 2040s, and 5.3 degrees by the 2080s (Climate Impacts Group, 2009). Because of increased summer temperature and decreased summer precipitation, the area burned by fire regionally is projected to double by the 2040s and triple by the 2080s (Climate Impacts Group, 2009). Generally, hotter and drier conditions contribute to larger wildfires and longer fire seasons. Increased fire probability in the region from changing climatic conditions in the coming years could increasingly put communities in the WUI at risk.

4.1.4 Consequences of Alternatives

No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding for vegetation removal or retrofitting of structures; however, some wildfire resilience projects would be expected to continue as initiated by property owners, through existing local programs/requirements, or as required by homeowner’s insurance providers. There would be no impacts to geology. Soil resources in the project area would be affected by erosion if vegetation is burned in a



catastrophic wildfire; steep slopes would be particularly affected. A significant loss of mature vegetation along steep slopes could increase the risk of landslides and risks to proximate structures and infrastructure.

In the event of a wildfire, air quality would likely decline putting the elderly, school children and other vulnerable populations at risk. Depending on the air quality advisory, the public could be advised to change their daily activities including outdoor work and essential errands and school cancellations could occur. If the risk of wildfires increases as a result of climate change, the project area could be even more vulnerable to wildfire impacts in the decades ahead. Although wildfires are a natural element of an ecosystem, a large wildfire could release increased quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG). Adverse impacts would range from minor to moderate, depending on the severity and location of a wildfire and subsequent air pollution and soil erosion.

Proposed Action

Adverse impacts to geology and climate would be negligible based on the scale of the project, distribution of parcels, and limited ground-disturbing activities. Staging areas for roof retrofit of select structures with ignition-resistant material would be located on pre-disturbed ground. Heavy equipment would not be required for this type of construction. Actions for clearing defensible space and vegetative fuels reduction could affect geological resources. Some soil could be disturbed during project activities, but adverse impacts would be negligible based on the low-impact nature of vegetation removal with hand-held tools and small equipment such as masticators and chippers. Impacts would also be negligible because of the relatively small scale of parcels to be treated and their distribution across a relatively large area. Since the project does not involve changes in land use, no impacts to prime or unique farmlands would occur.

Fuels reduction and structure retrofitting activities would occur on a localized scale and focus on protection of structures in contiguous areas, where possible, thus likely locally reducing the spread/severity of wildfires. Reducing the risk or severity of wildfires would generally be a positive effect to air quality and climate change because of the consequent reduction in air pollution and GHG releases. Emissions from vehicles and gas-powered equipment and tools used to implement the project would be short-term and localized, resulting in negligible adverse impacts to local air quality

4.2 Water Resources

4.2.1 Surface Water The Proposed Action is located in the Wenatchee subbasin (Water Resource Inventory Area 45), with the targeted communities located in the smaller subwatersheds of Icicle, Chumstick, and Lower Wenatchee (Figure 1) (USGS, 2017) (Chelan County, 2006). The Wenatchee River and its tributaries, including Chumstick Creek and Icicle Creek, flow through the project area. The Wenatchee River travels south to southwest through Chelan County and along the southern boundary of Leavenworth towards the Columbia River. Chumstick Creek runs north to south,



flowing into the Wenatchee River east of Leavenworth, and is located near several of the proposed project sites. Icicle Creek and its tributaries flow southeast through the county and enter the Wenatchee River at the southern boundary of Leavenworth. The Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek are Shorelines of Statewide Significance, which are shorelines “where specific priority uses are preferred” (Ecology, 2017b).

The Wenatchee subbasin is on the eastern side of the Cascade Mountains in north-central Washington, and covers approximately 1,370 square miles. Headwaters begin in the high elevations of the Cascade Mountains. It is bordered by the Entiat Mountains to the north and east, and to the south by the Wenatchee Range, and drains to the Columbia River. Snowpack runoff provides the majority of the surface water for this subbasin. Five major tributaries in the upper portion of the subbasin – the Chiwawa River, the White River, the Little Wenatchee River, Nason Creek and Icicle Creek – are the primary sources for streamflow (Andonaegui, 2001).

4.2.2 Water Quality Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2)), States and Tribes are required to assess water quality and report a listing of impaired waters, the causes of impairment, and probable sources. Based on the State’s 2015 Water Quality Assessment, water in the Wenatchee watershed, including the Wenatchee River, Chumstick Creek, and Icicle Creek, is considered impaired and included on the State’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. Water quality issues include dissolved oxygen, pH, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), fecal coliform bacteria, and high water temperatures (Ecology, 2015a). Segments along the Wenatchee River, Chumstick Creek, and Icicle Creek are ranked as Category 1 through 5, depending on the parameter being tested. Category 1 stream segments meet tested standards for clean waters, and Category 5 stream segments are polluted waters that require a total maximum daily load (TMDL) or other water quality improvement projects to improve water quality (Ecology, 2015b).

The Wenatchee River segment within the project area has a Category 4A1 for temperature. A few segments along Chumstick Creek have a Category 4A rating for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and bacteria, a Category 2 rating for pH, and a Category 1 rating for chloride and ammonia-nitrogen. Additionally, a few segments along Icicle Creek have a Class 4A rating for pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen and a Category 1 rating for ammonia-nitrogen (Ecology, 2016).

A water quality improvement project, the Wenatchee River Basin Area project, is currently active in the Wenatchee subbasin (Water Resource Inventory Area 45). The project has USEPA-approved plans for developing TMDLs for dissolved oxygen, pH, DDT, fecal coliform bacteria, and high water temperatures to improve water quality in the Wenatchee River (Ecology, 2015a).

1 Category 4A stream segments are polluted waters that have an approved TMDL in place to improve water quality (Ecology, 2015b).



Phosphorus entering the Wenatchee River from point sources (e.g., discharge from wastewater treatment plants) and non-point sources (e.g., septic systems, agriculture runoff) affect dissolved oxygen and pH levels. Additionally, a decrease in riparian buffers, lack of riparian shade, streambank erosion, channel widening, and low stream flow can increase stream temperature. The temperature of the water affects what species that waterbody can support. For example, fish such as salmon and trout depend on cold water to breathe because cold water holds more dissolved oxygen. Alterations in pH levels can affect plant growth and the solubility of heavy metals, both of which can be harmful to aquatic life. As water quality changes occur, the structure and function of a stream can be altered (Ecology, 2015a).

4.2.3 Wetlands Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater to support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, river overflows, and similar areas (44 CFR Part 9.4).

Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires Federal agencies to “minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.” The EO requires Federal agencies to meet the EO objectives by “planning their actions to consider project alternatives to sites with wetlands, and limit potential damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot be avoided” (FEMA, 2015).

Approximately 987 acres of wetlands are located in the project area. The project area contains 743 acres of riverine wetlands, 154 acres of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, 83 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands, and 7 acres of wetland ponds. Several of the project sites are located on steep slopes dominated by upland forest, which would not support the presence of wetlands (USFWS, 2017).

4.2.4 Floodplains EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to take action to minimize occupancy and modification of the floodplain; and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA’s regulations for complying with EO 11988 are promulgated in 44 CFR Part 9, which defines a floodplain as “the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including, at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.” Through its flood hazard mapping program, FEMA identifies flood hazards and risks associated with the 100-year flood to allow communities to prepare and protect against flood events (FEMA, 2013).

According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project area (Panels 5300150575B [effective 1989], 5300150775 [effective 1989], 5300150800D [effective 2004], 5300150779D [effective 2004], and 5300150787B [effective 2002], floodplains are associated with the Wenatchee River, Chumstick Creek, and Icicle Creek and designated Zone AE and Zone X (FEMA, 2017a). Zone AE is a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood event (i.e., the 100-year flood or flood having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any



given year). Zone X are areas of moderate flood hazard and occur between the limits of base flood and the 2 percent annual chance flood event (500-year floodplain) (FEMA, 2016). A portion of the floodplains associated with the Wenatchee River are in developed areas of Leavenworth. Narrow riverine floodplains are found along Chumstick Creek and Icicle Creek due to the surrounding steep hillsides.

Floodplain management, including zoning ordinances, restrict development within the floodplain. FEMA provides floodplain management assistance, including mapping of 100-year floodplain limits, through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Chelan County participates in the NFIP (FEMA, 2017b). Flooding is one of the most common natural hazards in Chelan County with six federally declared flood disasters since 1972 resulting in loss of life and damage to infrastructure, utilities, and cropland. Chelan County has significant floodplains along Columbia, Wenatchee, White, Entiat, Chiwawa, and Stehekin Rivers, as well as along Nason, Chumstick, Icicle, Peshastin, Mission, and Squilchuck Creeks (Chelan County Public Works, 2013).


No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to reduce vegetation around residences and complete ignition-resistant construction material retrofits. However, some wildfire mitigation activities would be expected to continue as initiated by property owners, through existing local programs/requirements, or as required by homeowner’s insurance providers. Thus, existing conditions and risks to water resources would not change. Properties with hardened structures and maintained defensible space would be expected to be less vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires. These properties would be less likely to contribute to post-burn erosion and sediment loading of water resources, to cause changes in the chemical make-up of the water column, including dissolved oxygen, and lead to variations of water temperature. In the event of a wildfire, impacts to water quality, including sedimentation, would be minor to moderate, depending on the size and intensity of the fire and resulting erosion due to the loss of vegetation. A significant loss of mature vegetation along steep slopes could increase the risk of landslides into surface waters, wetlands, and floodplains in the valleys below, which could change local hydrologic and hydraulic conditions.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, vegetative removal activities would have negligible ground disturbance and would be done mostly by hand. However, local, temporary, and minor impacts to surface water from sedimentation during vegetation removal could still occur. To minimize any potential impacts, no vegetation management activities would be allowed within 50 feet of a stream’s OHWM for non-fish bearing stream and within 75 feet of the OHWM for fish bearing streams. These restrictions would minimize the potential release of sediments by limiting vegetation removal activities near streams and preventing soil disturbance in these areas.



Long-term, minor adverse impacts to water quality, particularly temperature and dissolved oxygen, could occur but would be minimized by following the 50-foot and 75-foot stream buffers described above. The Wenatchee River segment within the project area has a Category 4A for temperature and a few segments of Chumstick Creek and Icicle Creek within the project area are affected by increased temperature and reduced dissolved oxygen (Category 4A). With the implementation of the stream buffers described above, water quality impacts would not be anticipated to increase from the project activities.

