HomeMy WebLinkAboutDanger Tree Removal, DNS, HMP - PLN General - 7/6/2012 Forest Practices
WASH tNGTON$Mrf DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources Informal Conference Note
Subdivisions Sections/Townships/Ranges(ENV) Application/Notification# Class
.Zq i i 9N
Lai downer L T r Owner Operator
5C:Lvn e a- 1_v a
Mailing Address Mailing Address Mailing Address
City,Slate(Province),Zip(Postal Code) City,State(Provinee),Zip(Postal Code) Ry,State(Province),Zip(Postal Cade)
a f!, R8� —Z
M ng L tion Telephone bete Tune Region
v /z Conference] ] 1 ,w t 3 f z 1 -?c;;' S
Subjects Discussed:
Decisions Made:
!.
e
o.
2 -t9 c
' w'
PRINT arlicipants'Na 'Sl('NATA IRES of Participants Representing �p
nuaed
II
I1
Positio
n No. Signature 8 Tttle o!DNR presentat Date lmo Phone
•(Participant signature means Note i correct for subjects discussed and decisions made atthemeeting.)
Did not Mend—mail copies to:
[ ]Timber Owner [ ]Landowner [ ]Other Parties: Atj� Cari�ltn)
ooae
R...DZIQ White--Regbn Can"-Operator Pmk—DNR Representative
Q °� a 09744
�YUEDP, P
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Shelton(360)427-9670
Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467
411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269
— PO Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us
July 6 2012 '
Pl:was:�
Randy Kline
Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission FILE
PO Box 42650
Olympia, WA 98504-2650 .
(9 q 32- -(nCL�O
f :
RE: Schafer State Park Danger Tree Removal
We Camt to Fie:
Dear Mr. Kline;
The proposal is to undertake a danger tree removal project at Schafer State Park. Douglas fir
trees within the day use area of the park have been infected with a native tree pathogen called
laminated root rot(setal hyphae). This pathogen attacks the root system of Douglas fir trees and
travels from tree to tree through the root system. Trees infected by laminated root rot may appear
to be healthy but can be subject to catastrophic failure.
This letter will act as authorization to proceed with the proposed danger tree removal project at
Schafer State Park. The project is exempt from permit requirements under the Mason County
Resource Ordinance. Mason County has determined that the proposal meets Mason County
Resource Ordinance section 17.01.110(F)(5)—"Activities which do not require a Mason
Environmental Permit."
Pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance, specific activities—including the felling of
danger trees within buffers—do not require a Mason Environmental Permit subject to
demonstration of an imminent threat to public health and safety and the safety of public property.
In this circumstance both public health and safety and the safety of the public property are at risk
due to the potential for catastrophic tree failure related to laminated root rot.Also noted is that
Schafer State Park has been formerly designated as a historic site by the Washington Department
of Archeology and Historic Preservation(Site#DT00229). Two historic structures—a restroom
facility and the ranger residence—are within the treatment area and are at risk from danger trees.
In addition, the park office and shop complex are within the treatment area. All four of these
public structures are at risk due to the potential for tree failure.
The Proposed Mitigation includes the preparation and implementation of a planting plan that
serves to increase native tree species diversity on the site in order to make the forest more
resistant to laminated root rot in the future. The downed trees will need to be removed. This is an
actively used recreation landscape and trees left on the ground would likely create an attractive
nuisance for park users. A copy of the request and planting mitigation plan have been placed in
the parcel file for future reference.
Approximately nine acres of Douglas fir tree removal will occur within the channel migration
zone and 150 foot buffer of the channel migration zone associated with the East Fork of the
Satsop River. It is estimated that approximately 500 Douglas for trees within the buffer will need
to be removed.
The Planning Department understands that State Parks is working closely with DNR on this
project and they will be formally reviewing the project and issuing a Forest Practice Permit. In
addition, State Parks has worked with the Department of Fish& Wildlife to assess the potential
presence of marbled murrelet habitat. WDFW determined that the project area is unlikely to
provide functional,potentially suitable marbled murrelet habitat. State Parks issued a SEPA DNS
for this project on 12/23/2011.
