Don Hoch Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1111 Israel Road S.W. • P.O. Box 42650 • Olympia, WA 98504-2650 • (360) 902-8500 TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (800) 866-6388
www.parks.wa.gov
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: This non-project action seeks to approve a Recreation Business Activity (RBA) as a conditionally permitted activity at one site within Squilchuck State Park. RBAs are conditionally permitted activities in Recreation Areas, Resource Recreation Areas, and Heritage Areas under the State Parks’ classification system. This proposed RBA site is located in the center portion of the park and is approximately 45-acres in size. This site is located within a classified Recreation Area.
There are currently no specific development proposals being considered for the Squilchuck pilot site. If the Commission approves this RBA as a conditional activity, State Parks will solicit for development proposals. If any viable proposals are received, they will then go through a project- level SEPA review, if necessary, before the Commission would consider approving any lease.
Proponent: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Location of proposal, including street address, if any: Squilchuck State Park is located in Section 18 of Township 21 North, Range 20 East, Willamette Meridian.
Lead agency: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Phased Review: This SEPA checklist analyzes the non-project impacts associated with the new RBA designation recommended by staff for Commission consideration at Squilchuck State Park. If the Commission approves an RBA at Squilchuck, State Parks will solicit for development proposals. If any viable proposals are received, they will go through a project-level SEPA review, if necessary.
Alternatives will be phased and evaluated individually to meet established development criteria. Phasing includes future project-specific proposals appropriate within the RBA. Phasing allows the agency to identify alternatives and impacts at a time when they can be meaningfully evaluated. All potential project specific proposals will be reviewed, resulting with some alternatives being, depending on the proposal, categorically exempt. For example, WAC 352- 11-055(2)(a). Categorically exempt projects do not require preparation of an environmental checklist or threshold determination.
A policy document related to Real Estate Management Policy was developed to implement the Commission's interest in RBA’s. The policy is available for review at: http://parks.state.wa.us/900/Real-Estate-Policy-Update.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
All comments are welcome and will be considered. Please address your comments to Jessica Logan, SEPA Responsible Official, at [email protected] by September 21, 2016. This Commission will consider this proposal at their September 22, 2016 meeting in Sequim, WA. Additionally individuals may provide comments directly to the Commission at the meeting.
Responsible Official: Jessica Logan
Position/Title: Environmental Program Manager Phone: (360) 902-8679 FAX: (360) 586-0204
Address: 1111 Israel Rd SW P.O. Box 42650 Olympia, WA 42650
Date: September , 7 2016 Signature: ______
"All Washington State Parks are developed and maintained for the enjoyment of all persons regardless of age, sex, creed, ethnic origin, or physical limitations."
There is no agency SEPA appeal; however all comments are welcome and will be thoroughly considered.
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Squilchuck State Park, authorizing Recreation Business Activity concessions.
2. Name of applicant:
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Steve Hahn 1111 Israel Road SW Olympia, WA 98504-2650 (360) 902-8683
4. Date checklist prepared:
September 2, 2016
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The non-project action in this checklist will be considered by the State Parks Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting September 22, 2016 in Sequim WA. Individuals interested in commenting on this action may do so through this SEPA review, or may provide comments directly to the Commission in writing or at the meeting.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Yes. This SEPA checklist analyzes the non-project impacts associated with approving a Recreational Business Activity (RBA) site within a portion of Squilchuck State Park. The Commission’s decision will allow staff to solicit for private sector interest in RBA development through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) later in 2016.
If one or more viable RBA proposals are received, those proposals will go through a project-level SEPA review unless they are categorically exempt. If appropriate, the proposals may rely on this
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 1 of 21 checklist to avoid duplication and excess paperwork, consistent with SEPA’s rules governing phased review [WAC 197-11-060(5)(f)].