Work in wetlands would not occur, therefore no direct impacts to wetlands would result from the Proposed Action. Riparian wetland areas would be avoided by restricting work within 50 feet of the OHWM for non-fish bearing streams and within 75 feet of the OHWM of fish bearing streams. Soil erosion, runoff, and resulting sediment flow from vegetation removal could result in some indirect impacts to wetlands and riparian areas such as reduced water quality from particulate matter and alteration of hydrology; however, these impacts would be very minimal due to the avoidance measures.

Impacts to floodplains or changes in flood hazards are not anticipated, largely because no construction or floodplain development is proposed. The 50-foot and 75-foot stream buffers described above would also be required. The Proposed Action would not increase flood elevations or velocities because modifications to stream banks would not occur and land in the floodplain would not be built-up. Because of the limited amount of vegetation that would be removed and low impact work and disposal methodology, there is little potential for diminishing existing floodplain values.

In the long-term, the mitigated properties that maintain defensible space with ignition-resistant construction material retrofits would be expected to be less vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires. Mitigated properties would be less likely to contribute to post-burn erosion and sediment loading of water resources, to changes in the chemical make-up of the water column, including dissolved oxygen, and to variations of water temperature. Thus, depending on the scale of participation and how contiguous the mitigated properties are, the Proposed Action is expected to have a minor positive impact on local water resources from the reduced wildfire vulnerabilities in treated locations.

4.3 Biological Resources

4.3.1 Vegetation The Leavenworth CWPP is within the North Cascade ecoregion. Vegetation in Chelan County varies from mountainous, forested terrain in the Cascade Range to species typical of riparian areas, such as sedges (Carex sp.) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) (Washington Native Plant Society, 1978). Most of the project area is dry forest vegetation, predominately ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with some Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis). The Icicle and Upper Chumstick drainages have moist montane meadows (CCCD, 2005).



Ponderosa pine is a shade intolerant species naturally adapted to occur within a fire regime. The standard fire regime for the entire lower Wenatchee River was frequent, with a fire interval every 2 to 20 years. Fire has a regular role in how ponderosa pine is established, and regular burning allows the species to flourish through the removal of underbrush and smaller trees. Ponderosa pine stands subject to frequent fire have scattered trees with an understory consisting of grasses and brush (CCCD, 2005).

Old-growth forests east of the Cascade Mountains are variable in species composition and structural characteristics due to fire, climate, soils, and other influences. Generally, old growth stands are greater than 150 years of age. Stands vary widely in many characteristics, including complexity of the canopy layer and presence of downed logs. The three communities in the project area contain no mature forest, and are primarily within Douglas fir and ponderosa pine forest (WDFW, 2008).

Riparian areas are adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems including Chumstick Creek, Wenatchee River, and Icicle Creek. Riparian vegetation in these areas may include maple (Acer sp.), dogwood (Cornus sp.), currant (Ribes sp.), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.) (Knutson & Naef, 1997). Shrub-steppe vegetation is typically perennial bunchgrasses, such as bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) with a layer of shrubs such as sagebrush (Artemesia sp.) and bitterbrush (Purshia sp.) (Sanderson & Ballinger, 2017; WDFW, 2008).

The project area is within the apple maggot quarantine area. The apple maggot is a pest that threatens fruit crops in Washington including apples. State law prohibits plant material, such as tree limbs, grass, brush, and other landscaping wastes, from leaving the apple maggot quarantine area. Transfer stations outside the quarantine area, such as the Dryden Transfer Station, do not accept plant material from an apple maggot quarantine area. Plant material from inside the quarantine area must be disposed of at a disposal facility in the quarantine area, or composted or destroyed at the residence (Chelan County Public Works, 2017).

4.3.2 Wildlife and Fish Wildlife species commonly seen in Chelan County include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus), Douglas’ squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), raccoon (Procyon lotor), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and American robin (Turdus migratorius). Other common, but less frequently encountered species, include Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), black bear (Ursus americanus), cougar (Puma concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminia), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and rubber boa (Charina bottae). Fish species in the area include freshwater fish, such as rainbow and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus sp.), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), carp (Cyprinus sp.), and bass (Micropterus sp.) (WDFW, 2017a; WDFW, 2017b).

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-711), provides protection for migratory birds at the Federal level, with a list of birds maintained by the USFWS. The MBTA protects the nests, eggs, and body parts of migratory birds from harm, sale, or other injuries.



The entire State of Washington is within the Pacific Flyway (Audubon Society, Undated(a)). Although close to areas such as the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area and the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest that contain areas for migratory birds, the nearest designated Important Bird Area is the Leahy Junction – Moses Coulee approximately 25 miles from the project area (Audubon Society, Undated(b)). Table 2 lists migratory birds occurring in Chelan County.

Table 2: Migratory Birds Occurring in Chelan County

Common Name Scientific Name Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Black swift Cypseloides niger Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Cassin's finch Carpodacus cassinii Eared glebe Podiceps nigricollis Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis White headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Williamson's sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Source: (USFWS, 2017)

Bald eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles are found near lakes and rivers throughout the State of Washington (USFWS, 2017). Bald eagle nests have been documented in eight areas of Chelan County, including Fromm's Field near the confluence of Icicle Creek and Wenatchee River (WDFW, 2017c). This area was last documented as active in 2005 (WDFW, 2017d).

4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544), the project area was evaluated for the potential occurrences of ESA-listed threatened and endangered species. The ESA requires Federal agencies that fund, authorize, or carry out an action to ensure that their action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of



endangered or threatened species or result in adverse modification of designated critical habitats. A Biological Assessment was prepared for this project (see Appendix B).

The USFWS and NMFS databases identify 13 threatened, endangered, and candidate species in Chelan County (Table 3). Of these, the Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (O. mykiss), and gray wolf (Canis lupis) have potential habitat within the project area.

The gray wolf has a wide range, and the project area is within the range of the Teanaway Pack (WDFW, 2017e). Gray wolf populations migrate and vary in size due to abundance of food, disease, and hierarchy within packs (USFWS, 2011a). Although likely present in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests, it is unlikely that the gray wolf would be present near residential areas such as the project area.

The grizzly bear population in Chelan County is part of the North Cascades recovery zone. Bears within this population are monitored by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, which evaluates bear sightings and management issues (USFWS, 2016). The population consists of a small number of bears with a low population density, large home ranges, and densely forested habitat (USFWS, 2016). Although likely present in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests to the north, it is unlikely that the grizzly bear would be present near residential areas such as the project area.

Table 3: ESA-listed Species in Chelan County

Species Name Listing Status Critical Habitat* Habitat Requirements/Notes Potential to

Occur Birds Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)

Threatened No Large conifer trees for nesting, marine waters for foraging Not Present

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Threatened Yes Old growth forests High

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

Threatened No Riparian forests with cottonwood and willow trees Not Present

Fishes Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

Threatened Yes Cold, freshwater streams with stable channels, gravel beds, cover, and unblocked corridors for migration

High

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Endangered Yes Rivers and streams with high water flow, gravel beds, and unblocked channels for migration

High



Species Name Listing Status Critical Habitat* Habitat Requirements/Notes Potential to

Occur Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Endangered Yes Clean, cold water, and unblocked channels for migration High

Plants Showy stickseed (Hackelia venusta)

Endangered No Unvegetated steep slopes in open areas of ponderosa pine Not Present

Wenatchee Mountains checkermallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva)

Endangered Yes Wet meadows in the Wenatchee Mountains Not Present

Conifers and Cycads

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) Candidate No Alpine and subalpine elevations Not Present

Mammals Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Threatened Yes Spruce and fir boreal forests Not Present

Gray wolf (Canis lupis) Endangered No Mountainous forested lands Moderate

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)

Threatened No Alpine forests, mixed shrub fields, and grasslands Not Present

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)

Proposed Threatened No High elevations with persistent snowy

conditions Not Present

Source: (USFWS, 2017)

The following species are in the USFWS and NMFS databases for the project areas but have no potential to occur in the project area due to lack of suitable habitat or extirpation of the species: marbled murrelet (lack of suitable habitat), yellow-billed cuckoo (extirpated), showy stickseed (lack of suitable habitat), Wenatchee Mountains checkermallow (lack of suitable habitat), whitebark pine (lack of suitable habitat), Canada lynx (lack of suitable habitat), and North American wolverine (lack of suitable habitat). As described above, the gray wolf and grizzly bear are likely to occur in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests to the north, it is unlikely that they would be present near residential areas such as the project area. Below are descriptions of the Northern spotted owl, bull trout, Chinook salmon, and steelhead which could occur within the project area.

Northern Spotted Owl

Northern spotted owls are medium-sized owls, with dark eyes and brown feathers. The feathers on their head, back, and underparts generally have white spots. The species inhabits forests with dense, closed canopies of mature and old-growth trees, abundant logs, standing snags, and live trees with broken tops. Northern spotted owl habitat is within forested areas with a dense



canopy of mature and old-growth trees, logs, standing snags, and living trees with broken tops. Preferred habitat is old-growth forest stands with a variety of canopy trees, varying species, size, and age. Open space among the lower branches is preferred to accommodate flight underneath the canopy. Forests do not contain these characteristics until between 150 and 200 years old (USFWS, 2017f; WDFW, 2015; NatureServe, 2015a).

The Northern spotted owl feeds nocturnally on small mammals within arboreal habitat. The species typically nests within tree cavities and broken treetops in both living and dead trees. Breeding, nesting, and young rearing takes place from February through June. Incubation of the egg takes about 30 days, and young are able to leave the nest within 3 to 6 weeks. Parents may continue to feed the young for several months following fledging (USFWS, 2017f; WDFW, 2015; NatureServe, 2015a).

Habitat loss due to timber harvest was the primary reason for the decline in numbers of the Northern spotted owl, leading to its listing in 1990 (55 Federal Register [FR] 26114 26194). Habitat loss remains a primary threat, and numbers continue to decline despite habitat restoration and management. Noted causes of continued habitat loss include timber harvest, stand replacing wildfire, and fragmentation due to historic habitat loss. An added threat is competition with the barred owl (S. varia) for nesting and roosting sites and food sources (USFWS, 2011b).

The Wenatchee National Forest to the north, east, and west of the project area is part of the Entiat critical habitat unit (CHU) for the Northern spotted owl (USFWS, Undated; USFWS, 2008). Comparing current and past inventories of the Wenatchee National Forest shows that canopy cover and habitat quality have been impacted by tree disease and insects, while past fires removed old growth habitat (USFS, 2011). Private lands in the area have been heavily logged, and barred and great-horned owls are present at many of the Northern spotted owl historic nest sites (USFS, 2011). The Wenatchee National Forest, studied according to late-successional reserve (LSR) units, varied from a high to moderate ignition risk, with moderate risk at the LSRs closest to the project area (USFS, 1997).

