HomeMy WebLinkAbout03- SEPA CHECKLISTSEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
1 of 14 8/1/22
A. Background
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Hall Baetz Viewpoint
2. Name of applicant:Peninsula Trails Coalition
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact
person:
PO Box 1836
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Steve Durrant, FASLA
503.984.1995 scdurrant@mac.com
4. Date checklist prepared: 27-Jul-22
5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County Department of Community
Development
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if
applicable):
Construction Early 2023
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion,
or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal?
A vault toilet may be added.
Additional native planting.
Minor aesthetic improvements such as art,
additional interpretive media.
The Olympic Discovery Trail is currently
designated on the shoulders of State Route 20
and US 101 near the site. A future trail
realignment could engage the site but is not
currently designed nor funded. A separate
permitting exercise would be conducted. This is
not a phased project.8. List any environmental information you know about
that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal.
Reports are available with MLA22-26
-Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan
-Wetland Delineation Report
-Soils Report/Geology Assessment
-Engineered Stormwater Management Plan
-Cultural Assessment for Snow Creek Esturary
Restoration (completed in 2011 for previous work
on the site).
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for
governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal?
Applications have been made to the community
water service provider and electrical utility for
water and electrical service connections to
existing points of connection.
Applicant has no additional approvals pending as 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be
needed for your proposal, if known.
Jefferson County
-Land Use Permit,
-Grading and Drainage Permit,
-Type III Shoreline Variance Permit,
-Building Permit
SEPA Environmental Checklist
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
2 of 14 8/1/22
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.
1.96 acre site to be used as a scenic viewpoint
overlooking Discovery Bay. Access drive, parking
for 10 cars, 600sf viewing shelter, interpretive
media, site restoration and habitat enhancement
planting.
12. Location of the proposal. 31 Fairmount Road at State Route 20, Jefferson
County, WA.
-Parcel 902243033:
Abbreviated Legal Description: S24 T29 R2W TAX 64
SUBJ/REST COVT #521386
-Parcel 902243020:
Abbreviated Legal Description: S24 T29 R2W TAX 52
SUBJ/REST COVT #521386
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth
a. General description of the site: Flat to rolling
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)?
Approximately 5%, but increases to
approximately 25% directly west of the project
site.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for
example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)?
Muck and gravel (spoils relocated from adjacent
parcels during 2015 construction)
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity?
Per Soils Report submitted with MLA22-26 page
1: "...the proposed development will not be at
risk from landslides or erosion and will not
increase the risk of landslides or erosion on or off
the site. The seismic hazard at the site from
ground shaking will not be substantially different
than other sites in the region."
e. Describe the purpose of grading,excavation of unsuitable imported fill with waste
deposited on site, and structural fill to create
suitable construction base. Import of compost
planting medium for site drainage, restoration
and habitat enhancement.
type,
impervious surfaces structural fill per WSDOT
Section 9-03.14(1) Gravel Borrow
9,500sf
pervious (planted) surfaces soil to include 3"
compost incorporated to 8" depth
23,740sf
approximate quantities
cut and relocation on site of unsuitable soils 150cuyd
imported structural fill of 5/8" base course 250cuyd
fill of imported compost 150cuyd
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
3 of 14 8/1/22
total affected area of any filling, excavation, and
grading proposed.
33,240sf
Source of fill Commercial pit(s) in eastern Jefferson County
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Yes. Sheet runoff during construction could
transport soils. See (h) below for mitigation
measures.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
9500sf
11%
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.
Minor emissions as regulated by state vehicle
emission standards from construction vehicles
and equipment, maintenance vehicles and visitor
vehicles.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
Emissions and odors are not observed nor
expected from surrounding residential and
commercial land uses. Nearby roadways are
sources of motor vehicle pollution. Mudflats
exposed at low tide can be aromatic.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Dust suppression measures (surface watering)
during construction.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
The site is designed to sheet flow water to the surrounding vegetation in a similar mannner
to the existing condition. Erosion mitigation measures are specified in MLA22-26
Stormwater Site Plan:
-during construction (page 16): Preserving natural vegetation, stabilized construction access,
silt fence and wattles, stabilized disturbed soil surfaces, seeding, mulching, no cut or fill
slopes requiring slope protection, there are no catch basins on or near the site, swale outlet
will be protected with wattles.