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
No additional environmental information has been prepared directly related to this proposal, but state parks has gathered and reviewed past information, including: · SEPA Determination of Non-Significance and checklist for Wenatchee Confluence Classification and Land Management Plan · Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Maps · Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2016. State of Washington Natural Heritage Program, data system search for Westhaven State Park. · Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. Web Soil Survey Data System research for Westhaven State Park. · Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Priority Habitats and Species Program data system search for Westhaven State Park. · Literature reviews for historic and archaeological surveys and significant sites for Westport WA. · Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 1998. Cultural Resources Management Policy. · Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2011. 73-04-1 Protecting Washington State Parks Natural Resources. · Rare Plant Inventory and Community Vegetation Survey Squilchuck State Park by Dana Visalli 2004 and Washington Natural Heritage Program, wnhp, GIS data 2016.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No capital improvement are currently active within Squilchuck State Park, and none are currently included in the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
One partner-led project is currently under construction in the park to develop and improve mountain bike trails. This project is funded and constructed by the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance. The RBA project is not expected to impact the mountain bike trails.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Approval by the State Parks Commission is required for this non-project action described in question 11 of this checklist. The Commission plans to consider approving RBAs as conditional activities within a portion of Squilchuck State Park at its September 22, 2016 meeting.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 2 of 21
Squilchuck State Park is a 288-acre park covered with forests of fir and ponderosa pine. The park sits below Mission Ridge at an elevation of 3,200 feet. A group camp is available by reservations for groups of 20 or more. The Squilchuck Lodge and group camp also may be reserved for day-use events for groups between May and October.
In January 2015, the Commission updated its Real Estate Management Policy to allow some forms of privately financed development on State Parks land. One approved development type is known as a Recreation Business Activity (RBA). RBAs are privately financed recreation developments that are intended to provide amenities for park visitors while also generating revenue to support the state park system. RBAs are conditional activities in areas of state parks classified Recreation, Resource Recreation, and Heritage Areas, meaning they are only allowed in those areas when specifically approved by the Commission. State Parks land classifications are similar to internal park zoning, designating which areas of a park are suitable for different kinds of developments.
RBA developments must be consistent with the State Parks mission, vision, and core values, as well as with their underlying land classification restrictions. RBA developments could be any kind of park facility, including campgrounds, cabins, picnic facilities, moorage facilities, food services, or even small resorts. It is not known at this time what kind of development might be proposed for Squilchuck, or even whether there will be any proposals at all.
It should be noted that the Commission will consider renaming Recreation Business Activities at its September 2016 meeting. State Parks staff believes that using the word business in the name may have created an impression that RBAs are an attempt at privatization and a focus on revenue at the expense of other park values. In fact, RBAs are essentially a new way of doing an old thing: concessions. State Parks has a long history of developing concession agreements with private businesses to provide additional park amenities. Examples range from food and beverage stands at day-use swim beaches to the Mount Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park and Tillicum Village at Blake Island Marine State Park. The new name under consideration is Recreation Concession Area. To avoid confusion, and because that new name has not yet been approved, RBA is used in this checklist.
The Commission will consider approving RBAs as a conditionally permitted activity within approximately 45 acres of Squilchuck State Park. The RBA pilot site is generally located in the center portion of the park within the areas currently developed for recreational activities as shown in Attachment 1. The site is currently classified as a Recreation Area, which is the classification that allows medium-to-high-intensity recreational developments such as campgrounds. The rest of the park outside of the proposed area is quite steep and not well suited for higher-intensity development. The southwest portion of the classified Recreation Area is not included in the staff-recommended RBA pilot due to its steep topography.
The proposal under consideration would also include restrictions that any development in the proposed RBA site: · Avoids significant impacts to the park’s existing and proposed trail system · Avoid significant impacts to elk and other wildlife in the park · Is designed, maintained, and operated to minimize fire danger
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 3 of 21
required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
Squilchuck State Park is located in Section 18 of Township 21 North, Range 20 East, Willamette Meridian. The park is accessed via Highway 711, Squilchuck Road.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site:
(circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
No slope analysis was completed for this non-project action because the RBA designation does not address site-specific proposals. Any specific project proposals to the Commission will require thorough environmental analysis including capturing topographic attributes. The USDA Natual Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (accessed September 2016) indicates that the steepest slopes within the RBA site are 25-45%. The flattest areas have approximately 7% slopes.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service - Web Soil Survey (accessed September 2016), soils present at the proposed RBA locations are primarily Stemilt silt loam, 0 to 25 percent slopes
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
The RBA site will be researched and surveyed for unstable slopes should formal project proposals be submitted to State Parks. No surveys were completed for this non-project action. According to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Landslide Inventory GIS layer, there has been a landslide on the slope east of the proposed RBA site.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
None from this non-project action. Should the Commission adopt the proposal to establish an RBA site, proposals for future RBA developments will be individually reviewed for environmental impacts including purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading. All proposed future projects will comply with Best Management Practices.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 4 of 21
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
This non project action and will not result in erosion. Land classification designations were developed considering potential sensitive geological hazard areas, existing areas where disturbance has already occurred, and where erosion is unlikely. Future project actions will include appropriate location, sustainable design, and implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and landslide activities.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
None for this non-project action. Other future activities may result in the development of impervious surfaces.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
No further measures to reduce or control erosion are included in these non-project proposals. Future project actions will be in appropriate locations to avoid geologic hazards, incorporate sustainable design, and implement Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and landslide activity.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
None for this non-project action. Minor exhaust and brief dust emissions (particulate matter) could be expected in the event of future developments on State Park property. Any potential constructed development could increase emissions and impact air quality and will be thoroughly analyzed. State Parks will continue to operate its parks in a manner consistent with local fire departments’ fire windows/restrictions and comply with air quality standards.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None for this non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
No measures to reduce or control emissions are included in this non-project action. Potential future projects will be required to comply with air quality standards and BMPs if they result in emissions.
