For Shorelines in Chelan County and the Cities of Cashmere, Chelan, Entiat, Leavenworth and Wenatchee

Transcription

1 FINAL DRAFT CHELAN COUNTY GRANT NO. G C U M U L A T I V E I M P A C T S A N A L Y S I S For s in Chelan County and the Cities of Cashmere, Chelan, Entiat, Leavenworth and Wenatchee Project: Comprehensive Master Program Update Task 9: Develop Cumulative Impacts Analysis Prepared for: Chelan County Natural Resources Department 316 Washington Street, Suite 401 Wenatchee, Washington Prepared by: 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle WA This report was funded in part through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. STRATEGY ANALYSIS COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA July 29, 2011 Printed on 30% recycled paper.

2

3 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page # 1 Introduction Management Act Requirements Methodology Summary of Existing Conditions Stemilt/Squilchuck - Colockum (WRIA 40a/b) Wenatchee (WRIA 45) Entiat (WRIA 46) Chelan (WRIA 47) City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee Anticipated Development Stemilt/Squilchuck - Colockum (WRIA 40a/b) Wenatchee (WRIA 45) Entiat (WRIA 46) Chelan (WRIA 47) City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee City-Associated Urban Growth Areas Cashmere Chelan Leavenworth Wenatchee Proposed SMP Provisions Environment Designations County City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat i

4 4.1.5 City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee City-Associated Urban Growth Areas General Policies and Regulations Uses and Modifications Critical Areas County City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee Restoration Plan County City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee Other Regulatory Programs Effects of Current County and City Regulations Critical Areas Regulations Chelan County City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee State Agencies/Regulations Federal Agencies/Regulations Summary of Potential Impacts of Likely Development and Effects of SMP Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Upland Development and Effects of SMP General Ongoing Agriculture Forestry Upland Development outside of Jurisdiction ii

5 6.2 Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Overwater Structures and Effects of SMP Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Stabilization and Effects of SMP Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Mining and Dredging and Effects of SMP Cumulative Impacts on Ecological Function Unincorporated Chelan County Stemilt/Squilchuck - Colockum (WRIA 40a/b) Wenatchee (WRIA 45) Entiat (WRIA 46) Chelan (WRIA 47) City of Cashmere City of Chelan City of Entiat City of Leavenworth City of Wenatchee City-Associated Urban Growth Areas Cashmere Chelan Leavenworth Wenatchee Net Effect on Ecological Functions Long-Term Monitoring References Appendix A: Use and Modification Matrices Appendix B: Land Capacity Analysis L I S T O F TA B L E S Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 40a/b... 6 Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 45, Outside of Cities and their Urban Growth Areas Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 46, Outside of Cities and their Urban Growth Areas iii

6 Table 4. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 47, Outside of Cities and their Urban Growth Areas Table 5. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in the City of Cashmere and its Urban Growth Area Table 6. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in the City of Chelan and its Urban Growth Area Table 7. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in the City of Entiat and its Urban Growth Area Table 8. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in the City of Leavenworth and its Urban Growth Area Table 9. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in the City of Wenatchee and its Urban Growth Area Table 10. Potential for Future Development in WRIA 40a/b Table 11a. Potential for Future Development in WRIA Table 11b. Potential for Future Development in Peshastin UGA (WRIA 45) Table 12. Potential for Future Development in WRIA Table 13a. Potential for Future Development in WRIA 47* Table 13b. Potential for Future Development in Manson UGA (WRIA 47) Table 14. Potential for Future Development in the City of Cashmere Table 15. Potential for Future Development in the City of Chelan Table 16. Potential for Future Development in the City of Entiat Table 17. Potential for Future Development in the City of Wenatchee Table 18. Potential for Future Development in the Cashmere City-Associated UGA Table 19. Potential for Future Development in the Chelan City-Associated UGA Table 20. Potential for Future Development in the Wenatchee City-Associated UGA Table 21. Summary of Key SMP General Regulations that Protect Ecological Table 22. Functions Summary of Key SMP Use and Modification Regulations that Protect Ecological Functions Table 23. Summary of Critical Area buffer requirements Table 24. TMDL implementation timeline Table 25. Critical Areas Regulations Outside of Jurisdiction Table 26. Table 27. Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Table 32. Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Upland Development in Jurisdiction Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Over-water Structures in Jurisdiction Summary of Potential Impacts Associated with Stabilization in Jurisdiction Environment-specific riparian buffer widths for unincorporated Chelan County Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in WRIA 40a/b Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in WRIA Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the Peshastin UGA in WRIA iv