-permanent stormwater control plan (page 9): BMPs per Ecology 2019 SWMMWW Volume
III Chapter 3 including: perserving natural flow from the site, amended topsoil quality and
depth in planted areas (BMP T5.13), downspout dispersion for roof (BMP T5.10B), sheet
flow dispersion trenches for infiltration and dispersion from hard surfaces (BMP T5.12 and
BMP T5.11), vegetated filter strip (BMP T9.40)
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
4 of 14 8/1/22
3. Water
a. SurfaceWater:
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,
wetlands)?
Per MLA22-26 Wetland Delineation & Habitat
Mitigation Plan (page 1) there is marine lagoon,
Discovery Bay, Category I Estuarine Wetland,
Category IV Slope Wetland, two Type “F”
Streams, Frequently Flooded Areas (AE Flood
Zone).
-No in-water work is proposed. Closest land
disturbance to OHWM is 80 feet. Impervious
surface is proposed 100 feet from OHWM.
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.
Yes, portions of native habitat mitigation planting
(80 feet), viewing shelter, and parking area (100
feet)
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.
There is no work proposed in surface waters or
wetlands on the site.
-Closest limits of construction are 80 feet from
OHWM
-Toe of fill slope is 100 feet from OHWM
-structural fill will be sourced in eastern Jefferson
County
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known.
No water diversions or withdrawlans are
proposed, per the MLA22-26 Stormwater Site
Plan. The site is served by a community water
system for construction, maintenance and visitor
use. Surface flow will be affected by impervious
surfaces but treated with dispersion trench and
vegetated filter using Best Management
Practices. See MLA22-26 Engineered Stormwater
Site Plan.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain?
If so, note location on the site plan.
Per Jefferson Co Public Land Records the FEMA
AE 100 year flood risk is mapped similar to
OHWM at 100 feet from proposed improvements.
See MLA22-26 Wetland Delineation Report.
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.
Sheet flow per Stormwater Site Plan page 12.
9500 sf of impervious improvements will sheet
flow through a dispersion trench (BMP T5.10B,
T5.12, T5.11) and vegetated filter strip (BMP
T9.40)
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
5 of 14 8/1/22
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for
drinking water or other purposes?
The site is served by a community water system.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into
the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
A pumped vault toilet may be added, no
drainfield or other toilet discharge will be
created.
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.
The rainwater falling on the parking area,
walkway, and roof (9500sf) will be dipsersed into
the native vegetation surrounding the project via
dispersion trench and vegetated filter per
Stormwater Site Plan page 12 (see 3.6 above).
The stormwater will discharge at same location
as today and eventually either infiltrate or sheet
flow through vegetation to Discovery Bay.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters?
Yes, storm runoff could enter surface water if it
does not infiltrate
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage
patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe.
Impervious surfaces (9500sf) and stormwater
BMPs will modify drainage patterns on the site,
mitigated per state approved practices (see 3.6
above).
4) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts,
if any:
The site was designed to sheet flow water to the
surrounding vegetation in a similar manner to the
existing condition per BMPs included in state
approved practices (see 3.6 above).
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
6 of 14 8/1/22
4 . Plants
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
33,240sf to be disturbed composed mainly of non-
native pasture grass species intermixed with
young (planted 2015) native perennial shrub and
tree species
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be
on or near the site.
Per USFWS IPaC (7/21/2022) there are no critical
habitats at this location. Golden paintbrush is
potentially affected but was not observed on the
site (Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Plan)
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,
if any:
Construction limits will be established to
minimize site disruption (see Erosion Control
Plan). Extensive native planting per Mitigation
Planting and Monitoring Plan page 18.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to
be on or near the site .
There are large patches of Himalayan Blackberry
(R. armeniacus), primarily located along the
highway edges, and some English Ivy (Hedera
helix) growing up the trees in the forested areas.
Reed Canary Grass (P. arundinacea) is abundant
throughout all of the open areas, Canadian Thistle
(C. arvense) and Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius)
are also present.
Per Wetland Delineation & Habitat Management Report page 19: The project area is composed mainly of non-
native pasture grass species intermixed with young native perennial shrub and tree species that have been installed
as habitat restoration.
- Northeast side of the open pasture area is mixed conifer forest consisting of Douglas Fir, Red Alder (Alnus rubra),
Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata), Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), ornamental Spruce (Picea sp.), and
Himalayan blackberry (R. armeniacus).
- Slope Wetland consists of mainly invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), along with Common Cattail
(Typha latifolia), Common Horsetail (Equisetum arvense), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Rose Spirea (Spiraea
douglasii), and Himalayan blackberry.
- Adjacent to and downslope of the wetland is a band of shrubs which include Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), Bracken
Fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Himalayan blackberry , Salal (Gaultheria shallon), Canadian Thistle (Cirsium arvense),
Vetch (Vicia sp.), Broadleaf Plantain (Plantago major), and Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum).