3. Water
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 5 of 21
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
There is an unnamed tributary to Squilchuck Creek that runs through a portion of the park. The stream is seasonal. It wells up out of the ground approximately 300 feet north of the mountain bike skills park area and runs north several hundred yards before its confluence with Squilchuck Creek outside park boundaries.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
None for this non-project action.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
No fill or dredge material is required for this action. Staff classified the park lands to emphasize appropriate management and to limit future uses of sensitive areas such as surface water, and wetlands. Future project actions shall be consistent with the designated land classifications and allowed uses.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No surface water withdrawal or diversion are required for this non-project action
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No discharges of waste materials to surface waters will result from this action. Future project actions within the designated areas will be consistent with the respective land classification and allowed uses policies. In addition, future project actions will ensure compliance and implementation of Ecology’s Best Management Practices.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No groundwater will be withdrawn or discharged as a result of this action. Future development activities could involve investigation to determine the potential for domestic wells for park purposes. Future development of potential wells would be thoroughly designed and vetted through local, state, and federal regulations and standards.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 6 of 21
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
This is a non-project action. Future project actions may result in discharges into the ground (e.g. new septic/sewer systems). Potential sources of new discharge will be associated with the drain fields from septic systems included in the installation of flush comfort stations (restrooms), within the park.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
No surface water runoff will be generated by this action. In the event of future development of the RBA site, stormwater would be collected, treated and disposed of, in a manner that emphasizes the agency’s commitment to stewardship and sustainability and in accordance with state and local government stormwater regulations and Best Management Practices.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No waste material will enter ground or surface waters as a result of this non-project action. Future project actions will incorporate appropriate stormwater management techniques to treat surface water runoff prior to entering ground or surface waters.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe.
This is a non-project action. Future RBA developments may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the immediate vicinity, and will undergo project-level SEPA review, if appropriate.
4) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any:
This is a non-project action. Future project actions will include measures that follow local, state, and federal government storm water regulations and other best management practices.
4. Plants
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
__x__ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __x__ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other __x__ shrubs __x__ grass ____ pasture
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 7 of 21
____ crop or grain ____ orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None for this action. Future development activities or management actions may result in the removal or alteration of native and non-native vegetation and will require consistency with the Washington State Parks Natural Resources Policy and land classifications.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
A review of the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS Database (accessed April 2016) did not identify any threatened or endangered species within the park. A rare plant survey was also conducted within the park in 2004 that failed to identify any sensitive species.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
This is a non-project action. Future project actions may include measures to preserve or enhance vegetation and/or such measures could be included in development plans. Native plants would be required for future landscaping. Land classifications for the park takes into consideration the condition and extent of existing vegetation. Additional surveys could be conducted for rare plants, as needed, for any significant land disturbing activities associated with future development or restoration activities. Parks staff will also seek help from resource agencies and others to enhance these existing native vegetation communities and limit activities which might degrade rare plant communities. In addition, park staff will update the park plans for controlling noxious species within the park, focusing in particular on areas where sensitive species are present.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
A 2004 Rare Plant Inventory noted that weeds are abundant in the former parking area of the ski hill and in the adjacent mowed fields. Several of the weed species in the park are on the county noxious weed list—notably diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and butter-and-eggs (Linaria vulgaris). Any noxious weeds discovered or related to any potential future proposals will be managed as required by county/state noxious weed laws (RCW 17.10, WAC 16-750).
5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site.