7 Table 33. Table 34. Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. Table 38. Table 39. Table 40. Table 41. Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in WRIA Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in WRIA Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the Manson UGA of WRIA Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Cashmere Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Chelan Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Wenatchee Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Cashmere UGA Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Chelan UGA Summary of waterbodies with likely residential, commercial, and industrial development in shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Wenatchee UGA L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1. Distribution of Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 2. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 3. Distribution of Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 4. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 5. Distribution of Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 6. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 7. Distribution of Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 8. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in WRIA Figure 9. Distribution of Environment Designations in the City of Cashmere Figure 10. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in the City of Cashmere Figure 11. Distribution of Environment Designations in the City of Chelan Figure 12. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in the City of Chelan Figure 13. Distribution of Environment Designations in the City of Entiat 82 Figure 14. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in the City of Entiat Figure 15. Distribution of Environment Designations in the City of Wenatchee v

8 Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in the City of Wenatchee Distribution of Environment Designations for Unincorporated Areas in the City of Cashmere s UGA Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in Unincorporated Areas of City of Cashmere s UGA Distribution of Environment Designations for Unincorporated Areas in the City of Chelan s UGA Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in Unincorporated Areas of City of Chelan s UGA Distribution of Environment Designations for Unincorporated Areas in the City of Wenatchee s UGA Distribution of Functional Scores among Environment Designations in Unincorporated Areas of City of Wenatchee s UGA vi

9 The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 C U M U L AT I V E I M PA C T S A N A LY S I S CHELAN COUNTY AND CITIES OF CASHMERE, CHELAN, ENTIAT, AND WENATCHEE 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Management Act Requirements The Management Act guidelines require local shoreline master programs to regulate new development to achieve no net loss of ecological function. The guidelines (WAC (8)(d)) state that, To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts. The Guidelines further elaborate on the concept of net loss as follows: When based on the inventory and analysis requirements and completed consistent with the specific provisions of these guidelines, the master program should ensure that development will be protective of ecological functions necessary to sustain existing shoreline natural resources and meet the standard. The concept of net as used herein, recognizes that any development has potential or actual, short-term or long-term impacts and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW , master program provisions shall, to the greatest extent feasible, protect existing ecological functions and avoid new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. *WAC (2)(c)] In short, updated SMPs shall contain goals, policies and regulations that prevent degradation of ecological functions relative to the existing conditions as documented in that jurisdiction s characterization and analysis report. For those projects that result in degradation of ecological functions, the required mitigation must return the resultant ecological function back to the baseline. This is illustrated in the figure below. The jurisdiction must be able to demonstrate that it has accomplished that goal through an analysis of cumulative impacts that might occur through implementation of the updated SMP. Evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider: 1

10 FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis (i) current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes [Chapter 2 below and Analysis Report]; (ii) reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline [Chapter 3 below and Analysis Report]; and (iii) beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws. [Chapter 5 below] Source: Department of Ecology As outlined in the Restoration Plan prepared as part of this SMP update, the SMA also seeks to restore ecological functions in degraded shorelines. This cannot be required by the SMP at a project level, but Section (2)(f) of the Guidelines says: master programs shall include goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions. See the Restoration Plan for additional discussion of SMP policies and other programs and activities in Chelan County and its Cities that contribute to the long-term restoration of ecological functions relative to the baseline condition. 2

11 The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July Methodology Using the information, both textual and graphic, developed and presented in the Analysis Report, this cumulative impacts analysis was prepared consistent with direction provided in the Master Program Guidelines as described above. To the extent that existing information was sufficiently detailed and assumptions about possible new or re-development could be made with reasonable certainty, the following analysis is quantitative. However, in many cases information about existing conditions and/or redevelopment potential was not available at a level that could be assessed quantitatively or the analysis would be unnecessarily complex to reach a conclusion that could be derived more simply. Further, ecological function does not have an easy metric. For these reasons, much of the following analysis is more qualitative. Analysis of cumulative impacts is generally limited to areas that fall within the proposed shoreline jurisdiction; however, because floodplains, channel migration zones, and rivers are closely interconnected and may not be captured within shoreline jurisdiction, the area outside of the immediate shoreline jurisdiction was considered in determining effects for areas with mapped channel migration zones and for s of Statewide Significance. The Aquatic shoreline environment is not evaluated individually in this CIA. Most development activities do not occur below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), more typically occurring in the adjacent upland shoreland environments. However, shoreline modifications below the OHWM, such as docks and bank armoring, usually occur in conjunction with adjacent upland development and were evaluated in this analysis. To estimate potential changes in land use along the shoreline, a land capacity analysis was conducted projecting growth over a 20-year timeframe. The land capacity analysis estimates development that may occur in the future along shorelines given draft shoreline use environments and development standards. The method to determine shoreline land capacity is summarized below. 1. Determine shoreline use boundaries. The land capacity analysis includes all lands within shoreline jurisdiction, generally 200 feet upland of the ordinary high water mark, associated wetlands, the floodway, and up to 200 feet of floodwaycontiguous floodplain where present. Additionally, in two cases parcels partially included in jurisdiction and extending beyond are included: Channel migration zone areas, since rivers may move over time; and s of Statewide Significance, due to the importance of these waterbodies and the ecosystem-wide processes emphasized in WAC