Effects of wildfire on Northern spotted owls and their associated old growth forest habitat varies. Within the fire-adapted portions, fires of low to moderate severity contribute to the habitat mixture Northern spotted owls require. Although owls have not been seen using large areas of habitat with high severity burns, Northern spotted owls have been documented using areas where moderate fire has occurred. The Hatchery Complex fire in 1994 in the Wenatchee National Forest, a moderate severity fire, affected six owl activity centers; one mortality occurred, and Northern spotted owls were documented at only two of the activity centers the following year (USFWS, 2011b).

Figure 4 shows habitat which is suitable for Northern spotted owl nesting, and important dispersal habitat for juvenile owls. As described by the USFWS, “dispersal habitat, at a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities” (USFWS, 2011b). Suitable



nesting habitat and dispersal habitat for Northern spotted owls both occur in the project area. Figure 5 shows the designated critical habitat and conservation habitat for the Northern spotted owl. Conservation habitat provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is comprised of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat areas. The Chumstick Creek watershed and Mountain Home Road area are within s five-mile buffer distance surrounding pair or reproductive nest sites. One nest site has been recorded at the northern edge of the Chumstick Creek watershed.

Bull Trout

Bull trout are commonly called a “trout” but the fish are more closely related to char (Salvelinus sp.), such as lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus). Bull trout are distinguished from rainbow or cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus sp.) by a darker body color with light spots, as opposed to “true trout” which have darker spots on a lighter background. Mature fish range between 12 and 20 inches. Bull trout have stringent requirements for cold water and clean gravel to rear young and reproduce, and spawning usually occurs in mountain streams fed by snow-melt or springs fed by snow fields (Goetz, Jeanes, Beamer, & (Eds), 2004). The habitat components required by bull trout are described as “cold, clean, complex, and connected” (USFWS, 2010). Bull trout exhibit patchy distributions, because even under pristine conditions, the required habitat components are not ubiquitous throughout river basins (WDFW Fish Program, 2000; WDFW, 2017f; USFWS, 2010).

Bull trout feed on aquatic insects and macrozooplankton when young, and eat primarily fish as adults, although they also eat small animals such as mice, frogs, ducklings, or snakes. Some populations of bull trout are migratory, living in larger bodies of water and moving upstream into smaller tributaries to spawn. Spawning generally occurs from late summer to fall, and eggs incubate through the winter. Bull trout eggs hatch in late winter or early spring and fry (newly hatched fish) leave the spawning gravel nests (redds) in April or May. Redds must consist of clean, silt free gravel and have very cold water temperatures, below 48 degrees Fahrenheit (WDFW, 2015; USFWS, 2017c; NatureServe, 2015a).

Primary threats to the bull trout are historical habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and issues with fish passage. Habitat loss was a major cause of the original listing of the bull trout in 1999 (64 FR 58910) (USFWS, 2015).

Wildfire, as well as other factors such as drought and flooding, is a contributing factor to population isolation and habitat fragmentation. Wildfires are possibilities over the entire range of the species, and contribute to the conversion of subalpine forests to other forest types, changing the complexity of the stream habitat preferred by the bull trout. Loss of structural components such as overhangs, snags, large woody debris, or the riparian trees supplying woody debris, may negatively affect bull trout spawning success and juvenile survival. Other, more immediate, effects of wildfire to bull trout habitat include sedimentation and erosion and decline of water quality. An increase in water temperature from a wildfire, if occurring in spawning and rearing habitat, may affect feeding rate, growth rate, or cause direct mortality (USFWS, 2015).



Bull trout occur in the project area and are native to the Wenatchee River system, and critical habitat is found in the Wenatchee River, Icicle Creek, and Peshastin Creek. Adults found in the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek migrate to Lake Wenatchee, upstream from the project area, to spawn. Non-native brook trout are also present in the Wenatchee River system, which use similar habitat and are similar in biology. The invasive brook trout may out-compete bull trout or cause genetic extinction through hybridization (Chelan County, 2003; USFWS, 2015).

Chinook Salmon

Chinook salmon, also known as king salmon, are an anadromous2 fish. The largest of the Pacific salmon, the average size for a Chinook is 10 to 15 pounds, although rare specimens have been recorded up to 135 pounds. Chinook spawn in large rivers, but use smaller streams if there is sufficient water flow. The Chinook salmon spawning in the Upper Columbia travel hundreds of miles, beginning the migration in the spring or summer, and are known as spring Chinook or summer Chinook, respectively. Spring Chinook remain in freshwater streams for a year before outmigrating as smolts,3 while summer Chinook remain for less than a year. All Chinook return to spawning grounds by fall in time to spawn (WDFW, 2017g; Chelan County, 2003).

The Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) occurs within the project area. NMFS defines an ESU as “a Pacific salmon population or group of populations that is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations that that represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species” (NOAA, 2014). The Upper Columbia River ESU includes the naturally spawned Chinook population upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam. The ESU includes six artificial propagation programs (NOAA Fisheries, 2011).

Summer Chinook are also present in the project area. The Wenatchee River basin run is “the third largest naturally produced Chinook run in the Columbia River basin” and is not listed under the ESA (Chelan County, 2003).

Threats to Chinook salmon include habitat loss or degradation from dams, stream crossings, culverts, and habitat and prey competition from non-indigenous fishes. Overwintering spring Chinook are more susceptible to habitat alteration than summer Chinook (NOAA Fisheries, 2011; Chelan County, 2003).

The project area contains Chinook salmon critical habitat in the Wenatchee River. Spring Chinook are present in the Wenatchee River from May to June, with spawning in August and September; peak spawning occurs in late August. Juvenile spring Chinook are present in the stream from late March to early May, and outmigrate beginning late fall through the next spring (Chelan County, 2003).

2 Anadromous: “A fish born in fresh water, spends most of its life in the sea and returns to fresh water to spawn.” (NOAA Fisheries, 2017) 3 Smolt: “A juvenile salmonid that is undergoing physiological and behavioral changes to adapt from freshwater to saltwater as it migrates toward the ocean.” (NOAA, 2014)



Steelhead

Steelhead are an anadromous trout (Oncorhynchus sp.), related to salmon and cutthroat trout. Unlike salmon, steelhead make more than one spawning migration from the ocean to their natal waters. Mature steelhead leave the salt water, migrate upstream to the freshwater habitat where they prepare a nesting area, spawn, and return to the sea. Steelhead look similar to rainbow trout but are much larger, weighing, on average, 8 to 11 pounds, though they can grow as large as 40 pounds. Rainbow trout are the same species (O. mykiss) as steelhead; however, rainbow trout never migrate from freshwater. The relationship between rainbow trout and steelhead is not well understood, and progeny of steelhead may mature as rainbow trout whilst the progeny of rainbow trout may migrate as steelhead. The steelhead species has a complex life history and seasonal spawning runs. Steelhead need clean cold water for eggs, young, and smolt to develop and thrive. Young steelhead eat invertebrates, salmon eggs, and small fish (WDFW, 2017c; Chelan County, 2003).

The Upper Columbia River steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) occurs within the project area. NMFS defines a DPS as “a vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species” (NOAA, 2014). The Upper Columbia River DPS includes the steelhead population upstream from the Yakima River to the U.S. and Canada border. The DPS includes six artificial propagation programs. Within the DPS, the Wenatchee River has the highest proportion of natural origin spawners (NOAA Fisheries, 2011).

Threats to steelhead include habitat loss or degradation from dams, stream crossings, culverts, and removal or damage of riparian vegetation (WDFW, 2015; NOAA Fisheries, 2011).

The project area contains steelhead critical habitat in the Wenatchee River, and its tributaries: Chumstick Creek, Icicle Creek, and Peshastin Creek. Steelhead spawn in the Wenatchee River system from March through June, with peak spawning in May, with the smolts migrating out of the river system after spawning. The Wenatchee River system also has a resident population of rainbow trout (Chelan County, 2003).

4.3.4 Other Special Status Species The WDFW maintains a list of State listed threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species, along with the ESA-listed species. In the 2012 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Annual Report for the State of Washington, there were 18 mammals, 14 birds, 4 reptiles, 3 amphibians, 3 fish, and 3 invertebrates, and an additional 112 species were designated as candidates for State listing (WDFW, 2013).

State listed and candidate species that have habitat based on State records within Chelan County are shown in Table 4.



Table 4: State Listed Wildlife Species

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Invertebrates California floater Anodonta californiensis C Giant Palouse earthworm Driloleirus americanus C Birds American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos E Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus C Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia C Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus T Common loon Gavia immer S Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus C Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos C Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis C Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus C Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus T Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis C Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina T Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus S Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus C Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus C Sagebrush sparrow Amphispiza nevadensis C Spotted owl Strix occidentalis E Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi C Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis C White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus C Fishes Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus C Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha C Leopard dace Rhinichthys falcatus C Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus C Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri S Sockeye salmon Oncorhynshus nerka C Umatilla dace Rhinichthys Umatilla C Amphibians Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris C Western toad Anazyrus boreas C Reptiles Common sharp-tailed snake Contia tenuis C Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus C Plants Showy stickseed Hackelia venusta E Wenatchee Mountains checkermallow Sidalcea oregana var. calva E Conifers and Cyads Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis C Mammals Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus C Lynx Lynx canadensis T Cascade red fox Vulpes vulpes cascadensis C



Common Name Scientific Name State Status Fisher Martes pennanti E Gray wolf Canis lupis E Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis E Wolverine Gulo gulo C Preble’s Shrew Sorex preblei C Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii C Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus T White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii C

E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate Source: (WDFW, 2013)


No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, ignition resistant material retrofits, creation of defensible space, and vegetation reduction activities would not be funded. However, current management activities would continue, including wildfire mitigation activities initiated by property owners, through existing local programs/requirements, or as required by homeowner’s insurance providers. The existing high risk of vegetation loss from catastrophic wildfires would continue, as would vulnerabilities to biological resources (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, and fish).

Small-scale vegetation management activities could cause minor localized and temporary disturbance to wildlife, including ESA-listed species. There could be human activity or noise associated with current management activities, including noise from chainsaws, chippers, brush mowers, and masticators. Future uncontrolled wildfires, especially catastrophic fires, could affect wildlife through the loss of habitat or the mortality of individuals. These impacts to biological resources could be minor to moderate, depending on the severity and location of wildfires.