Thank you for meeting with me on the site on April 13, 2012. Please let me know if you have
any questions or I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
449w
Grace Miller, Planner
DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
„�tiin 3tAThg�
4 �
Don Hoch
Director d ,y
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1111 Israel Road SW • P.O. Box 42650•Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
(360)902-8500•Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388
www.parksma.gov
June 25,2012
Mason County Planning Department
Attn: Grace Miller, Senior Planner
P.O.Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Re: Schafer State Park Danger Tree Removal
Greetings Ms.Miller,
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) proposes to undertake a
danger tree removal project at Schafer State Park. As we discussed on-site at our April 13, 2012
meeting with Department of Natural Resources(DNR) staff,Douglas-fir trees within the day use
area of the park have been infected with a native tree pathogen called laminated root rot (setal
hyphae). This pathogen attacks the root system of Douglas-fir trees and travels from tree to tree
through the root system. Trees infected by laminated root rot may appear to be healthy but can
be subject to catastrophic failure. State Parks is requesting consideration of this project pursuant
to Mason County Resource Ordinance section 17.01.110(F)(5)—"Activities which do not require
a Mason Environmental Permit.”
Project Description
The objective of this project is to reduce the risk of tree failures striking persons or property in
the developed area of the park and to increase forest vegetation diversity to make the forest more
resistant to future root rot problems. Approximately nine acres of Douglas-fir tree removal will
occur within the channel migration zone and the 150 foot buffer of the channel migration zone
associated with the East Fork of the Satsop River(please see attached map). It is estimated that
approximately 500 Douglas-fir trees within the buffer area will need to be removed.
State Agency Project Review
Please note that State Parks is working closely with DNR on this project and DNR will be
formally reviewing the project and issuing a Forest Practices Permit. In addition, State Parks has
worked with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to assess the potential presence of
marbled murrelet habitat. DFW determined that the project area is unlikely to provide
functional,potentially suitable marbled murrelet(please see attached 2/15/12 letter from DFW to
State Parks). State Parks issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of
Non-significance for this project on December 23,2011 (please see attached).
Documentation of Exemption
Pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance, specific activities - including the felling of
danger trees within buffers - do not require a Mason Environmental permit subject to
demonstration of an imminent threat to public health or safety or the safety of private or public
property. In this circumstance both public health and safety and the safety of public property are
at risk due to the potential for catastrophic tree failure related to laminated root rot. Please note
that Schafer State Park has been formally designated as an historic site by the Washington
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation(Site#DT00229). Two historic structures—
a restroom facility and the ranger residence - are within the treatment area and are at risk from
danger trees. In addition, the park office and shop complex are within the treatment area. All
four of these public structures are at risk due to the potential for tree failure.
Proposed Mitigation
While State Parks internal policies encourage leaving felled trees for habitat purposes, in this
circumstance the downed trees will need to be removed. This is an actively used recreation
landscape and trees left on the ground would likely create an attractive nuisance for park users.
We have had this situation in other State Parks and have addressed mitigation through
preparation and implementation of a planting plan that serves to increase native tree species
diversity on the site in order to make the forest more resistant to laminated root rot in the future.
I have attached a copy of the planting mitigation plan that has been prepared for Schafer State
Park.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important public project. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 360.902.8632 if you have any questions or if there is additional
information needed.
Sincerely,
Randy Kline,Environmental Program Manager
Attachments: 1. Map showing project area and general park map
2. 2/15/12 letter from DFW to State Parks
3. SEPA DNS and checklist
4. Schafer State Park Planting Plan
Cc: Robert Fimberl, WSP Project Manager
File
[2]
:)'XI f,
a:r
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing Address:600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091-(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207
Main Office Location:Natural Resources Building•1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA
February 15,2012
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Attention:Randy Kline, Environmental Program Manager
1111 Israel Road
P.O.Box 42650
Olympia,Washington 98504-2650
SUBJECT: State Environmental Policy Act Document;Determination of Non-Significance;
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission;Schafer State Park Forest
Health-Tree Risk Reduction Project; Sections 29&32 of Township 19 North,
Range 06 West,Mason County
Dear Mr. Kline:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)reviewed the above-referenced State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)document received on December 22,2011. We offered subsequent
comments specifically addressing marbled murrelets(state and federal threatened species)and suitable
marbled murrelet habitat(critical wildlife habitat(state)and critical habitat(federal)of threatened and
endangered species per WAC 222-16-080)that was identified within Schafer State Park by WDFW and
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission(Parks)staff in back in 1997,within Sections 29 and
32 of Township 30 North,Range 06 West,at Schafer State Park.
After receipt of our comments,project manager Rob Fimbel contacted me to discuss current habitat
conditions within the park along with the status of the former agreement by Parks to conduct a formal
marbled murrelet protocol survey. Mr.Fimbel(Rob)indicated that he could not find any record of a
survey having been completed and that habitat has changed substantially since prior assessment. We met
on site on February 8,2012, in order to review current forest stand conditions and determine the extent of
any remaining potentially suitable murrelet habitat. It was immediately obvious that conditions have
changed significantly since 1997. Forest health has deteriorated throughout the stand proposed for forest
health treatment,resulting in the loss of several of the formerly identified murrelet habitat trees.