12 FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis 2. Compile County and City land capacity analyses. Based on adopted Comprehensive Plans and County and City planner input, assumptions about vacant, partially used, and under-utilized properties have been compiled. 3. Determine land status. The analysis estimates developable acres by City, Urban Growth Area (UGA), and Watershed Inventory Analysis Area (WRIA). The developable acres are also sorted by waterbody, shoreline environment designation, and future land use/zoning category. Developable acres include: 1) vacant (no building value); 2) partially used (e.g. single-family properties containing one home, but the land can be further subdivided); or 3) under-utilized (land value exceeds building value on multifamily, commercial or industrial properties). 4. Deductions. Constraints such as critical areas, shoreline buffers, rights of way, and infrastructure are deducted from gross acres. Market factor reductions, which account for land that may not be available (e.g. owner does not wish to develop), are also included. 5. Densities or floor area ratios are applied to the net buildable acres to estimate total future dwellings or commercial/industrial square feet. 6. and mineral lands. Due to the different purposes for public lands/land trusts and mineral lands, typical assumptions regarding dwelling and commercial/industrial density were not applied. However, because these shoreline properties could be altered due to a variety of public purposes such as recreation, utilities, or resource extraction, acres estimates are provided for each WRIA and City/UGA, as appropriate. Appendix B provides a detailed matrix of assumptions and maps illustrating the categories of land status, including the three buildable categories as well as public and land trust properties. Based on the results of the quantitative analysis of anticipated development, a qualitative analysis was performed to determine how foreseeable growth patterns might result in impacts to shoreline functions. A qualitative evaluation of potential impacts associated with possible future development, including upland development, overwater structures, shoreline armoring, mining, and aquaculture, was conducted at a Countywide level. For each waterbody with anticipated development within shoreline jurisdiction, effects were evaluated in terms of hydrologic, shoreline vegetation, hyporheic, and habitat functions. A qualitative analysis was performed to determine how applicable regulations related to each of the impacts identified, and what, if any regulations should be added or expanded to create more protection. 4

13 The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Analysis Report included an evaluation of existing conditions in Chelan County and the Cities of Cashmere, Chelan, Entiat, Leavenworth, and Wenatchee. The sources and limitations of the data are listed in Table 9 of the Analysis Report. Several types of data, including geology, soils, vegetation, impervious surface coverage, provide a regional characterization of existing conditions, but are not appropriate for a local or parcel based quantitative evaluation of existing conditions. Other data, including critical areas, may require a site-specific study to confirm the presence or absence of mapped features. Data gaps in the inventory data include aquifer recharge areas and shoreline stabilization, For a complete assessment of data limitations, assumptions, and data gaps, see Section 3 of the SMP. The following tables (Tables 1-9) provide a summary of existing conditions by waterbody. 2.1 Stemilt/Squilchuck - Colockum (WRIA 40a/b) WRIA 40a/b is dominated by resource lands, including commercial agriculture and commercial forestry. Residential and industrial uses tend to be congregated closer to the Columbia River and other waterbodies in the eastern portion of the WRIA (RH2 Engineering, Inc. 2007). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) information, as much as 17% of the total shoreline area may be wetlands. Geologically hazardous areas as mapped by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are common, particularly around the three reservoirs, which are considered to have geohazard coverage. A summary table (Table 1) provides further details on each waterbody s shoreline characteristics. 5

14 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 1 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 4 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Table 1. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 40a/b Streams/Rivers Colockum Creek Columbia River Lakes Spring Hill Reservoir (aka Black Lake or Wheeler Hill Reservoir) Single Family 48%, Undeveloped 39%, Agriculture 12%, Natural Resources <1% Government/Utility 32%, Undeveloped 24%, Natural Resources 14%, Single Family Residential 11%, Agriculture 11%, Manufacturing/ Industrial 6%, Transportation 2%, Category <1% Government/Utility 44%, Forestry 30%, Undeveloped 26% Private 98% (PUD) 2% Private 64% (Federal, County, PUD) 36% Private 56% (State) 44% Scrub/shrub 37%; grassland 37%; evergreen forest 9% Scrub/shrub 55%; evergreen forest 11%; deciduous forest 7% Scrub/shrub 38%; emergent wetland 24%; evergreen forest 21% PHS elk PHS mule deer PHS riparian zone PHS cliffs/bluff 13% wetland 1.4% geohazard PHS mule deer PHS elk PHS riparian zone PHS cliffs/bluffs FEMA floodplain 21% wetland 8.5% geohazard PHS elk 6% wetland geohazard 18,852 sf <1% 6