- Along the Estuarine wetland edge, the salt tolerant vegetation primarily consists of Lyngbye's sedge (Carex
lyngbyei), Seashore Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Silverweed (Argentina anserina), and Common Arrowgrass
(Triglochin maritima).
- The unnamed creek located to the west of the project site has an abundance of Black Cottonwood (Populus
trichocarpa), with some Scouler’s Willow (Salix scouleriana), Red Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea), Creeping
Buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Common Cattail (Typha latifolia), and a lone Crabapple Tree (Malus sp.) growing
along its banks.
- The area along Snow Creek consists of mixed conifer forest and was not thoroughly surveyed because it is over
400-feet from the proposed project area.
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
7 of 14 8/1/22
5. Animals
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
An on- site mitigation planting plan with a 1:1 ratio of impact area to restoration will be implemented to achieve NNL
of ecological function, as required under JCC 18.22.660 (Wetland Delineation & Habitat Management Plan page
45).
Additional conservation measures include avoidance and minimization efforts and best management practices for
small construction sites (page 46).
Per Mitigation Planting and Monitoring Plan (page 11 & 18) Although it is not required as part of this mitigation plan,
the temporary disturbance areas surrounding the project (which total 14,862 ft2 of disturbance located within the
critical habitat area buffer), as well as the slope transitioning to the riparian area, will be planted with a native prairie
mix, which includes Common Camas (Camassia quamash). There has been a movement on the peninsula to restore
native prairies that once were abundant.
Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity are not expected to occur from the proposed construction, which will be in an
open area located near existing roadways. The area along the shoreline and Estuarine Wetland will remain
undeveloped, which will allow for the habitat connectivity to remain the same as pre-project conditions (page 43).
The native plant mitigation planting plan offsets potential long-term adverse effects from the project to achieve no
net loss (NNL) of ecological value and function (Habitat Management Plan page 49). The mitigation planting plan
will be implemented at a 1:1 ratio of plants to new impervious surface area (total square feet) located within the
critical area buffer.
The mitigation planting will be monitored for five years per the MLA22-26 Monitoring Plan page 19 and contingency
measures implemented to correct deficiencies. The monitoring period may be extended if mitigation goals are not
met (page 20)
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.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
During the Habitat Survey on December 21st,2021 the following species were observed or
evidence was observed: Stellar’s Jay, Pacific Wren, Song Sparrow, Dark-eyed Junco, Anna’s
Hummingbird, Hutton’s Vireo, Glaucous/Western Gull, American Beaver, Marsh Wren,
Blacktail Deer. No eagle nests were seen in any trees along the shoreline (Habitat
Management Plan page 31).
The Wetland Delineation & Habitat Management Plan (page 31) lists federal, state and local
fish and wildlife conservation areas. No species of concern are located in the Project Area.
Several are within the 1/4 mile Action Area (page 35).
Per USFWS IPaC (shorturl.at/bstwx) (7/21/2022) there are no critical habitats at this
location. Potential affected species (threatened, endangered or candidate) include:
- Birds: Marbled Murrelet, Streaked Horned Lark, Yellow-billed Cuckoo.
- Fishes: Bull Trout, Dolly Varden
- Insects: Monarch Butterfly, Taylor's (=whulge) Checkerspot.
NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources App (shorturl.at/abNV2) (7/21/2022) shows the
following critical habitat (threatened or endangered) in adjacent waters, Discovery Bay and
Snow Creek: Salmon, chum [Hood Canal summer-run ESU], Salmon, Chinook [Puget Sound
ESU], Steelhead [Puget Sound DPS]. Whale, killer [Southern Resident DPS]
Per USFWS IPaC (shorturl.at/CEV39) (7/21/2022) Bald Eagle, Evening Grosbeak, Lesser Yellowlegs, Olive-sided
Flycatcher, Rufous Hummingbird, Short-billed Dowitcher. See also NOAA reference in 5.b above. No eagle nests
were seen in any trees along the shoreline.
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
8 of 14 8/1/22
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or
near the site.
No invasive animal species were documented in
the Wetland Delineation Report & Habitat
Management Plan (page 31)
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.
Electrical for outlets and lighting only.
Heating does not apply to this open-sided shade
structure
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties?
The site improvements are limited to 15 feet in
height and located centrally in the site. No new
utility structures are proposed. No adjacent
properties will be shaded.