Proposed Action Vegetation

The retrofit of structures to reduce the severity of wildfire on structures could include construction measures such as replacement of roofing material. Pre-disturbed ground would be used for any staging areas, such as existing streets, driveways, or landscaped lawns. Heavy equipment would not be required for this type of construction. No effects to vegetation would result from the retrofit of structures.

As the defensible space surrounding structures is established and maintained, various disturbances from work crews, removal of individual small trees and brush, and hand pruning or limbing may result in local, indirect, small adverse effects to native plant communities. However, many of the properties have non-native ornamental or weedy species in the potential



treatment areas. Trimming or removing these plants could support the health and composition of native plant communities.

Implementation of fuels reduction projects would result in the removal of excess vegetation, including ladder fuels and invasive plant species. Examples of the types of vegetation to be treated are Douglas fir, brushes, and invasive plant species. The removal of excess, ladder, and invasive plants may result in local, indirect, small adverse effects to the native plant communities.

Because these activities have negligible ground disturbance and would be done mostly by hand, the potential is low that new invasive plant species populations would become established or that existing populations would expand as a result of the Proposed Action.

Wildlife, Fish, and Threatened and Endangered Species

Adverse effects to wildlife from retrofitting existing structures would be negligible. Wildfire fuels reduction activities to establish the defensible spaces, including vegetation clearing and removal of ladder fuels and invasive species, could have minor, localized, and scattered impacts to wildlife through habitat modification. Various factors, including changes in food sources, shelter, population density, and dispersal effort, would determine the severity of impacts to non-listed wildlife. Adverse effects to wildlife from maintenance of defensible spaces would be negligible.

No permanent conversion of forested habitat to other types of habitat would be anticipated as part of the Proposed Action. The project area would remain as upland forest habitat, and wildlife habitat would remain intact. The vegetation management portion of the Proposed Action would focus only on limited thinning of existing forest and removing biomass near structures. Thinning and pruning trees, removing ladder fuels, and disposing of slash would be consistent with the guidelines in the Chelan County General Forestry Prescription (Section 3.2). Management of snags, logs, and old growth trees and trimming, pruning, and seeding would be consistent with the Woodland Fish and Wildlife Group guidelines and would be implemented as applicable and where possible per parcel in the parcel assessment and treatment prescription (Section 3.2). No thinning would occur in wetlands.

Temporary disturbance to wildlife could occur from the physical presence of workers and by noise generated the equipment used (e.g., chainsaws, chippers, brush mowers, and masticators). The disturbance is anticipated to be of short duration (no more than a few days) on each property during the first year. The disturbance could result in temporary avoidance of the area by wildlife. Additional disturbance could occur once a year for the 10-year maintenance period. Impacts to wildlife from the temporary disturbance would be considered minor because of the short duration of work on any given parcel. It is also considered minor because the most intense treatment would occur within a limited radius of existing homes and structures where localized human activity already occurs.

Work that occurs during the summer bird breeding season (generally from March through August) could have minor impacts on nesting birds and birds protected under the MBTA. The



disturbance could result in abandonment of nesting efforts or displacement from preferred foraging areas, which would affect ground-nesting and shrub-nesting birds to a greater extent than birds that nest in the upper canopy of trees. Cavity-nesting birds such as woodpeckers and nuthatches could be disproportionally affected because of the emphasis on removal of dead or dying trees (snags). To minimize the potential for migratory bird effects, initial treatment activities would be precluded during the nesting season, unless a project site survey determines there would be no migratory birds affected by treatment activities. Small mammals and reptiles could lose some habitat as a result of the removal of downed wood. Potential impacts would be further minimized to birds and other species relying on dead or dying trees or snags by implementing guidelines developed by the Woodland Fish and Wildlife Group (Section 3.2). These guidelines include prescriptions for snags, cavity nesting snags, and old growth trees.

The Proposed Action would benefit wildlife habitat and species by reducing the risk of catastrophic loss from future wildfires, in terms of habitat degradation and mortality.

Impacts to the Northern spotted owl are considered minor. The mitigation measure to avoid potential noise-related disturbance to Northern spotted owls by prohibiting project activities between March 1 and July 31 within suitable nesting/roosting habitat for Northern spotted owls would prevent direct disturbance from project activities during sensitive timeframes for the owl. Noise from machinery and human presence could cause Northern spotted owls to abandon the area during project actions and possibly after the project activities were complete.

Project activities would occur in areas that are within, or directly adjacent to, the critical habitat for Northern spotted owls. The Proposed Action may result in the downgrading of suitable habitat to dispersal habitat. Except in the 200-foot defensible space zone around structures, areas within critical habitat, conservation habitat, and dispersal habitat would not be thinned below the 40 percent crown closure in order to retain classification as dispersal habitat. In the long-term, the Proposed Action would result in the sustainability of dispersal habitat as the risk of habitat loss due to a wildfire is reduced.

Project activities would occur in neighborhoods with existing homes and noise and disturbance from human presence, vehicles, and other machinery. Activities would be on participating properties, as scattered in the neighborhoods. The project design would allow for the removal of standing dead trees less than 10 inches dbh and of live trees less than 8 inches dbh. Trees larger than 8 inches dbh would be pruned up to 15 feet or half of the total height of the tree. Project activities could remove hunting perches and trees suitable for future nesting use, resulting in direct habitat loss. The 10-year maintenance activities would lead to long-term disturbance in the project areas. However, in the long-term, maintenance of defensible spaces and fuels in the WUI should benefit Northern spotted owls through the reduction of the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which may destroy suitable nesting and dispersal habitat.

There would be no impact to the ESA-listed bull trout, Chinook salmon, or steelhead. No vegetation management activities would be allowed within 50 feet of the OHWM of non-fish bearing streams and within 75 feet of the OHWM of fish bearing streams. Removal of trees 8



inches dbh or greater would be prohibited within 100 feet of the OHWM of water bodies with known presence of ESA-listed fish species, which include the Wenatchee River, Icicle Creek, Peshastin Creek, and their tributaries. These mitigation measures would prevent disturbance of vegetation or soils within and surrounding streams where fish or suitable habitat for fish could occur. No work would occur in the waterway.

See Appendix B for the biological assessment prepared for this project. Consultation was completed with the USFWS on October 12, 2017, which concurred to a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern spotted owl.

4.4 Cultural Resources Cultural resources consist of locations of human activity, occupation, or use identified through field inventory, historic documentation, or oral evidence. The term encompasses historic properties as defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Multiple Federal statutes and regulations require consideration of the effects of an agency’s Undertakings on historic properties including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. [formerly 16 U.S.C § 470 et seq.]), and particularly Section 106.

Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) direct Federal agencies to consider the effects of their Undertakings on Historic Properties. An Undertaking, in the context of Section 106 and as used throughout this document, refers to a “project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval” (36 CFR Part 800.16(y)).

Properties may be eligible for listing in the NRHP if they possess significance at the national, tribal, State, territory, or local level and within the context of American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Whether archaeological, architectural, or cultural-religious in nature, cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are called “Historic Properties.” Potential impacts on Historic Properties are discussed below by site type: architectural/above-ground resources (e.g., buildings, structures, objects) and archaeological resources, including Native American religious resources and traditional cultural properties.

4.4.1 Ethnographic Context The ethnohistoric period in the area began with early contacts between Native American groups and Euroamerican explorers. As documented during this period, the project areas were within the territories of the Wenatchee and Entiat, Columbian-speaking groups of the Middle Columbia River Salishans. The Wenatchee territory was bounded to the south by the Kittitas, to the west by the Southern Coast Salish, to the north by the Entiat, and to the east by the Sinkayuse (Miller, 1998, p. 254). The Entiat territory was bounded to the south by the Wenatchee, to the west by the Southern Coast Salish, to the north by the Chelan, and to the east by the Sinkayuse (Miller, 1998, p. 254).



The Wenatchee and Entiat were semi-nomadic, and practiced a seasonal subsistence and settlement system that included wintering in semi-permanent villages along the Columbia River and its tributaries. Salmon was of primary importance, with the first run coming in May, and running at various times until November. A trade center of the region was located at the mouth of the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek during the June salmon run. In the spring and summer, women set up camps to harvest plants such as camas bulbs and bitterroots. In the late summer, groups began to move from the fisheries to the mountains for hunting mountain goats, deer, and elk, as well as and plant gathering, before moving to winter villages (Miller, 1998, pp. 255-257). After the arrival of horses in the 1740s from the Plains, Salish groups began participating in bison hunts on the northern Plains (Miller, 1998, p. 266).

4.4.2 Historical Context Chelan County was formed from parts of neighboring Kittitas County to the south and Okanogan County to the north in 1899 (Steele, 1904). Fur trappers from the Pacific Fur Company, the North West Company, and the Hudson’s Bay Company following the Columbia River frequented the area from the 1810s through the 1840s, occasionally trading with the native Wenatchee, Chinook, and Yakima Indian Tribes (Leavenworth History, 2017) (Wilma, 2006). The first non-Indians to occupy the area for any measurable length of time were Chinese prospectors, who began placer mining around 1863. The miners “established a village on the Columbia opposite the mouth of the Chelan River…the settlement featured a store, a large garden, and buildings made of split cedar planks.” The village was abandoned, however, shortly after an unknown number of Chinese miners were attacked and killed by Indians from the Methow River in 1875 (Wilma, 2006). Mining was not pursued again in the region in any significant way until 1896 (Steele, 1904) (Wilma, 2006).

Father Urban Grassi, S.J., a Jesuit missionary, came to the area around 1872. He built a log church on the banks of the Wenatchee River as part of his efforts to convert the Wenatchee Indians (Wilma, 2006). In addition, Father Grassi taught the basic elements of agricultural irrigation to the Indians, transforming “the arid valleys into agricultural treasure houses.” When white settlers arrived in the 1870s and 1880s, they learned from the Indians how to use irrigation to farm in the area (Steele, 1904) (Wilma, 2006).

In 1872, the Colville Reservation boundaries were established by an EO, and then redrawn within a month to remove the Colville Valley and other fertile areas. The Reservation was further reduced in 1881 when the U.S. claimed a silver mine-rich 15-mile strip along the northern border, and with the discovery of gold on the Reservation in the 1890s, the northern half of the land was taken away in 1892 from tribal control, further reducing the land (Miller, 1998, p. 267). The town of Leavenworth began about 1890 as “a small cluster of log cabins along Icicle Creek called Icicle. Supplies [were] brought in from Ellensburg by pack trains” (Arksey, 2010). The Great Northern Railway Company announced plans to construct railroad tracks through the Wenatchee Valley to cross the Cascades at Stevens Pass in 1891, and the town of Leavenworth was platted just east of Icicle beginning in 1892 (Steele, 1904). The Okanogan Investment Company bought the land along the railroad right-of-way and provided incentives to the



residents of Icicle to relocate to the new settlement. The town of Leavenworth was named for Charles Leavenworth, a major stockholder in the company (Arksey, 2010).