15 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 1 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 4 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Cortez Lake Meadow Lake Stemilt Project Reservoir Upper Wheeler Reservoir Other Residential 69%, Single Family Residential 26%, Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly 4% Undeveloped 52%, Agriculture 30%, Single Family Residential 18% Government/Utility 90%, Undeveloped 9%, Single-Family Residential 1% Forestry 95%, Government/Utility 5% Private Private Private 5 Private 96% (State) 4% Low intensity development 28%; evergreen forest 25%; developed open space 21% Pasture/hay 59%; evergreen forest 30%; developed open space 9% Scrub/shrub 81%; evergreen forest 6%; emergent wetland 5% 62%; scrub/shrub 22%; high-intensity development 12% PHS wood duck 21% wetland 19.6% geohazard PHS wood duck PHS wetland 14% wetland 18.1% geohazard 2% wetland geohazard PHS elk 7% wetland 82.3% geohazard Yes- 4c Exotic Species 1 Major existing land use is reported by acres located in shoreline jurisdiction rather than full parcels. Government/Utility includes governmental services, utilities, and other transportation and communication utilities. 2 Acres of shoreline owned by public or private entities. includes municipal, County, PUD, state, and federal lands. 3 Three dominant types listed. Consult Analysis Report maps for distribution and other types. See Table 9 of the Analysis Report for data limitations. 4 PHS = Priority Habitat or Species as identified by WDFW 5 Owned by the Stemilt Project irrigation purveyor. 7

16 FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis 2.2 Wenatchee (WRIA 45) Government/utility uses and resource lands (forestry, agriculture, other natural resources) dominate along a majority of the 75 shorelines under review. s with a wider mix of uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, recreation, or other uses, include: Chiwaukum Creek Chiwawa River Chumstick Creek Colchuck Lake Columbia River Fish Lake Icicle Creek Lake Wenatchee Mission Creek Nason Creek Peshastin Creek Wenatchee River White River According to the NWI information, as much as 39% of the total shoreline area may be wetlands. Floodplains and a few geohazard areas are also documented in the WRIA. Channel migration zone mapping identified broad areas of potential channel migration along the Wenatchee River at the outlet from Lake Wenatchee, at the confluence with Icicle Creek, just south of the City of Leavenworth, and at the confluence with the Columbia River. Broad channel migration zones were also identified at the mouth of the White River and the Little Wenatchee River. A summary table (Table 2) provides further details on each waterbody s shoreline characteristics. 8

17 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Table 2. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 45, Outside of Cities and their Urban Growth Areas. Streams/Rivers Big Meadow Creek Boulder Creek Government/ Utility () (Federal) t applicable 1 (Federal) Buck Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Cady Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Chikamin Creek Chiwaukum Creek Chiwaukum Creek SF Government/ Utility (76%), Forestry (24%) Government/ Utility (81%), Commercial (10%), Other Residential (5%), Forestry (3%) Government/ Utility (84%), Forestry (9%), (Federal) 76% Private 24% (Federal, State) 92% Private 8% (Federal) 93%; low intensity development 4%; woody wetlands 3% 83%; woody wetlands 9%; scrub/shrub 8% 94%; woody wetlands 6% 95%; scrub/shrub, and low-intensity development 2% each 89%; woody wetlands 5%; developed open space 3% 83%; scrub/shrub PHS elk PHS mule deer PHS lynx PHS mountain goat 4% wetland PHS lynx 5% wetland 2.4% geohazard 0sf PHS mule deer 3% wetland PHS riparian zone PHS mountain goat 14% wetland 3.6% geohazard 1% wetland 6.8% geohazard Yes 4a: Temperature 9