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:
If lighting is implemented, it will be located
within the shade structure and have a light timer,
photocell and motion detector to limit light use.
No site lighting is proposed.
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?
The proposed improvements do not include use,
transport or storage of toxic chemicals nor would
the threat of fire, explosion, spills or hazardous
waste be increased by this shade structure and
small public parking area.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at
the site from present or past uses.
Former rail corridor included creosote that was
removed from the site in 2015. Drainfield soils
were relocated from the Snow Creek restoration
area to the site in 2015. In 2011 a barn and
related structures were removed from the site.
Cultural Assessment Snow Creek Estuary page 4.
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 underground storage tanks or other cleanup
activities are listed by WaDepartment of Ecology
(shorturl.at/oTVZ0) (7/21/2022). The National
Pipeline Mapping System (7/21/2022) lists no gas
transmission or hazardous liquid pipelines in the
NPMS national data layer.
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.
No toxic or hazardous chemicals will be stored on
the site. During construction there is the
possibility of paint, adhesive, lubricant, fuel or
hydraulic spills.
4) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
Existing community fire, police, EMS. There are
no extraordinary crowds or activities anticipated,
no additioanl staffing or equipment is needed as
a result of this project.
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
9 of 14 8/1/22
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
There are no known hazards nor any created by
the improvements and use of the site. Emergency
vehicles will have access via conventional site
access. No mitigation measures are required for
this development.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
Improvements are 200 feet from the source of
traffic noise at State Route 20, 800 feet from US
101. And 280 feet from the nearest motel unit.
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)? Indicate what hours noise would
come from the site.
Short term construction noise (vehicles and
equipment) during permitted working hours.
Upon completion, site users are not anticipated
to dwell at the site for long periods.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Limiting hours of construction operation to 7AM
to 10PM per county ordinance 8.70.050 Public
Nuisance Noises
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.
Current use is vacant for the site and adjacent
parcels. Across State Route 20 is commercial
(motel). No residences are visible from the site.
2014 NOSC Cultural Resources Assessment for
the Snow Creek Estuary Restoration Project
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands
or working forest lands?
The farming activity on esturarine lands adjacent
to the site was abandoned before the structures
were removed in 2015. Cultural Assessment
Snow Creek Estruary page 4.
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:
There is no farmland or commercial forest
operation within 1000 feet of the site
(https://gisweb.jeffcowa.us/LandRecords/)
c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on the site. Last
remaining structures were demolished in 2015.
Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?There are no structures on the site.
What is the current zoning classification of the site?RR-5
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site?
RR-5
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
Conservancy, Natural, Priority Aquatic
(https://gisweb.jeffcowa.us/LandRecords/)
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
10 of 14 8/1/22
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical
area by the city or county?
Critical areas mapped at county Public Land
Records
(https://gisweb.jeffcowa.us/LandRecords/)
- Riparian Cover (PNPTC, 2009): Non-Forest and
Other Natural Vegetation
- Soils Infiltration: Hydrologic Group A
- CARA (Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas) SUSC
- Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone: Coastal
SIPZ <100ppm chloride and ¼ mile from shoreline
Outside of project improvements
- FEMA Flood Zone AE: High Risk 100 year, Base
Flood Elevation has been determined
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace?
There are no residences or unhoused occupants
on the property, no one will be displaced
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
No measures are proposed as there are no
displacement impacts
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is
compatible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
The proposal has been developed to be
compatible, and to enhance existing land uses
and plans by accommodating visitors and taking
measures beyond requirements to improve
natural functions.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to
agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial
significance, if any:
There are no agricultural or forest lands within
1000 feet of the site so no impacts need to be
controlled or mitigated.
9. Housing
Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any?
This is not a housing project. No housing units
will be provided.
Approximately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated?
There are no housing units or unhoused occupants
of the site. No housing units will be eliminated.
Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
There are no housing impacts. No mitigation
measures are proposed.
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?
15'
Wood with standing seam metal roof
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
11 of 14 8/1/22
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered
or obstructed?
There are no residential properties visible from
the project. Neighborhood Commercial (motel)
properties are 300 feet south and are screened by
intervening vegetation. Views will not be
affected. Views from westbound State Route 20
will be enhanced by native planting and the
structure will not obstruct the momentary distant
view of Maynard Peak or Discovery Bay.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
The proposed structure and native planting will
provide an aesthetically pleasing scene.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?
What time of day would it mainly occur?
Lighting may be included for evening use within
the shade structure.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
Lighting will be intentionally designed to be
concealed within the shade structure, no bare
light source will be visible from any perspective.