BIRDS X songbirds X hawks, heron, waterfowl and bald eagles MAMMALS X deer X bear X elk
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 8 of 21
_ beaver FISH _ bass _ salmon _ trout _ herring _ shellfish
A wide variety of birds and other animals are distributed throughout the RBA project sites. If any future developments result in a project action, additional review will be conducted as needed to detail any potential impacts to birds and other animals.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) GIS database (accessed September 2016) there are no identified threatened or endangered species within the park.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Yes. The area parks fall within the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory bird route. Mule deer likely use this park as part of their migratory route.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
RBA site designations consider existing PHS data on known fish and wildlife resources. Using information such as this, State Parks will balance the needs of the recreating public with wildlife habitat conservation by locating potential intensive recreational developments and uses out of sensitive areas where possible within the parks. The RBA was sited to focus facility development in existing disturbed areas in order to avoid compromising the wildlife management of the park. Other proposed measures include consultations with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) habitat biologists and implementing recommended management guidelines for priority species. Any future development actions will be reviewed in consultation with WDFW and other regulatory agencies as appropriate. Biological assessments will be conducted as required, and potential mitigation measures will be identified for any listed species that could be affected by project actions.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
There are no known invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
None for this non-project action. Future project actions may result in electricity or solar power to meet energy needs for recreation facilities.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 9 of 21
None for this non-project action. Should future development occur, it is unlikely that the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties would be impacted.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
None for this non-project action. Future projects will include energy conservation measures consistent with Washington State Parks Sustainability Policy, the agency’s Sustainability Plan, and park specific Integrated Sustainability Plan.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
None for this non-project action. Future projects will follow Washington State Department of Ecology’s Best Management Practices to limit the potential for environmental health hazards.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
There is no known contamination within the proposed RBA site. No on-site analysis has been completed as a part of this non-project action. If any future developments result in a project action, additional review as needed to possible contamination sites in or near RBA development areas.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
No site surveys for hazardous chemicals or conditions were completed for this non-project action.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project.
This is a non-project action. Currently, no plans exist that will include the use of toxic or hazardous chemicals.
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No additional or special emergency services are needed for this action. Future project actions may require additional police, fire or medical services. Park staff has limited training in providing certain levels of these types of services.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 10 of 21
This is a non-project action. Future developments would be subject to appropriate regulatory controls to abate health hazards.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
None for this non-project action.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi-cate what hours noise would come from the site.
No changes in type or level of noise are anticipated as a result of this non-project action. Future developments could cause a temporary increase in noise associated with traffic, recreational uses, and heavy equipment operation. Land classifications consider potential noise impacts when designating areas for higher intensity uses and development. Those designations typically occur within existing developed areas or are buffered by vegetated corridors to reduce noise impacts on neighboring land uses.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
None for this action. Noise impacts caused by future project actions will be controlled by using best management practices during construction, and by enforcing quiet hours in the state park.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
Squilchuck State Park provides a mixture of recreational activities including mountain biking, hiking, picnicking, and a variety of winter activiites like sledding.
Adjacent properties are primarily residential and forestry.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
Squilchuck State Park was established in 1952. Prior to State acquisition, the area was in forestry use.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
No impacts to working farm or forest lands are anticipated from this non-project action. Future developments will be evaluated relating to potential impacts to these types of resource lands.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 11 of 21
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Structures within Squilchuck State Park include: one small lodge building, a group camp with a restroom, two parking lots, picnic area/shelters, a residence, a shop, and a connecting road system.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No structures will be demolished through this non-project action.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Chelan County zoning classification for the proposed RBA sites is Rural Public
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Chelan County current comprehensive plan designation for the proposed RBA sites is Public Use.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
NA
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify.
There are Chelan County-designated critical areas (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.) within the park.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Residential occupancy will be evaluated for any RBA candidate site following submittal of formal project development plans.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None for this non-project action.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None for this non-project action.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Local governments will receive a copy of this checklist and have the opportunity to offer further comment on consistency with existing and projected land use plans. At this time, the RBA designation appears to be compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. State Parks staff will continue to work closely with local planning officials during the planning process.
m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 12 of 21
None for this non-project action.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
None for this action. One identified class of RBA uses is guest lodging. Future concessionaires may propose the conversion of existing buildings to temporary lodging. Any future proposal will undergo additional project-level SEPA review, if appropriate.
Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
None for this non-project action.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None for this non-project action.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
None for this non-project action. Future proposals could include construction of new structures. All proposals will be reviewed for appropriateness and regulatory compliance.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None for this non-project action. Future project actions may affect views in the immediate vicinity. However, the land classification system has been applied to preserve/protect view- sheds, from within the park and from adjacent properties looking towards the park, and to limit aesthetic impacts.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None for this non-project action. Future project actions within the proposed RBA will be guided by design standards that should minimize potential visual impacts through the use of appropriate building materials, colors, sizes, shapes, and other design elements, such as landscaping. All proposals will be consistent with adopted land classifications. Preservation and enhancement of existing visual characteristics of the parks could be accomplished through a variety of means including: formal viewshed analysis, undergrounding utilities, restoring degraded sites, sensitive siting of more intrusive facilities (such as service yards and buildings) to more shielded locations, relocating improperly sited structures and facilities, and using landscape buffering.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 13 of 21
None for this non-project action. Future proposals may result in an increase in the number of exterior lights within the developed areas of the parks should additional development activities occur. Also, there may be an increase in light produced from motor vehicles, buildings, campfires, recreational vehicles, etc., during the evening hours.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
Not for this non-project action. Future proposals may affect views in the immediate vicinity. However, the land classification system was applied to preserve/protect view-sheds from within the park and from adjacent properties towards the park.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None for this non-project action. Future project actions will be guided by design standards that include measures to reduce and control light and glare impacts, such as down lighting, special light fixtures to limit light “wash,” and planned landscaping to limit light and glare intrusion on the landscape.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Squilchuck State Park and vicinity includes trails, a group camp, picnic and day use facilities. The Mission Ridge Ski area is within five (5) miles of the project area and includes downhill skiing facilities and ancillary support facilities which support a variety of recreational uses.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None from this non project action.
13. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe.
Yes. The park is the site of a former ski area. Although no longer in operation, there remain several standing buildings left over from the Squilchuck Ski resort. There are four buildings within the RBA area that are 45 years old. These include a residence (constructed 1914, Building #1), a shop (constructed 1969, Building #2), a ski lodge (constructed 1953, Building #3), and a comfort station (constructed 1968, Building #4). None of these buildings have been
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 14 of 21
inventoried into DAHP’s WISAARD database, and none have had a determination of eligibility. It is unknown if any of these buildings are historically significant or retain sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for a state or national register. The buildings will be inventoried and evaluated when and if the proposed RBA has an effect on the structures.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.
One archaeological site is recorded in the park: 45CH202. This site, which was first recorded by Sonja Solland in 1973, is described as a prehistoric campsite associated with a natural spring. A later cultural resource survey at nearby Mission Ridge by Mike Boynton in 2003 noted a discrepancy in Solland’s legal description for this site. He suggests that 45CH202 is not located in Squilchuck State Park (which houses a former ski area) and is, in fact, located at nearby Mission Ridge Ski area (see site form addendum for 45CH202 by Mike Boynton 2003). No other archaeological sites are recorded in the park.
Solland, Sonja 1973 Archaeological Survey of 1973-1975 Approved Capital Projects in Washington State Parks. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
Once a formal development proposal for the RBA is finalized with Washington State Parks, a cultural resource survey will be performed within the proposed development area. Additionally, any construction or modification to standing historic structures must be undertaken consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic structures and Washington State Parks’ Cultural Resource Policy.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
State Parks will continue to consult with tribal officials as appropriate to address historic and cultural resource preservation at the park. Additionally, archaeological surveys will be performed to identify cultural and historic resources and provide management recommendations with new facility development. Proper clearances will be obtained prior to any construction activities. Additionally, future contract specifications for any new construction activities will contain provisions regarding the protection of archaeological/cultural /historic resources in compliance with Chapter 27.44 RCW and Chapter 27.53 RCW and State Parks’ Cultural Resources Policy.
14. Transportation
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 15 of 21
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The park is accessed from Highway 711, Squilchuck Road.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
No public transit is available to the park or its vicinity. The nearest available transit is Link Transit, to the north in Wenatchee.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
No parking spaces are required for this non-project action. Future project actions may include the construction of additional parking spaces for recreational purposes. Any proposal will be reviewed under all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No road improvements are required for this non-project action. Transportation systems will be evaluated for any future planned projects.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?
None for this non-project action. Future project actions will be vetted through a planning process. If appropriate a traffic study will be required to inform that process.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
No.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
None for this non-project action.