18 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Chiwawa River Chumstick Creek 3, Other Residential (6%), Undeveloped (1%), Open Space (<1%), Category (<1%), Cultural/Recreation/As sembly (<1%), Single Family Residential (<1%) Single Family Residential (89%), Other Residential (6%), Agriculture (2%), Undeveloped (1%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (1%), Government/Utility (1%) Natural Resources (<1%), Government/Utility (59%), Open Space (30%), Other 9%; woody wetlands 7% Private (Federal, PUD) 91% 9% Private 99% 78%; woody wetlands 16%; scrub/shrub 3% Grassland 26%; low- intensity development 25%, Heritage Point mountain sucker Heritage Point osprey (3) Heritage Point spruce grouse (1) Heritage Point three-toed woodpecker (1) PHS elk PHS lynx PHS marten PHS mule deer PHS riparian zone PHS wetland 69% wetland 0.2% geohazard PHS riparian zone 5% wetland Yes: 4A- Temperature Yes: 4C- Instream flow; 5- Dissolved 10

19 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Columbia River Cougar Creek 3.26 Eightmile Creek Residential (11%), (County, PUD) 1% t applicable 1 57% Private (PUD) 43% Government/ Utility (80%), Forestry (18%), Other Residential (1%), Category (1%) (Federal) t applicable 1 (Federal) 99% Private 1% Fish Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) French Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) cultivated crop 21% FEMA floodplain oxygen; 4A Fecal coliform and Temperature Low-intensity development 29%; scrub/shrub 17%; high-intensity development 15% 73%; scrub/shrub 16%; grassland 4% 90%; woody wetland 10% 97%; scrub/shrub and woody wetlands 2% each PHS bald eagle/bald eagle nest PHS bighorn sheep PHS mule deer PHS riparian zone 43% wetland FEMA floodplain 1.2% geohazard PHS mountain goat 1% wetland 27% geohazard 26% wetland PHS mule deer 13% wetland 24,182 sf 3% 11

20 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Ibex Creek Government/ Utility (57%), Forestry (13%), Other Residential (13%), Agriculture (6%), Undeveloped (5%), Single Family Residential (3%), Natural Resources (2%), Category (1%) Icicle Creek 1, t applicable 1 (Federal) (Federal) 68% Private 32% 83%; scrub/shrub 16%; grassland 1% 66%; scrub/shrub 10%; low intensity development 7% PHS mountain goat Heritage Point bald eagle (1) Heritage Point harlequin duck (2) PHS marten PHS mule deer PHS mountain goat PHS waterfowl concentration PHS riparian zone 28% wetland FEMA floodplain Channel migration zone 5.1% geohazard Yes: 4A- Temperature; 5- ph; 4C- Instream flow 1,284 sf <1% 12

21 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Indian Creek Ingalls Creek Government/ Utility (95%), Other Residential (4%), Forestry (1%) Government/ Utility () (Federal) (Federal) 95% Private 5% Jack Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Lake Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Leland Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Lightning Creek Little Wenatchee River Government/ Utility (77%), Forestry (19%), Open Space (4%) (Federal) 1, t applicable 1 (Federal) 91% Private 9% 81%; woody wetland 17%; scrub/shrub 2% 91%; woody wetlands 4% scrub/shrub, 2% 94%; scrub/shrub 3%; woody wetland 2% 88%; scrub/shrub, woody wetland, and low intensity development each 5% 95%; woody wetland 4% 86%; scrub/shrub 11%; grassland 3% 62%; woody wetland 28%; scrub/shrub 7% PHS mule deer PHS lynx 42% wetland 0.9% geohazard PHS ruffed grouse 4.5% geohazard PHS mule deer 1% wetland 0.5% geohazard PHS mule deer 39% wetland 9% wetland 2.4% geohazard (Cat 2) (Cat 2) (Cat 2) Yes PHS lynx Heritage Point osprey (2) PHS marten PHS mule deer PHS trumpeter Yes: 4A- Fecal coliform and temperature 13

22 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Meadow Creek Mill Creek Mission Creek Mountaineer Creek Government/ Utility () Single Family Residential (45%), Agriculture (45%), Undeveloped (7%), Forestry (2%), Commercial (1%), Government/Utility (1%) Government/ Utility (68%), Forestry (27%), Commercial (6%) Government/ Utility (82%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (14%), Other Residential (4%) (Federal) (Federal) Private 98% (Federal) 2% (Federal) 98%; woody wetland 8% 69%; 16% developed open space; low intensity development 9% Pasture/hay 44%; scrub/shrub 17%; evergreen forest 12% 84%; woody wetland 9%; grassland 3% swan PHS waterfowl concentration 43% wetland FEMA floodplain 13% geohazard PHS wetlands PHS elk PHS mule deer PHS riparian zone 2% wetland FEMA floodplain Flood zone Floodway 11% wetland Yes: 4A- DDD, DDE, DDT Temperature, Fecal coliform; 4C- Instream flow; 5- ph 14