In addition to railroad related employment, opportunities in logging, farming, and commerce bloomed in the new town. The Lamb-Davis Lumber Company constructed a saw mill of 150,000 feet capacity to take advantage of the abundant forests surrounding Leavenworth and the convenient railroad transportation. Excellent, if limited, agricultural land located adjacent to the town produced Timothy grass and alfalfa in abundance. The presence of the railroad made Leavenworth an obvious shipping point and supply station for the Blewett mining district, as the town of Blewett was accessible by “an excellent wagon road” (Steele, 1904).

The boundaries of the town expanded with additions platted in April 1893, March 1896, and May 1898. The town experienced fires in November 1894, November 1896, December 1902, and January 1904. The worst of these was the November 1896 fire, which consumed seven buildings (Steele, 1904).

The discovery of ore at the Holden mine near Chelan in 1896 led to additional business opportunities in Leavenworth. The strike was called the “most monumental ore body existing in the entire Pacific northwest” in 1904 (Steele, 1904). During the boom, Leavenworth’s population reached a high of 5,500 people supporting mining, railroad, agriculture, and lumbering activities. Leavenworth was labeled as “the wildest town in the west” during this time with the addition of saloons, gambling halls, and other activities (Arksey, 2010). The town was incorporated in 1906 (Leavenworth and Icicle Creek, n.d.).

The boom came to an end in the 1920s. The railroad altered its route through the mountains, opting to move its operations to Wenatchee (Arksey, 2010). “The logging industry fell apart” when the railroad was rerouted, and the saw mill closed (Leavenworth History, 2017). The mining industry was disappearing from the area, and the Great Depression in the 1930s was the start of a 30-year decline in Leavenworth (Arksey, 2010).

Leavenworth experienced a revival in the early 1960s, which continues today. The town was renovated in a Bavarian style, taking advantage of the alpine environment, and became a tourist destination. The town developed “into Washington’s second most popular tourist attraction, after Seattle.” In 2009 the Washington American Planning Association awarded Leavenworth the Best Physical Plan Award for their downtown master plan. The town also recently made infrastructure and service amenity improvements such as passenger rail service, a meeting hall, recreation facilities, improved schools, and enhanced medical facilities (Arksey, 2010).

Chumstick Valley

The Chumstick Valley area is an unincorporated part of Chelan County located along and near Chumstick Highway north of the town of Leavenworth; it is considered part of the greater Leavenworth area. The Chelan County tax assessor’s records indicate that the residences in this area began being developed in the 1920s; however, such development was sparse, and the



majority of development occurred beginning in the 1970s and continues through the present (GIS-Mapping, 2017).

Icicle Valley

The Icicle Valley area is an unincorporated part of Chelan County located west of the town of Leavenworth. The area on the banks of Icicle Creek was known as Icicle Flats and is the site of the first settlement in the area, inhabited by people drawn by furs, farming, and mining (The History of Leavenworth Washington, 2017). The settlement consisted of a small cluster of log cabins and included a general store, two restaurants, a blacksmith shop, and three saloons in March 1892. After the Great Northern Railway Company announced plans to construct the railroad through the Wenatchee Valley, the town of Leavenworth was platted to the east of Icicle Flats and the business and houses at Icicle were relocated to the new site (Steele, 1904).

Residential development in the area is sparse and surrounded by the Wenatchee National Forest. Historic aerial photography and the Chelan County tax assessor’s records indicate that these residences were constructed from the early 1990s through the first decade of the 21st century (NETRonline, 2017) (GIS-Mapping, 2017).

Mountain Home Road Area

The Mountain Home Road area is an unincorporated part of Chelan County located to the southeast of the town of Leavenworth; it is considered part of the greater Leavenworth area. The Chelan County tax assessor’s records indicate that the residences in this area were developed between 1990 and 2010 (GIS-Mapping, 2017).

Northern Leavenworth Valley Area

The Northern Leavenworth Valley area consists of the town of Leavenworth, north of the Wenatchee River, bounded by Chumstick Creek and the Wenatchee National Forest. This area began to be developed after being platted in 1892 (GIS-Mapping, 2017).

4.4.3 Identification of Historic Properties The identification of historic properties was based upon the review of information from digital photographs, readily available materials collected during a desktop review, and a confidential search of the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). The WISAARD search was conducted on June 26, 2017, to determine the presence or absence of previously recorded properties and the extent of survey coverage in and near the Area of Potential Effects.

Architectural/Above-Ground Resources

Architectural resources, also referred to as above-ground resources, are a type of Historic Properties defined by the National Park Service in National Register Bulletin 15 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991) consisting of buildings, structures, objects, and districts. These property types may be affected by direct activities (physical alteration), as well as indirect activities (visual or vibrational) from construction and/or operational activities.



Chumstick Valley

Based on information in WISAARD, one previously documented historic property associated with the early Euro-American settlement of the Chumstick Creek watershed, the Beardsley Rock Wall (CH00902), is present within the Chumstick Valley project area. This resource has been evaluated as potentially eligible for the NRHP.

Icicle Valley

No previously documented above-ground historic properties are present within the Icicle Valley project area or its immediate vicinity based on information in WISAARD.


No previously documented above-ground historic properties are present within the Mountain Home Road project area or its immediate vicinity based on information in WISAARD.

North Leavenworth Valley Area

Three previously documented above-ground historic properties associated with the early development of Leavenworth—the Leavenworth Ranger Station for the Wenatchee National Forest (CH00587), Hopkins Farmstead (626004), and Poplar Street Collapsed Barn and Foundation (CH00927)—are present within the North Leavenworth Valley project area. The ranger station is listed on the NRHP, while the farmstead has been determined to be potentially eligible for the NRHP, and the collapsed barn as not eligible based on information in WISAARD.

Archaeological Resources

Archaeological resources are a type of Historic Properties defined by the National Park Service in National Register Bulletin 15 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991), and may include prehistoric and ethnohistoric archaeological sites (Native American or other cultures), historic archaeological sites, or other features or items, and elements or areas of the natural landscape that have cultural character and significance to a culture, subculture, or community (King, 1998). These property types may be affected by direct, ground-disturbing activities, as well as indirect activities (visual or auditory intrusions) from construction and/or operational activities.

Chumstick Valley

No previously documented archaeological sites are present; 14 cultural resource surveys have occurred within the Mountain Home Road project area, but none of which specifically contained the project locations. Based on available WISAARD data, no cultural resources with archaeological components have been recorded within the vicinity of the project area.

Icicle Valley

No previously documented archaeological resources are present, and no cultural resource surveys have occurred within the Icicle Valley project area. Based on available WISAARD data, four cultural resources with archaeological components have been recorded within the vicinity of the project area; none have been evaluated for the NRHP.




No previously documented archaeological sites are present, and no cultural resource surveys have occurred within the Mountain Home Road project area. Based on available WISAARD data, no cultural resources with archaeological components have been recorded within the vicinity of the project area.

North Leavenworth Valley Area

No previously documented archaeological sites are present, and 19 cultural resource surveys have occurred within the North Leavenworth Valley project area. Based on available WISAARD data, five cultural resources with archaeological components have been recorded within the vicinity of the project area.

4.4.4 Summary of Documented Cultural Resources The cultural resources recorded in WISAARD within the project area are listed in Table 5. Seven archaeological resources consisting of historic-era sites (including mining infrastructure, refuse scatter, and farming-related features) and four pre-contact-era sites are found in the vicinity of the project locations.

Previous cultural resource evaluations are rare, primarily because the lands are privately held. However, previous inventories have occurred within a small portion of the North Leavenworth Valley area and Chumstick Creek area have yielded few new cultural resources. Because the greater project area has a variety of historic and some pre-contact sites, similar resources would be expected within areas that have never been inventoried for cultural resources. Each of the four project areas is likely to contain evidence for pre-contact use given the variety of sensitive landforms present, including rivers, streams, knolls, rock outcrops, and prairies.

Table 5: Previously Documented Cultural Resources within the Project Area Vicinity

Site No. Name Description Eligibility Project Component

FS01569 Eight Mile peeled cedar tree

Peeled cedar tree/peeled cedar basket tree, c. 1795-1995

Not evaluated Icicle Valley

FS01570 Bridge Creek Isolate Isolate pre-contact lithic flake Not evaluated Icicle Valley

FS01571 Icicle Creek Rock Art Single scratched rock art panel Not evaluated Icicle Valley

FS01573 TJ Day Peeled Cedars Four peeled cedar trees, c. 1795-1995

Not evaluated Icicle Valley

CH00587 Leavenworth Ranger Station - Wenatchee National Forest

Historic structure complex NRHP-listed North Leavenworth Valley

FS02227 Leavenworth Ski Hill Historic District

Ski Area NRHP-listed North Leavenworth Valley



Site No. Name Description Eligibility Project Component

626004 Emig/Evans/Hopkins Farmstead

1935 house, 1937 barn, 1940 barn, 1940 shed, 1949 stable, 1949 milk house, and 1951 barn/garage

NRHP-eligible North Leavenworth Valley

FS01585 Hard rock adit test mine Crawl-in adit, c. 1900-1990 Potentially eligible

North Leavenworth Valley

CH00927 Poplar Street Collapsed Barn and Foundation

Historic barn (collapsed) and foundation

Not eligible North Leavenworth Valley

CH00871 Unnamed historic irrigation ditch

Historic irrigation ditch, a pond, and two objects found adjacent or within the ditch, c. 1900s- 1920s

Potentially eligible


CH00872 Historic debris scatter Scatter of historic debris; c. early 1910-1990s



CH00873 Historic debris scatter Scatter of historic debris, c. 1900s-1920s



CH00928 Leavenworth Camas Harvesting Area

Traditional cultural place Potentially eligible


CH00902 Beardsley Rock Wall Historic rock foundation constructed from river rock and mortar, c. pre-1960s


Chumstick Valley

Source: (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2017)

4.4.5 Native American Consultation In addition to the applicable sections of the NHPA (Section 101(d)(6)(A), Section 101(d)(6)(B)), and Section 106), Native American consultation policies outlined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are based on Federal statutes and EOs. FEMA conducted government-to-government consultation with Tribes regarding potential impacts of the proposed Undertakings on cultural or religious resources. Two Tribes—Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation—were identified for consultation in Chelan County (see Appendix D).



Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to reduce fuels in selected areas of the Leavenworth CWPP or for structure retrofitting efforts. However, some wildfire mitigation activities would be expected to continue as initiated by property owners, through existing local programs/requirements, or as required by homeowner insurance providers.



Ground-disturbing activities associated with these activities would be limited. Thus, the potential to impact cultural resources is also expected to be limited. The historic properties in the project areas and others not yet identified would continue to be at risk to damage from wildfires.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, fuels and other biomass would be removed by means of chainsaws, chippers, brush mowers, and masticators. Areas targeted for vegetation removal include at least a 30-foot radius around main residential structures. Contractors would conduct vegetation removal activities by hand, including thinning and trimming. Vegetative debris would be chipped onsite or piled. Ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact cultural resources associated with the project are therefore expected to be limited.

Above-ground Resources

There are no above-ground resources located directly within the proposed treatment areas of the project areas, however some are within close proximity. The Leavenworth Ranger Station is a NRHP-listed Historic Property directly adjacent to one of the project locations. The proposed work at this location would be to thin brush and limb trees around a 1917 residence, and would not extend outside the property boundary. Due to the low impacts of the project activities, FEMA has determined that the Proposed Action does not have the potential to directly or indirectly impact above-ground resources. Work, such as structure retrofits, on NRHP-eligible historic structures is not proposed, and no other recorded above-ground cultural resources are within the proposed project area. The Proposed Action would benefit above-ground historic resources by reducing vulnerabilities of damage or destruction from wildfires.

Archaeological Resources

The Proposed Action would occur in areas generally considered to be archaeologically sensitive, where surface or deeply buried cultural resources could be present, as evidenced by the previously recorded sites within and in close proximity to the project area. Additional sites are likely present that have not yet been documented given ethnographic evidence.

Although direct impacts to previously documented sites are not anticipated, the CCFD#3 and the CWSC would be required to avoid these resources as a precaution to prevent even minor potential disturbances such as pedestrian traffic. To reduce the potential for impacts to cultural resources, the Proposed Action would be conditioned so that if used, tracked machinery and vehicles would work from existing roads as much as possible, and work would be conducted during dry periods or over snow. Vegetative debris would be hauled manually to the machinery staged on roads. The vegetation thinning and trimming around residential structures and outbuildings would have little potential to affect archaeological resources because of the proposed low impact methods. FEMA has determined that no additional identification or evaluation efforts are necessary, and that the Proposed Action would have no effect on historic properties.



FEMA requires that all ground-disturbing projects protect cultural resources during site work. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, and in compliance with State and Federal laws protecting cultural resources, including Section 106 of the NHPA, all work is required to cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until the appropriate parties, including the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), are consulted and an appropriate resolution plan is established.

FEMA provided these Section 106 findings and determinations in a formal letter to the SHPO on August 1, 2017, and received concurrence on August 2, 2017 (Appendix C). Additionally, Section 106 consultation letters, dated August 2, 2017, were provided to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation (Appendix D). On August 2, 2017, the Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation responded, indicating that they concurred with FEMA’s “level of effort expended to identify significant cultural resources” and that “there will be no adverse impact to significant cultural resources” (Appendix E). No response has been received to date from the Yakama Nation.

4.5 Socioeconomic Resources The Chelan County economy consists mainly of agriculture and seasonal employment in retail and leisure and hospitality. The agricultural industry produces tree fruit (including apples, cherries, pears, and peaches) and wineries contribute to both agriculture and tourism. Manufacturing of nondurable goods, such as food processing, also plays a role in the economy of the area. Wholesale trade, such as fruit packing houses, along with transportation are also an important part of the economy (Washington State Employment Security Department, 2016).

4.5.1 Public Safety Build-up of hazardous fuels within WUI areas threatens public safety by increasing the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Wildfires within WUI communities not only endanger homes and other structures but can also result in transportation and utility failures, flash flooding, mudslides, and air pollution concerns. The current threat to public safety from wildfire within the project area is high, based on years of drought and the continued build-up of fuels. Chelan County contains several WUI areas that are considered to be at high risk to wildland fire (Chelan County, 2011).

4.5.2 Environmental Justice EO 12898, Environmental Justice, directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations resulting from Federal programs, policies, and activities. Socioeconomic and demographic data for residents in the project vicinity were studied to determine whether the Proposed Action could have disproportionate impacts on minority or low income persons.

Data from the 2015 Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates for Chelan County were used to identify the minority and low income population compositions of the Census Tracts which encompass the project area. The total minority population was 9.9 percent in Chelan



County and 22.2 percent in Washington (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017b). In Census Tracts 9602 and 9605, the total minority population was 4.3 percent and 19.8 percent, respectively (Washington Office of Financial Management, 2016a). The poverty rate was 14.3 percent in Chelan County and 13.3 percent in Washington (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017d). In Census Tracts 9602 and 9605, as of 2000, the poverty rate was approximately 7.5 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively (Washington Office of Financial Management, 2016b).



Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding for fuel reduction and structure retrofitting efforts. Some fuel reduction and structure retrofitting efforts would still be expected to continue, whether by property owners, through existing local programs/ requirements, or as required by homeowner’s insurance providers. The entire affected population near the project area, including minority and low income populations, would not benefit from a reduction in wildfire risk.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, all residents located within the project area would benefit from a decrease in the probability of a catastrophic wildfire as the result of fuel reduction and structural retrofitting efforts. The Proposed Action is expected to have a positive impact on environmental justice within the community occupying the project area due to added protection from wildfires that would be experienced by all households in the event such disasters occurred. Based on the demographic populations of the project area, implementation of the Proposed Action would not impact a disproportionate number of minority or low income residents.

4.6 Recreation

4.6 1 Affected Environment Recreational activities in and around the project area include year-round outdoor activities such as skiing, hiking, fishing, camping, snowmobiling, and boating. Several State and local parks, as well as National Forests, are in the area. Some of these include:

• Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA) – at the southern end of North Cascades National Park, the NRA encompasses nearly 62,000 acres, including the northern end of Lake Chelan. Recreational activities include boating, fishing, and lakeshore camping.

• Enchantment Park – in the town of Leavenworth, Enchantment Park offers scenic trails, wildlife viewing, baseball fields, and playgrounds.

• Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest – containing over four million acres along the east slope of the Cascade Range, recreational activities include hiking, camping, backpacking, fishing, boating, and backcountry skiing.



• Lake Wenatchee State Park – includes a five-mile long lake with developed campgrounds, biking and hiking trails, boating, and other water related activities (Leavenworth Chamber of Commerce, 2017).



Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to reduce fuels or retrofit structures, however some wildfire mitigation activities would be expected to continue as initiated by property owners, through existing local programs/requirements, or as required by homeowner’s insurance providers. In the event of a wildfire, ingress and egress to recreational areas could be disrupted. Depending on the size and severity of the wildfire, portions of nearby forests, parks, and recreational facilities and structures, could be damaged or destroyed. Adverse impacts to recreational resources would range from minor to major.

Proposed Action

Project activities would avoid public recreation areas, such as National Forest land and State parks, because private property is the focus of the project area. Thinning of trees and shrubs and retrofitting of structures is not anticipated to adversely affect recreational activities or viewpoints. Impacts would be negligible and temporary. Depending on the location and size of treated properties, the Proposed Action could provide some minor benefits to recreational areas by complementing other wildfire mitigation efforts, such as the USFS Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project, and helping to reduce the spread of wildfires.

4.7 Cumulative Impacts CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require an assessment of cumulative effects during the decision-making process for Federal projects. Cumulative effects are defined as “…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” (40 CFR Part 1508.7).

Cumulative effects were determined by combining the effects of these alternatives with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Ongoing wildfire resilience projects and wildfire mitigation activities on neighboring tracts of land, as initiated by residential landowners and private, local, State, or Federal entities that are similar in scale to those of the Proposed Action, would further reduce the possibility of an intense and widespread wildfire in the project area.

The Chelan County Multi-Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Leavenworth CWPP of 2005 both include hazardous fuel reduction goals and actions designed to reduce the risk, intensity, and spread of wildfires (Chelan County, 2011; CCCD, 2005). Additional city sub-plans also contain such actions and planned projects. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest,



which is adjacent to the project area, undertakes hazardous fuel reduction projects on USFS lands on a regular basis including the USFS Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. The USFS Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project consists of reducing hazardous fuels from 2011 to 2020 on a total of 4,561 acres through commercial harvest (2,201 acres), prescribed fire (1,891 acres), mechanical fuels treatments (192 acres), construction of fuel breaks (273 acres), and hand line treatments (4 acres) (USFS, 2011).

Other types of projects that could have a cumulative impact in the area that could reduce fuels include grazing, logging and timber sales, fire suppression activities, conversion of forest land to commercial and residential land, water conservation efforts, vegetation treatments, and soil erosion projects.

Proposed future projects include hazardous fuel reduction activities in the Riverbend Road area. This area is located to the east of Leavenworth near the Wenatchee River. Homes in this area are intermingled with large trees and need extensive defensive space. The proposed hazardous fuel reduction activities include creation of defensible space, removal of excess vegetation and fuels, and modifications to existing structures to reduce the potential for ignition.

Given the small scale and scattered distribution of acreage proposed for treatment by the Proposed Action, when combined with other activities that are planned by County, State and Federal entities, the Proposed Action is not expected to have adverse cumulative impacts on geology or soils, air quality, and climate; water resources, wetlands, and floodplains; and wildlife or fish (including ESA-listed species and critical habitat), historic or archaeological resources, socioeconomic resources or environmental justice, or recreation because project impacts are not anticipated. Minor cumulative impacts to vegetation may occur, but the impacts would be limited to the project area and surrounding properties.

Cumulative impacts to wildfire adapted vegetation communities are possible as a result the treatment methodology (limited thinning, removing brush and lower limbs) altering understory characteristics. However, the impacts are expected to be minor, because this methodology may mimic some of the vegetation management effects of periodic low intensity natural wildfires. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of treating contiguous properties reduces the risk of a catastrophic wildfire and consequent widespread loss of vegetative cover. The Proposed Action, when combined with other wildfire mitigation activities, would reduce the overall wildfire risk and benefit public safety.

The combined fuel hazard reduction effort on public and private lands would not make entire watersheds “fireproof.” Large wildfires would likely still occur. However, the overall effect of all the fuel treatment units in the project area would help make the area more fire resilient and increase the number of tactical fire suppression opportunities. Wildfires in treated areas should burn with less intensity and would allow more suppression options (i.e., direct versus indirect attack). Wildfires could be extinguished more easily and the number of burned acres would be reduced. Treated areas that experience wildfire would burn with less severity and the environmental impacts on resources such as vegetation, soils, and air would be reduced.