15. Public Services
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 16 of 21
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS
1) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Recreational uses will potentially increase throughout the property. State Parks considered impacts to water and air, and impacts caused by the production of noise when classifying the park and considering the site for future development as an RBA. RBA’s are not allowed in Natural classifications or environmentally sensitive or significant resource areas that would be impacted by intensive recreation. State Parks staff realizes that if recreational uses are not properly managed it is possible that environmental impacts would increase in areas classified as Recreation. Increased use may require additional structures and infrastructure. Additional development could result in a net increase in impervious surfaces associated with buildings, hard trails, and parking areas. Such development could cause a localized increase in stormwater discharges. Likewise, it is likely that increased motorized uses would cause a minor localized increase in emissions. Increased human use of the park could cause a net increase in human waste, emissions, and noise levels above that which currently exists. Washington Department of Ecology’s Best Management Practice’s will be implemented for all future projects to prevent and reduce impacts to the environment resulting from proposed project construction.
- Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Future development of RBA’s will follow the guidelines of the underlying land classification. Future projects will include appropriate location, sustainable design, and energy conservation measures consistent with Washington State Parks Sustainability Policy and the agency’s Sustainability Plan. In general, any future developments on State Parks property will be designed and sited out of sensitive floodplains, and/or so that stormwater runoff is directed to grassy swales for biofiltration and infiltration. All future development will be in compliance with local government stormwater regulations and Best Management Practices. Additional sanitary facilities could be installed. Such facilities would be routinely maintained and waste either treated on-site or taken to an approved waste treatment plant for disposal.
2) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is expected to have minimal impacts on plants, animals or fish because the RBA site is the already-developed portion of the park. Finding the optimum balance between the protection of natural systems and public recreational access to those natural systems is the basis for developing land classification and management planning. RBA’s are designed to support State Parks mission to protect the natural systems of state park areas while accommodating increased demand for parks and open space. If Parks receives a proposal that includes construction of new buildings, there would be impacts to the existing vegetation in that area, but the overall impact would be small, and depending on where buildings are proposed, it could be positive rather than negative, due to the fact that there are many weeds in the vicinity of the existing park development. It is also possible that if a proposal includes expanding overnight use in the park, that it could have some affect on the park’s wildlife. When more details are known, a project-level SEPA analysis will examine these impacts, if appropriate.
- Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 18 of 21
Efforts will be made to minimize habitat loss by locating future developments in areas previously disturbed, in areas with low habitat value, or in areas zoned for more intense levels of development. Continuing consultation with WFDW Area Habitat Biologists and DNR’s Natural Heritage Program staff will reduce site-specific impacts to wildlife and plant species through implementation of management recommendations.
3) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
It is likely that if a proposal results in increased park visitation, then it would lead to increased energy and water use.
- Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Any future proposed actions will include energy and water conservation measures consistent with the Washington State Parks Sustainability Policy and the agency’s Sustainability Plan, and the park specific integrated sustainability plan.
4) How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Future RBA proposals are not expected to affect environmentally sensistive areas because the RBA site is in the already-developed portion of the park, which has few sensitive areas. The whole site is within a park, however, and the proposal could result in additional park development and park visitation.
- Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The RBA site was chosen because it is already developed, and would be less likely to negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas. Any future developments will be subject to regulations administered by federal, state and local governments. All required permits and approvals will be obtained prior to any development.
5) How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal may result in increased park development and visitation. It is unlikely to encourage land use incompatible with existing plans because the site is in a classified Recreation Area, which allows for higher-intensity recreational development, and because any future development will be subject to all federal, state, and local environmental regulations and permits.
- Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: State Parks will work closely with federal, state and local government agencies to assure compatible management objectives in the park. Any future project actions will be consistent with the designated park land classification, and will be subject to all federal, state, and local environmental regulations.
6) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Future developments may increase the number of daily and overnight visitors to the park causing an increase in demands for parking, public services, and utilities. All elements will be examined and thoroughly analyzed prior to approval.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 19 of 21
- Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Any proposed use activity or development requiring additional transportation, utilities, and/or public services must be consistent with Parks Sustainability Plan. Park rangers will continue to patrol the park on a routine basis and provide emergency response and law enforcement when in the area.
7) Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not appear to be in conflict with any known local, state or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. Future developments will be compliant with local, state, and federal requirements and regulations.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 20 of 21
Attachment 1:Squilchuck State Park RBA Pilot Site Map
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 21 of 21