Stehekin Heritage responds to proposed NPS Facilities

Stehekin Heritage did not initially comment on the "Facilities" element of the planning documents in that we recognize the NPS is entirely responsible for developing maintenance and housing facilities for federal employees. As word of our review of planning documents traveled through the community many individuals approached us relating their concerns about the development of the maintenance/housing complex suggested by the NPS in all the draft alternatives.

We understand this facility was originally proposed in the 1995 General Management Plan but hoped the ill conceived idea would never be considered in the current planning effort. Why do we consider the current Facilities section of the SRCIP to be ill conceived?

First, to the greatest extent possible, the proposed Maintenance/Housing complex should not be developed on property purchased with Land and Water Conservation funds.
Because of the difficulty identifying property for exchange (currently, there are only 24 acres available for exchange) the maintenance/housing facilities should not be placed upon property that could otherwise be exchanged.

Second, Stehekin Heritage recommends that maintenance and housing facilities be separate, clearly differentiated projects.
Stehekin Heritage understands the rationale for building maintenance facilities outside the floodplain as an integrated unit that includes maintenance buildings, a solid waste facility and fire cache. These elements of valley maintenance and protection may well be placed together with obvious advantages, however, we believe the recommendation to house federal employees in a compound or multi-family housing facility is insensitive to NPS employees and the community culture that exists in the Stehekin Valley.

Currently, NPS employee housing is integrated throughout the valley, therefore NPS employees and families are interwoven throughout the valley as neighbors with valley residents residing on private property. This integrated living pattern creates the positive sense of community we experience in the valley.

Unfortunately, NPS administrators seem determined to support building a housing complex where federal employees will be placed in a multi-unit compound isolated from most valley residents. This is a perilous policy for an area where the relationship between the NPS and community is unique and requires amalgamation rather than isolation.

We challenge both the desirability and the legality of locating all of these uses on a single piece of property given Chelan County Zoning and the mandates of the Washington State Growth Management Act.

Page 90 of the draft SRCIP states, "Relocate/Construct Park Housing: Implement the GMP action to relocate housing threatened by flooding and construct new seasonal and permanent housing at the north end of the airstrip, in conjunction with the maintenance area on about 5-8 acres. Up to 11 housing units could be constructed (emphasis added); . . .Future site planning would identify building locations and footprints and would be subject to additional environmental analysis."

If a private property owner of 5-8 acres located out of the floodway suggested constructing a building complex that included: a large maintenance shop and accompanying maintenance buildings, a fuel facility, a solid waste management center and an 11 unit housing complex (could be considered "condominiums") on his or her 5-8 acres, we are curious as to how the NPS would respond.

We do know, if the current managers continue to embrace this idea and build the complex referenced in all four alternatives, that the NPS will be, by their actions, defining compatible development in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.

We are aware that the construction of a maintenance/housing facility was included in the 1995 GMP, however, the community has received no clearly articulated set of alternatives, no detailed economic analysis or pertinent data to review concerning these plans. The draft SRCIP states there is little data included concerning the maintenance/housing development plans. Furthermore, the draft plan states that planning documents will be written and distributed to the public at a future date. Stehekin Heritage supports removing the facilities section from all alternatives until a clearly articulated philosophy and alternatives are developed for this maintenance/housing complex.

We have questions concerning the facilities element of the planning documents--

• Has the NPS polled current local employees to ascertain their thoughts concerning the development of the maintenance/housing facilities before issuing the SRCIP and LPP?  If so, we would like to review that data.

• This new facility could threaten the continued use of the airstrip, as those living within the complex could consider the noise of incoming and outgoing aircraft a nuisance or safety issue? We ask if the NPS has contacted the State concerning the planned maintenance and housing development so close to the Stehekin Airstrip? We would like to review any data the NPS has received from the State concerning this issue.

•  If the housing complex were completed, most NPS employees would be centralized in one area? In the event of an emergency all NPS resources (including radios) will be concentrated in one area, reducing the ability of the NPS to respond (especially if the river is flooding over Company Creek Road). Has the NPS addressed the question of radio availability throughout the community at times of emergency?

• We have seen no official plans for the maintenance/housing complex. The SRCIP leads us to believe that the public will receive more detailed information concerning the configuration of the maintenance and housing units in upcoming planning documents? Has the NPS produced a development concept plan for the maintenance and housing facilities at this point in time? If so, Stehekin Heritage requests these plans be sent to us so we can review them before any further planning documents are created for the maintenance/housing facilities.

• We are concerned about the cost of the maintenance/housing facility. We believe the estimated cost of the complex will be between $12,000,000 and $14,000,000. We are concerned about the amount of money budgeted to complete such a project. Hopefully, future plans will include a more itemized budgetary analysis of the project. If the figure of twelve to fourteen million dollars is one the NPS has estimated at the present time, we request you send the generalized proposed budget for our review.

[Abbreviations that appear in this document-
SRCIP - Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan
NPS - National Park Service
GMP - Growth Management plan]