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement


SECTION FIVE: AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT During project development, CCFD#3 coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, local agencies, and landowners in the project area. During preparation of this EA, the SHPO, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation were also consulted for comment (see Appendix C and Appendix D). The USFWS was consulted for their concurrence on the Biological Assessment (see Appendix F).

An initial public notice announcing the intent to prepare an EA for this project was released on July 12, 2017. The initial public notice was published in the Leavenworth Echo and the Cashmere Valley Record and the public notice and project fact sheet were mailed to 1,275 residences in the project area. The public notice and fact sheet are included as Appendix G. A total of eight comments were received in response to the public notice and fact sheet. The emailed comments were brief and supportive of the project and inquired about how to participate in the project.

In addition, a public notice is required for the Draft EA, making it available for comment. The notice identified the action, location of the proposed project, participants, where to locate the Draft EA, and how to submit comments.

The Chelan County Multi-Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, Chelan County Community Fire Plan, and the Leavenworth CWPP each included public involvement in their development are relevant to public involvement efforts supporting this EA and reviewed below.

The Chelan County Multi-Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2004 was updated in 2011 and identifies wildfire, flooding, severe storms, drought, and earthquake as the predominant hazard risks within the county. The plan documents the location, extent, history, and vulnerability of these events. Also documented are the local existing natural hazard policies and programs that could mitigate some of the effects of natural disasters if sufficient resources were available. The Mitigation Strategy is the heart of the plan and outlines various actions that could be implemented to address natural hazard disasters. From developing disaster response plans to encouraging landowners through incentive programs to avoid disaster areas, the plan covers a range of activities that would mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Updated jurisdiction-specific sub-plans provide a focused and strategic approach to addressing natural hazard risks in the cities of Cashmere, Chelan, Entiat, Leavenworth, Wenatchee, and the unincorporated areas of Chelan County. The sub-plans provide information on demographics, critical facilities, development trends, and vulnerabilities of the cities in Chelan County. The unincorporated areas sub-plan details the community assets in rural Chelan County and relies on the larger mitigation strategy for mitigation actions (Chelan County, 2011).

The Chelan County Community Fire Plan (Plan) is a comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan that incorporates Chelan County area-specific CWPPs under one document. The Plan was created based on interactions with the State of Washington and serves as guidance for projects that reduce wildfire risk and increase public safety during a wildfire. The Plan and related CWPPs

Agency Coordination and Public Involvement


were developed concurrently. The Plan provides resources to landowners to implement projects that reduce the risk of wildfire on their property, to enhance related public safety, and provides input on land management decisions for Federal and State lands. Three main categories of wildfire mitigation projects were identified through steering committee community outreach. These include fuels reduction, education and outreach, and improving protection capabilities/human safety in the WUI area. Natural vegetation and habitat restoration activities are incorporated into fuels reduction projects (Cascadia Conservation District, 2008).

The primary goal of the Leavenworth CWPP of 2005 is to identify and implement projects that will protect residents, firefighters, and emergency personnel from injury or loss of life. It also serves to minimize or eliminate damage or loss of property and essential infrastructure due to wildfire. The plan identifies locations with the highest housing density in the area which include Icicle Valley, Chumstick Creek watershed, North Road Area (including Fox Canyon), and the Mountain Home Road Area (including Coppernotch, Dempsey Road, East Leavenworth Road). The plan includes a brief history of fires within the area and contains a fire risk assessment which describes the area as “high risk.” The plan provides locations of potential fire suppression staging areas, water supplies, evacuation routes, and safety zones. The plan also contains a mitigation action plan for fuels reduction efforts (CCCD, 2005).

Permitting, Project Conditions, and Mitigation Measures


SECTION SIX: PERMITTING, PROJECT CONDITIONS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES No permits would be required for the Proposed Action. Activities in the project area would comply with the project’s scope of work methodology described in Section 3, Alternatives. CCFD#3 would comply with the following project conditions and mitigation measures:

• To minimize potential impacts to surface waters, no vegetation management activities would be allowed within 50 feet of a stream's OHWM for non-fish bearing streams; within 75 feet of the OHWM for fish bearing streams. An exception could be considered for hazard trees such as snags or infested trees.

• Fuels reduction activities would not occur in wetlands. If wetlands cannot be avoided, additional analysis of proposed activities and the wetlands would be required to minimize impacts.

• Removal of trees 8 inches dbh or greater would be prohibited within a 100-foot buffer of where water bodies with known presence of ESA-listed fish species. The 100-foot buffer would start at the OHWM and extend 100 feet on each side of the Wenatchee River, Chumstick Creek, Icicle Creek, and Peshastin Creek.

• Areas within critical habitat, conservation habitat, and dispersal habitat as delineated in the Biological Assessment (Appendix B) would not be thinned below the 40 percent crown closure in order to retain classification as dispersal habitat.

• To avoid potential noise-related disturbance to the Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), project activities would be prohibited between March 1 and July 31 each year within suitable nesting and/or dispersal habitat, as delineated in Appendix B, Figure A-3.

• To minimize potential impacts to migratory nesting birds (see Appendix B), vegetation removal should occur from late summer to mid-winter, outside of the typical migratory bird-nesting season (March through August). If removal activities must take place during the nesting season, the CCFD#3 shall ensure that a qualified professional conducts a breeding bird survey on the property before removal activities begin to avoid disturbance or “take” as defined by the MBTA. Surveys should be coordinated with the USFWS to determine if a permit under MBTA is required or if other measures can be taken to address impacts to migratory birds or active nests. This information must be documented on the project site assessment/treatment plan.

• To minimize the potential for impacts to known archeological resources within the target communities, CCFD#3 would be required to determine if a participating property has or is close to a known site. Site locations would be provided separately and characterized as avoidance areas. Details of sites must remain confidential. Fuels reduction activities must be avoided within the perimeter of the recorded site location plus a 250-foot buffer. This information must be documented on the project site assessment/treatment plan.

Permitting, Project Conditions, and Mitigation Measures


• CCFD#3 is responsible for ensuring that contractors select, implement, monitor, and maintain Best Management Practices to control erosion and sedimentation, reduce spills and pollution, and provide wetland and habitat protection. To the maximum extent practicable, vegetation removal activities beyond the immediate defensible space around a structure that involves use of mechanized equipment should be conducted in dry soil conditions or over snow and equipment staged on existing roads or previously disturbed areas.

• CCFD#3 is responsible for securing all applicable local, State, and Federal permitting before site work and complying with conditions therein.

• In the event that cultural resources or including human remains are discovered during project activities, and in compliance with State and Federal laws protecting cultural resources and human remains, including Section 106 of the NHPA, work in the immediate vicinity would cease, the area would be secured, and the SHPO and FEMA would be notified to evaluate the discovery.

• State law prohibits plant material, such as tree limbs, grass, brush, and other landscaping wastes, from leaving the apple maggot quarantine area. Plant material from inside the quarantine area must be disposed of at a disposal facility in the quarantine area, or composted or destroyed at the residence.

• Any change to the approved scope of work would require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other laws, regulations, or EOs before implementation.

Conclusion


SECTION SEVEN: CONCLUSION The EA evaluated environmental, social, and historic resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action. The evaluation did not identify any significant adverse impacts associated with the resources of geology or soils; air quality; climate; water resources, wetlands, or floodplains; vegetation; wildlife or fish (including ESA-listed species and critical habitat); historic and archaeological cultural resources; socioeconomic resources or environmental justice; or recreation. Implementing the Proposed Action, which is relatively small scale because of the widely scattered nature of properties expected to be treated, along with any conditions outlined in the initial site assessment and treatment plan, associated with permits or approvals, is expected to avoid or minimize adverse effects associated with the Proposed Action. If no substantive comments are received during the public comment period, this Draft EA will become final.

List of Preparers


SECTION EIGHT: LIST OF PREPARERS FEMA Region X

Science Kilner, EA Reviewer

State of Washington

David Spicer, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Coordinator

Chelan County Fire District #3

Annie Schmidt, Public Affairs Officer

Booz Allen Hamilton

Jennifer Salerno – NEPA Program Manager

Erik Anderson – Project Manager, Resource Specialist

David Cohen, Ph.D., RPA – Archeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards

Elizabeth Ducey – GIS Specialist

Jared Gunnerson – Resource Specialist

Kathryn Hite – Water Resources

Lindsey Veas – Biological Resources

Caitlin Willoughby – GIS Lead

References


SECTION NINE: REFERENCES Andonaegui, C. (2001). Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout Habitat Limiting Factors. Retrieved

from http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/files/natural-resources/documents/Planning/Wen_Planning/limitingfactors.pdf

Arksey, L. (2010, July 5). Leavenworth - Thumbnail History. Retrieved 2017, from HistoryLink: www.historylink.org/File/9475

Audubon Society. (Undated(a)). Pacific Flyway. Retrieved 2017, from The Flyways: http://www.audubon.org/pacific-flyway

Audubon Society. (Undated(b)). Washington. Retrieved 2017, from Important Bird Areas: http://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/state/washington

Cascadia Conservation District. (2008, November 1). Chelan County, Washington Community Fire Plan. Wenatchee, WA, Chelan. Retrieved from http://cascadiacd.org/files/documents/Chelan_County_Fire_Plan_Final_Draft_Signed.pdf

CCCD. (2005, December). Leavenworth Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Retrieved 2017, from http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_burn_cwppleavenworth.pdf

Chelan County. (2003). Section 6 Environmental Impact. Retrieved from Watershed Plan - Wenatchee: http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/files/natural-resources/documents/Planning/Wen_Planning/water_storage_study/water_storage_section_6.pdf

Chelan County. (2006, April 26). Figure 1-1: Wenatchee Watershed Overview. Retrieved from Final Wenatchee Watershed Plan: http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/natural-resources/pages/wenatchee-watershed-plan?parent=planning

Chelan County. (2011, December). Chelan County Multi-Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan: 2011 Plan Update. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/natural-resources/pages/natural-hazard-mitigation-plan?parent=planning

Chelan County Public Works. (2013, October). Flood Control Zone District - Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/files/public-works/documents/fczd/fczd_faqs_oct_2013.pdf

Chelan County Public Works. (2017). State Apple Maggot Quarantine Informational Flyer. Retrieved from http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/files/public-works/documents/solid_waste/apple%20maggot%20flier_for%20website%2C%20v2.pdf