No light or glare will create a safety hazard.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
There are no lights visible in the primary viewing
direction. Lights on the neighboring Neighborhood
Commercial property could be a nuisance behind
visitors enjoying the view. Traffic headlights from
adjacent roadways are not directed at the site or
improvements and are screened by vegetation,
elevation and a guardrail.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Light placement in concealed locations and
vegetative screening
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Informal: walking, bird watching, bicycle riding,
scenic view appreciation
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses?
There are no current recreational uses of the
property
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The primary purpose of the project is to provide a
recreational scenic viewing opportunity and
interpretation of the scenic, cultural and historic
resources
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 ?
There are no buildings or structures on the site.
The site was completely regraded with imported
fill in 2014 (See MLA22-26 Stormwater Site Plan,
Appendix C).
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
12 of 14 8/1/22
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.
- Per Cultural Resources Assessment for the Snow
Creek Estuary Restoration Project (attached): "No
cultural resources were identified within the project
APE and no further cultural resources investigations
are recommended."
- Per Wetland Survey page 2: There is a potential
archeological resource located within 500 ft of the
project area. No archaeological or cultural survey was
required at the time of application.
- WaDepartment of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (https://wisaard.dahp.wa.gov/Map) 1)
lists the site as the Phlueger Property (#126150)
Deterined Not Eligible and since demolished. 2) Off site
rail trestles (120812, 120811) are listed as No
Determination and have been demolished. 3) Off site
Valley View Motel (674179) is listed as Determined
Not Eligible.
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.
Site is entirely disturbed by previous late 20th
Century land uses and very recent use as a landfill
for projects on adjacent parcels. The DAHP
WISSARD map site was consulted. Cultural
Resources were investigated for the Wetland
Delineation and Habitat Management Reports. A
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Snow
Creek Restoration Project determined no cultural
resources were identifed.
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.
In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or
other activities do result in the inadvertent
discovery of archaeological deposits, work will be
halted in the immediate area and contact made
with the State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia. Work
will be halted until such time as further
investigation and appropriate consultation is
concluded. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent
discovery of human remains, work will be
immediately halted in the area, the discovery
covered and secured against further disturbance,
and contact effected with law enforcement
personnel, DAHP and authorized representatives
of the concerned Indian Tribes.
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
13 of 14 8/1/22
14. Transportation
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.
Site access is from Fairmount Road by a typical
commercial driveway. Fairmount Road intersects
State Route 20 more than 250 feet south of the
proposed site entrance. The Fairmount
Road/SR20 intersection is a typical low-volume,
stop-controlled rural intersection at an oblique
angle. SR20 eastbound is posted as 50mph,
westbound an advisory curve and 35mph sign is
posted approaching the intersection
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?
Yes, Jefferson County Transit Route #8 stops 1/2
mile west of the site.
How many additional parking spaces would the
completed project or non-project proposal have? How
many would the project or proposal eliminate?
10 new parking spaces. None removed
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).
The proposal will result in an extremely small
increase in traffic at a lightly used (50 trips per
day) county road, 250 feet from an intersection
with a state route. No new access or
improvements are proposed to the state route.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the
immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
There is no water, rail, or air transportation
adjacent to or in the vicinity of the site.
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?
Estimated average 30 trips per day.
Peak unknown. Zero non-passenger vehicles.
Basis:
Estimated 0.5% of SR20 6000 AADT (per WSDOT
data shorturl.at/eprSV )
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?
9% of the traffic on State Route 20 is classified as
Truck. Many carry forest products. Site visitors
could be delayed by truck traffic at the
SR20/Fairmount Road intersection.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control
transportation impacts, if any:
Potential transportation impacts of 30 trips per
day are minimal and will not be mitigated.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection, police
protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)?
Potential public service needs are minimal due to
the modest size of the project. No employment or
housing will be created. The community services
are adequate to accommodate the projected use.
SEPA Checklist Hall Baetz Viewpoint (MLA2022-00026)
14 of 14 8/1/22
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
No additional public services are anticipated, no
mitigation is proposed.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:electricity - Jefferson County PUD
water - Moa-Tel Water System
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,
the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Install electrical meter and on-site power supply.
Install water meter and hosebib on existing
waterline at edge of site.
Construction to provide utilities: Direct burial of
water line and electrical from point of connection
at roadside to improvements. All work performed
within construction limits.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
________________________________________
Name of signee: Steven C Durrant, PLA
Position and Agency/Organization: Project Manager,
Peninsula Trails Coalition
Date Submitted: August 1, 2022