Using an old hand drawn map as reference,we went to the location of each of 16 trees that were formerly
documented as potentially suitable habitat. We confirmed that only 5 of the 16 trees remain standing at
present. Over time,it appears that 5 trees have been cut down due to poor health and associated safety
concerns for park visitors and/or infrastructure protection. The other 6 trees no longer standing appeared
to have been blown down during past storm events. As such,the present stand conditions include a
reduction in number of potentially suitable habitat trees along with existing degradation of forest stand
conditions throughout the entire area due to laminated root rot. Additionally,of the suitable habitat trees
Schafer State Park Forest Health—Tree Risk Reduction Project
February 13, 2012
Page 12
that remain standing, it appears that most or all are heavily affected by root rot and are unlikely persist for
very long.
Given the forest health issues along with the significant loss of marbled murrelet habitat trees,Rob and I
agreed that this portion of Schafer State Park is unlikely to provide functional,potentially suitable
murrelet habitat any longer. Therefore,WDFW offers the following suggestions in relation to the
proposal:
• The remaining suitable murrelet habitat trees within the project area should be assessed for
current health/stability. Where feasible,these trees should be retained as-is. If removal is
deemed necessary,perhaps such trees can be topped in order to create functional wildlife snags
rather than being completely removed.
• A marbled murrelet protocol survey of the site is not recommended due to poor stand conditions,
the significant reduction in the number of potentially suitable habitat trees that remain,and the
inherent safety issues associated with park use by the public.
• A portion of the forested area to the southwest of West Schafer Park Road(south campground
loop)does contain some healthy suitable murrelet habitat trees. While murrelet activity within
this area remains unknown,these trees should be protected and retained during all phases of
forest health treatment. A marbled murrelet protocol survey of this area would be recommended
prior to any alterations of habitat.
WDFW sincerely appreciates the opportunity to conduct a site review and provide these additional
recommendations concerning the proposal. If you have any questions about these comments,please feel
free to contact me at(360)902-2412 or gary bell@dfiv.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Gary Bell,Wildlife Biologist
Protection Division
Forest Habitats Section
eCC: Mark Miller,USFWS,Western Washington Field Office
Steve Desimone,WDFW,Olympia
Bruce Thompson,WDFW,Olympia
Terry Jackson,WDFW,Olympia
David Whipple,WDFW, Olympia
Bob Zeigler,WDFW,Olympia
Gloria Rogers,WDFW,Region 6
Don Nauer,WDFW,Region 6
Dave Kloempken,WDFW,ARHPM,Region 6
Stephan Kalinowski,WDFW,RHPM,Region 6
Y
' w � rt .r► r•�
r
A.
l� PIP k
7 1 . _.
/ rc
r
. 7 , T
y
Legend
Yellow polygon (+/-20 ac) is a developed landscape that is riddled with laminated root rot. 0 150 300 600 Feet
All Douglas-fir trees in this area are slated for removal. tI I I I I I I
NAD83 HARN Washington State Plane South
White circles represent a 225' buffer around house, office, and historic restroom. Data in these maps were compiled for cartographic purposes.
Due to the variability of the source information,the Washington
State Parks and Recreation Commission cannot accept
Red circles represent identified signs of laminated root rot+ 50' buffer. responsibility for errors or omissions,and,therefore,there are no
Solid blue-green line represents park roads warranties which accompany this material.
Dashed blue-green lines represent park service roads
Blue dashed line represents old stream channel
Thick white line represents park boundary.
si: f •+ J, ��yl •'s`!!r �* 1'1 a�„�rA r rt f J!
01
i I AllLM
/ >
A
\. M
CL
it
y_ i ! + .�� �j �.F+�.- F�. •�`-�� y� `�` 1.-r , �+ �•�'�' Y�_. �iu'r� t.
U.
X I
Legend
- r
Road 0 ,�'•I�,
Electric Fence
High Water Mark .� > l..l'h .R • j, _ _ � .,.4
Flood Channel � � •'~� � �r t f �"r, > P•' ��
Wire Mesh Fence ►. j}� ', f.�, _F' P. -�_� r
Satsop Shoreline 0 250 500 750 1,000 r� I
Structure , �}j, ti .� T Feet
Don Hoch � {
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1111 Israel Road SW•P.O. Box 42650•Olympia, WA 98504-2650 •(360)902-8500
-__- Washington Telecommunication Relay Service at(800)833-6388__ —
www.parks.wa.gov
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal: This forest health project will occur in the southeast portion of Schafer State Park
and will remove approximately 1000 trees within a defined area that have been impacte
he objectives of this prescription are to: 1)reduce t ens.c of tree failures
pulbuils-5-r-property in cleveloped areas of the park
Proponent: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Location of Proposal,including street address,if any: Schafer State Park is located in the southwest corner of
Mason County(T19N,R6W, SW corner S29 and NW corner S32)and is bisected by the East Fork of the
Satsop River. The project area is located on the south side of the river and the east side of the county road that
bisects the park.