References


Climate Impacts Group. (2009, June). The Washington climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington's Future in a Changing Climate. Retrieved 2017, from https://cig.uw.edu/publications/the-washington-climate-change-impacts-assessment/

Ecology. (2015a, December). Wenatchee River Basin Area. Retrieved from Water Quality Improvement Projects: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/WenatcheeMulti/index.html

Ecology. (2015b, March). Water Quality Assessment Categories. Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/WQAssessmentCats.html

Ecology. (2016, July). Current Water Quality Assessment Search Tool. Retrieved from Current Water Quality Assessment: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html

Ecology. (2017a). Leavenworth-Evans St. Retrieved 2018, from February WAQA: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/

Ecology. (2017b). Shorelines of statewide significance. Retrieved from Shoreline Management: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/jurisdiction/SSWS.html

ESRI. (2017, August). Prime Farmland Classification. Retrieved from http://soils.esri.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/soils/PrimeAgOverlay/MapServer

FEMA. (2013). Unit 3: NFIP Flood Studies and Maps. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1539-20490-0241/nfip_sg_unit_3.pdf

FEMA. (2015, April 23). Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/executive-order-11990-protection-wetlands-1977

FEMA. (2016, April 27). Flood Zones. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones

FEMA. (2017a). Locator Map. Retrieved from FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address: http://msc.fema.gov/portal/search

FEMA. (2017b, October). The National Flood Insurance Program Community Status Book. Retrieved October 2017, from https://www.fema.gov/cis/WA.html

GIS-Mapping. (2017, January). Retrieved from Chelan County: http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/assessor/pages/gis-mapping?parent=Maps

Goetz, F. A., Jeanes, E., Beamer, E., & (Eds). (2004). Bull Trout in the Nearshore. Seattle, WA.

HMGP Application. (2015). Leavenworth Area Wildfire Resilience Program.

References


International Code Council. (2014, May). 2015 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Retrieved from http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/toc/2015/I-Codes/2015%20IWUIC%20HTML/index.html

King, T. (1998). Cultural Resource Laws & Practice: An Introductory Guide. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Knutson, K. L., & Naef, V. L. (1997, December). Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian. Olympia, WA. Retrieved August 16, 2017, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00029/wdfw00029.pdf

Leavenworth and Icicle Creek. (n.d.). Retrieved 2017, from www.iciclecreekrealestate.com/neighborhoods/leavenworth/leavenworth-and-icicle-creek

Leavenworth Chamber of Commerce. (2017, January 20). Leavenworth.org. Retrieved from Things to Do: http://leavenworth.org/attractions/#

Leavenworth History. (2017, January). Retrieved from City of Leavenworth: cityofleavenworth.com/about-leavenworth/leavenworth-history/

Miller, J. (1998). Middle Columbia River Salishans. In D. E. Walker Jr., Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau (Vol. 12, pp. 253-270). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

NatureServe. (2015a, October 1). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Retrieved 2017, from NatureServe: http://explorer.natureserve.org

NETRonline. (2017, January). Historic Aerials. Retrieved from www.historicaerials.com

NFPA. (2016). Firewise Toolkit: Firewise Principles. Retrieved 2017, from http://firewise.org/~/media/Firewise/Files/Pdfs/Toolkit/FW_TK_Principles.pdf

NOAA. (2014). Protected Resources Glossary. Retrieved August 2017, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm

NOAA Fisheries. (2011). 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of Upper Columbia River Steelhead, Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/status_reviews/salmon_steelhead/multiple_species/5-yr-ucr.pdf

NOAA Fisheries. (2017, May 8). What is an anadromous fish? Retrieved from NOAA Fisheries: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq1a.html

NRCS. (2007). Soil Survey of Cashmere Mountain Area, Washington, Parts of Chelan and Okanogan Counties. Retrieved 2017, from

References


https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/washington/WA608/0/Cashmere.pdf

NWCG. (2017). Washington Incidents. Retrieved November 2017, from InciWeb; Incident Information System: https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/state/49/#

Sanderson, J., & Ballinger, S. (2017, August 16). Plants of the Shrub-steppe. Wenatchee, WA. Retrieved from http://www.wenatcheenaturalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Plants-of-the-Shrub-steppe.pdf

Schellhaas Forestry, LLC. (n.d.). General Forestry Prescription. East Wenatchee, WA.

Steele, R. F. (1904). History of North Washington: an Illustrated History of Stevens, Ferry, Okanogan and Chelan Counties. Spokane: Western Historical Pub. Co. Retrieved 2017, from cityofchelan.us/pdfdocs/HistoryOfNorthWashington-ChelanCounty.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017a). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates -- 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Chelan). Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017b). ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates -- Washington. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017c). Poverty Status in the Last 12 Months -- 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Chelan County). Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017d). Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months -- 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Washington). Retrieved June 26, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

U.S. Department of the Interior. (1991). National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service Interagency Resources Division.

USEIA. (2017, January 17). Environment. Retrieved from U.S. Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

USEPA. (2017). NAAQS Table. Retrieved 2017, from USEPA: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

USFS. (1997). X. Tumwater and Natapoc MLSA, Deadhorse LSR. Retrieved August 2017, from Eastern Washington Cascades Province LSR/MLSAs: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd522676.pdf

References


USFS. (2004). Landtype Associations of North Central Washington. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5428880.pdf

USFS. (2006). Leavenworth Quadrangle -- Washington -- 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). Retrieved 2017, from https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/data/47120/fstopo/473012037_Leavenworth_FSTopo.pdf

USFS. (2011, March). Chumstick Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment. Retrieved from http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=26953

USFS. (2015a). Cashmere Mountain Triangle -- Washington -- 7.5 Minute Series. Retrieved 2017, from https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/data/47120/fstopo/473012045_Cashmere_Mountain_FSTopo.pdf

USFS. (2015b). Van Creek Quadrangle -- Washington -- 7.5 Minute Series. Retrieved 2017, from https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/data/47120/fstopo/473712030_Van_Creek_FSTopo.pdf

USFWS. (2008). Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) final revised critical habitat units and sub-units for Washington. Retrieved August 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/nso/WA_Sub-units.pdf

USFWS. (2010). Additional Information on Bull Trouth and the Proposed Critical Habitat Revision, January 2010. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/bulltrout/Documents/finalQA_01.13.10.pdf

USFWS. (2011a). Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Biologue. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/biologue.htm

USFWS. (2011b). Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidetalis caurina). Retrieved 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf

USFWS. (2015). Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confuentus). Retrieved 2017, from https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Mid_Columbia_RUIP_092915.pdf

USFWS. (2016). Ursus arctos horribilis. Retrieved 2017, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/species/uplisting/doc4834.pdf

USFWS. (2017, January 30). Leavenworth Wildfire Mitigation 01EWFW00-2017-SLI-0413.

References


USFWS. (2017). National Wetlands Inventory Data. Retrieved August 1, 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/data-download.html

USFWS. (2017c, January 30). Species Fact Sheet: Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/BT%20final.pdf

USFWS. (2017f, January 30). Washington Fish and Wildlife Office: Northern Spotted Owl. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/articles.cfm?id=149489593

USFWS. (Undated). Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Unit: Entiat, Washington. Retrieved August 2017, from https://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/nso/entiat.pdf

USGS. (2017). Wenatchee Basin - Real-time Sites. Retrieved from https://wa.water.usgs.gov/cgi/realtime.data.cgi?basin=wenatchee

Washington EMD. (2013). Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from http://mil.wa.gov/other-links/enhanced-hazard-mitigation-plan

Washington Native Plant Society. (1978). Icicle Creek 1. Retrieved 2017, from Chelan County: http://www.wnps.org/plant_lists/counties/chelan/chelan_county.html

Washington Office of Financial Management. (2016a). Census 2010 Redistricting Data [P.L. 94-171] for Washington, Tract Summary, Table 3: Population by Race Alone or in Combination and Hispanic or Latino Origin, for All Ages and for 18 Years and Over. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/data.asp

Washington Office of Financial Management. (2016b). Poverty Status in 1999 by Age and Race/Ethnicity, Census 2000 Summary File 3. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2000/sf3/bycounty.asp#chel

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (2017, June 26). WISAARD. Retrieved from Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data: https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaardp3/

Washington State Employment Security Department. (2016, September). Washington State Employment Security Department. Retrieved from Chelan and Douglas County Profiles: https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county-profiles/chelan-douglas

WDFW. (2008). Priority Habitats and Species List. Retrieved 2017, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf

WDFW. (2013, August). Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Washington: 2012 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01542/wdfw01542.pdf

WDFW. (2015). Washington's State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

References


WDFW. (2017a). Species Fact Sheets. Retrieved from Living with Wildlife: http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/species/

WDFW. (2017b). Fishing & Shellfishing Chelan County. Retrieved 2017, from Fish Washington: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/County/Chelan/

WDFW. (2017c). Bald Eagle Territory History: Chelan County. Retrieved from Bald Eagle Management and Protection in Washington State: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/bald_eagle/territory/search.php?searchby=County&search=Chelan

WDFW. (2017c). Fishing and Shellfishing: Salmon and Steelhead Species Information: Steelhead (Rainbow Trout). Retrieved 2017, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/steelhead.html

WDFW. (2017d). Icicle Creek - Fromms' Field. Retrieved from Bald Eagle Management and Protection in Washington State: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/bald_eagle/territory/territory.php?id=1685&orderby=SurveyYear%20DESC

WDFW. (2017e). Wolf Packs in Washington (as of June 2016). Retrieved from Gray Wolf Conservation and Management: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/

WDFW. (2017f, January 30). Fish Washington Species Info: Bull Trout. Retrieved 2017, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/Species/1259/

WDFW. (2017g). Chinook (King) Salmon. Retrieved from Salmon/Steelhead Species Information: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/chinook.html

WDFW Fish Program. (2000, September 1). Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Management Plan. Olympia, WA, USA. Retrieved 2017, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00930/wdfw00930.pdf

Western Regional Climate Center. (2016). Leavenworth 3S, Washington. Retrieved 2017, from Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa4572

Wilma, D. (2006, January 28). Chelan County - Thumbnail History. Retrieved 2017, from HistoryLink: www.historylink.org/File/7624

Woodland Fish and Wildlife Group. (2016). Wildlife-Friendly Fuels Reduction in Dry Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Retrieved from http://woodlandfishandwildlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/WildlifeAndFuelsPNW2016Final.pdf

WSDOH. (2017). Smoke From Fires. Retrieved 2017, from http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/AirQuality/SmokeFromFires