23 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Napeequa River Government/ Utility (42%), Forestry (25%), Other Residential (22%), Undeveloped Land (4%), Single Family Residential (3%), Commercial (1%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (1%), Transportation (1%) Nason Creek 1, t applicable 1 Panther Creek Single Family Residential (28%), Government/ Utility (24%), Forestry (19%), Other Residential (Federal) 95% Private 5% (Federal, State) 53% Private 47% (Federal) 50%; scrub/shrub 22%; woody wetland 21% 56%; woody wetland 22%; lowintensity development 10% 88%; scrub/shrub 10%; grassland 2% PHS mountain goat PHS lynx PHS cliff/bluffs PHS mule deer 59% wetland 3.6% geohazard Heritage Point osprey (3) PHS elk PHS mountain goat PHS mule deer PHS marten PHS wetlands PHS aspen stand PHS riparian zone 33% wetland FEMA floodplain CMZ 0.4% geohazard PHS mountain goat PHS mule deer 1% wetland Yes: 4A- Temperature (Cat 2) 15

24 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Peshastin Creek Phelps Creek (16%), Agriculture (7%), Undeveloped Land (3%), Category (2%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (1%) Government/ Utility (88%) Natural Resources (12%) Government/ Utility () Private 77% (Federal, State) 23% (Federal) 98% Private 2% Pole Creek 5.17 t applicable 1 (Federal) Prospect t applicable 1 (Federal) Creek Rainy Creek Other Residential () (Federal) 31%; low-intensity development 21%; medium-intensity development 18% 92%; scrub/shrub 4%; woody wetlands 3% 99%; scrub/shrub 1% 81%; woody wetland 8%; PHS mule deer PHS riparian zone 5% wetland FEMA floodplain Channel migration zone Floodway Flood zone 0.7% geohazard PHS marten PHS lynx PHS mule deer 8% wetland Yes: 4A- Temperature; 4C-Instream flows PHS elk PHS mule deer (Cat 2) 16

25 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Roaring Creek 3.57 t applicable 1 Private Rock Creek SF Chiwaukum Creek Government/Utility () (Federal) t applicable 1 (Federal) Snowall Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Thunder Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Trapper Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Trout Creek Government/ Utility (30%), Other Residential (24%), Single Family Residential (12%), (Federal) scrub/shrub 7% Woody wetlands 60%; evergreen forest 40% 97%, scrub/shrub 3% 78%; scrub/shrub 13%; woody and emergent wetland remainder 93%; woody wetland 5%; scrub shrub 2% 66%; scrub/shrub 34% 78%; woody wetland 13%; emergent wetland 6% 87%; scrub/shrub 13% PHS aspen stand PHS mule deer 69% wetland PHS mule deer PHS lynx 3% wetland 1% wetland Yes: 4A- Temperature Yes: 4A- Temperature 32% wetland PHS lynx PHS mountain goat 3% wetland 48% wetland PHS mule deer 2% wetland 17

26 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Wenatchee River 4, Forestry (11%), Agriculture (8%), Undeveloped (6%), Commercial (3%), Category (2%), Open Space (1%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (1%) Government/ Utility (51%), Forestry (18%), Open Space (17%), Other Residential (5%), Undeveloped (4%), Natural Resources (2%), Single Family Residential (2%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (1%) Private 64% (Federal, State, County) 36% 28%; scrub/shrub and low-intensity development 12% each Heritage Point bald eagle (4) Heritage Point great blue heron (2) Heritage Point great Columbia spire snail (3) Heritage Point mountain sucker (1) Heritage Point osprey (16) Heritage Point Umatilla dace (2) PHS mule deer PHS aspen stand PHS riparian zone PHS wetlands PHS cliffs/bluffs 49% wetland FEMA floodplain Yes: 4A- Temperature; 4C Instream flow; 5: ph 22,444 sf <1% 18

27 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 White River 2, Whitepine Creek Wildhorse Creek Government/ Utility () (Federal, State) 63% Private 37% t applicable 1 (Federal) Government/ Utility () (Federal) Woody wetland 46%; evergreen forest 41%; emergent wetland and scrub/shrub 5% each 90%; scrub/shrub 6%; woody wetlands 4% 99%; woody Floodway Channel migration zone Flood zone 0.2% geohazard Heritage Point bald eagle (1) Heritage Point osprey (3) PHS mule deer PHS lynx PHS mountain goat PHS snag-rich area PHS trumpeter swan PHS wetland PHS aspen stand PHS waterfowl concentration 76% wetland FEMA floodplain 0.3% geohazard PHS elk PHS mule deer PHS marten 4% wetland PHS elk (Cat 2) 19

28 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Lakes Chiwaukum Lake Colchuck Lake Eightmile Lake Fish Lake Government/Utility () Commercial (68%), Government/Utility (32%) Government/ Utility () Government/ Utility (76%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (20%), Other Residential (4%) wetland 1% 13% wetland (Federal) (Federal) (Federal) (Federal) 76% Private 24% Glasses Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) 70%; low-intensity development 13%; scrub/shrub 8% 71%; 18% scrub/shrub; emergent wetland 4% Emergent wetland 35%; evergreen forest 34%; woody wetlands 9% 75%; scrub/shrub 11%; barren land 10% PHS mountain goat PHS riparian zone 9% wetland 7% wetland 5% wetland 13.6% geohazard Heritage Point western toad (1) Heritage Point Columbia spotted frog (1) PHS sandhill crane PHS aspen stand PHS riparian zone PHS mule deer PHS wetland 71% wetland PHS talus slope 3% wetland 3,721 sf <1% 20

29 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Heather Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) Josephine Lake Klonaqua Lakes Lower Klonaqua Lakes Upper t applicable 1 (Federal) Government/ Utility () Government/ Utility () (Federal) (Federal) Lake Augusta Undeveloped () (Federal) Lake Leland t applicable 1 (Federal) Lake Valhalla t applicable 1 (Federal) Lake Victoria Government/ Utility () (Federal) 75%; scrub/shrub 22%; emergent wetland 3% 59%; grassland 18%; scrub/ shrub 14% 92%; scrub/shrub 8% 73%; scrub/shrub 15%; barren land 12% Scrub/shrub 49%; grassland 43%; barren land 7% 65%; barren land 19%; scrub/shrub 15% 59%; grassland 15%; barren land 14% 2% wetland PHS elk 4% wetland 15% wetland 14% wetland 2% wetland 11% wetland PHS elk PHS mountain goat PHS talus slope 3% wetland PHS mountain goat 2% wetland 21

30 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Lake Wenatchee Government/Utility (48%), Other Residential (36%), Open Space (8%), Forestry (4%), Cultural/Recreation/ Assembly (3%) (Federal, State) 55% Private 45% Larch Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) Lichtenwasser Lake Loch Eileen Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) Government/ Utility () (Federal) Lost Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) 61%; woody wetlands 13%; scrub/shrub and low-intensity development 10% each 37%; scrub/shrub 36%; barren land 27% 99%; barren land 1% 56%; scrub/shrub 20%; barren land 18% 99%; grassland 1% Heritage Point bald eagle Heritage Point common loon PHS waterfowl concentration PHS trumpeter swan PHS mule deer PHS riparian zone 20% wetland FEMA floodplain 15.7% geohazard PHS mountain goat 9% wetland PHS mountain goat PHS talus slope PHS wetlands 4% wetland PHS mountain goat 2% wetland Heritage Point Cascades frog (1) PHS mountain goat PHS talus slope 13,461 sf <1% 22

31 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Nada Lake Perfection Lake Government/ Utility () Government/ Utility () (Federal) (Federal) Schaefer Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) Shield Lake Snow Lake Lower Snow Lake Upper Government/ Utility () Government/ Utility () Government/ Utility () (Federal) (Federal) (Federal) Square Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) 84%; grassland 10%; scrub/shrub 6% Barren land 59%; scrub/shrub 12%; grassland 9% 62% barren land 32%; grassland and scrub/shrub 3% each Scrub/shrub 47%; evergreen forest 33%; grassland 19% 48%; scrub/shrub 33%; developed open space 13% 87%; scrub/shrub 7%; grassland 4% 71%; scrub/shrub 15%; barren land 14% 10% wetland PHS mountain goat 25% wetland PHS mountain goat 22% wetland PHS mountain goat 4% wetland 34% wetland PHS mountain goat 15% wetland PHS mountain goat 24% wetland 3% wetland Stuart Lake Government/ Utility 23

32 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 listed Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis () (Federal) Theseus Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) Twin Lakes (1) Twin Lakes (2) Government/ Utility () Government/ Utility () (Federal) (Federal) 83%; scrub/shrub 10%; emergent wetland 3% 83%; barren land 15%; grassland 2% 93%; woody wetlands 7% 92%; woody wetland 5%; scrub/shrub 3% 4% wetland NWI wetland PHS mountain goat PHS talus slope 5% wetland PHS wetland 23% wetland Heritage Point Columbia spotted frog (1) PHS wetland 23% wetland 1 There is no parcel-based current land use data for numerous waterbodies that are in Federal ownership. 2 Acres of shoreline owned by public or private entities. includes municipal, County, PUD, state, and federal lands. 3 Three dominant types listed. Consult Analysis Report maps for distribution and other types. See Table 9 of the Analysis Report for data limitations. 4 Major existing land use is reported by acres located in shoreline jurisdiction rather than full parcels. Government/Utility includes governmental services, utilities, and other transportation and communication utilities. 5 PHS = Priority habitats and species as identified by WDFW 24

33 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater Structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July Entiat (WRIA 46) Current land uses in WRIA 46 shorelines include orchards, livestock production and grazing, timber harvest, residential housing, and recreation. U.S. Forest Service and timber lands dominate in terms of acres (Chelan County Conservation District 2004). Existing land uses vary by individual waterbody, but primarily consist of residential (Entiat River), governmental/utility uses (Mad River), and a mix of both those uses (Columbia River). According to the NWI information, as much as 24% of the total shoreline area may be wetlands. Floodplains and a few geohazard areas are also documented in the WRIA. A broad channel migration zone occurs at the mouth of the Entiat River. A summary table (Table 3) provides further details on each waterbody s shoreline characteristics. Table 3. Summary Table of Basic Characteristics of Each Waterbody in WRIA 46, Outside of Cities and their Urban Growth Areas. Streams/Rivers Columbia River Entiat River 3, Other Residential 37%, Government/Utility 29%, Single Family Residential 9%, Undeveloped 7%, Category 6%, Open Space 4%, Natural Resources 4%, Cultural/Recreation/As sembly 2%, Agriculture 1%, Commercial <1% Other Residential 51%, Single Family Private 91% (PUD) 19% Private 54% Scrub/shrub 36%; low intensity development 29%; developed open space 22% Woody wetland 44%; scrub/shrub PHS bald eagle PHS golden eagle PHS mule deer PHS bighorn sheep PHS riparian zone PHS waterfowl concentrations PHS cliffs/bluffs 5% wetland FEMA floodplain Heritage Point harlequin duck (1) Yes: 4B- Temperature; 35,473 sf, <1% 4,539 sf, <1% 25

34 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater Structures FINAL DRAFT - Chelan County and Cities Cumulative Impacts Analysis Residential 12%, Agriculture 10%, Government/Utility 8%, Forestry 7%, Undeveloped 7%, Open Space 3%, Natural Resources 1%, Cultural/Recreation/As sembly <1%, Commercial <1%, Category 1% (Federal, PUD) 46% Ice Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Lake Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) and woody wetland 15% each 82%; scrub/shrub 13%; grassland and low-intensity development 2% each Heritage Point osprey (1) Heritage Point Pacific lamprey (2) Heritage Point racer (1) PHS mule deer PHS lynx PHS aspen stand PHS bald eagle PHS riparian zone PHS bighorn sheep PHS old-growth/ mature forest PHS cliffs/bluffs 36% wetland FEMA floodplain 0.2% geohazard PHS lynx PHS old-growth/ mature forest 2% wetland 4c- Instream Flow; 5-pH 26

35 Jurisdictional Streams/Lakes Area of Upland Jurisdiction (acres) Major Existing Land Uses 4 Ownership Profile 2 Vegetation Profile 3 Critical Area/Priority Habitat or Species (PHS) 5 Presence Presence of Impaired Waterbodies (303d list)? Yes/ Category 4 and 5 Area (square feet) and Percent Coverage of Overwater Structures The Watershed Company, ICF, and BERK July 2011 Mad River NF Entiat River Government/Utility 84%, Undeveloped 5%, Natural Resources 4%, Single Family Residential 3%, Other Residential 3%, Forestry 2%, Category (<1%) (Federal) 94% Private 6% t applicable 1 (Federal) Tommy Creek t applicable 1 (Federal) Lakes Ice Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) Ice Lake t applicable 1 (Federal) 70%; scrub/shrub 23%; low-intensity development 3% 99% 81%; scrub/shrub 14%; grassland and woody wetlands 2% each Barren land 87%; grassland 12% scrub/shrub 1% Barren land 62%; grassland 32%; scrub/shrub 6% PHS riparian zone 4% wetland FEMA floodplain PHS old-growth/ mature forest PHS lynx 12.4% geohazard 428 sf, <1% 2% wetland PHS lynx PHS mountain goat 47% wetland PHS lynx PHS mountain goat 51% wetland 1 There is no parcel-based current land use data for numerous waterbodies that are in Federal ownership. 2 Acres of shoreline owned by public or private entities. includes municipal, County, PUD, state, and federal lands. 3 Three dominant types listed. Consult Analysis Report maps for distribution and other types. See Table 9 of the Analysis Report for data limitations. 4 Major existing land use is reported by acres located in the shoreline jurisdiction rather than full parcels. Government/Utility includes governmental services, utilities, and other transportation and communication utilities. 27