Lead Agency: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
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 is not required under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA)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.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
XX This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days
from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 PM January 13, 2012 (extended due to
holiday).
Responsible Official Randy Kline
Position/Title Environmental Program Manager
Phone: (360)902-8632/FAX(360)586-6647
randy.kiine@parks.wa.gov
Address Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission
1111 Israel Road SW
Olympia, WA 98-504--2650
Date December 23,2011 Signature L-----�
"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 process;however,all comments are welcome
and will be thoroughly considered.
Schafer State Park Forest Health
SEPA Environmental Checklist
A. Background
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Schafer State Park Forest Health-Tree Risk Reduction Project
2. Name of applicant:
Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission
3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Robert Fimbel, Restoration Ecologist
Washington State Parks
1111 Israel Road SW
Olympia, WA 98504
4. Date checklist prepared:
December 12,2011
S.Agency requesting checklist:
Washington State Parks& Recreation Commission
6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable):
January 2012 September 2012
7. Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity related to or connected with
this proposal?If yes,explain.
No.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
• SEPA Determination of Non-Significance issued February 16,2010 for the Lake Sylvia and Schafer
State Parks Master Facility Plan, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
• Lake Sylvia and Schafer State Parks Master Facility Plan,2010, Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission
• Application for Forest Practices Permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources
• Compliance with Mason County development regulations as required
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.
1
There are no pending applications for government approvals of other proposals affecting the property
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known.
• Application for Forest Practices Permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources
• Compliance with Mason County development regulations as required
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.)
The objectives of this prescription are to:1)reduce the risk of tree failures striking persons or property in
developed areas of the park resulting from the infection of Douglas fir trees by laminated root rot(Phellinus
sulfuroscens)and,2)increase forest vegetation diversity to make the forest more resistant to future root rot
problems.
Currently, native tree pathogens are attacking trees in select developed landscapes and adjacent forest,
elevating the risk of tree failure and potential injury to persons and property in and around these areas. This
is occurring due to the advancing age of the trees, competition, human induced impacts, droughty soils, wind
events, and the presence of native tree pathogens. Many of these trees are old and declining in health.
Upwards of1000 trees and 400-500 M board feet of timber are proposed for removal. To address the issues
above, the following is proposed:
Remove all Douglas fir in areas where laminated root rot is well-established and the trees are within 1.5x
their height of high target areas(campsites,staff housing/office, day-use parking, county road, and park
roadway—Figure 1). This action seeks to minimize the risk of trees failing and striking persons or property.
Areas for treatment were selected using some or all of the following criteria:
1. Presence of laminated root rot(setal hyphoe)on live trees,
2. Presence of wind-thrown trees with significantly compromised(rotted)roots,
3. Douglas fir trees that are dead standing, exhibit thinning crowns, or have an unnatural/non-correcting
lean(especially in proximity to wind-thrown trees noted above);
4. Live trees with hollow areas in their butts(found via drilling),
5. Live trees with butt swells indicative of tree attempting to reinforce a compromised base(and probably
roots too),and,
6. Healthy appearing trees within 50 feet of a tree known or highly suspected of having laminated root rot
(trees surrounding infected individuals are at high risk of having the pathogen via transfer through root
grafts).
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 required by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
2
Schafer State Park Site is located in the southwest corner of Mason County(T19N, R6W,SW corner S29 and
NW corner S32)and is bisected by the East Fork of the Satsop River. The project area is located on the south
side of the river and the east side of the county road that bisects the park(Figure 1).
Rt �;-Ji ,
f
r s
Figure 1: The treatment area(yellow polygon)is in Schafer State Park which is located in the SW corner of
Mason County. Red circles represent sites of known laminated root rot. Blue lines represent park roads and
the park boundary is identified as a white line. The Park office and mailing address are located at W 1365
Schafer Park Road, Elmo, WA 98541.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Earth
a. General description of the site(circle one):Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes,mountains,other
The site is mostly flat(<5%slope).
b.What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)?
10%
3
c.What general types of soils(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,muck)?If you know the classification
of agricultural soils,specify them and note any prime farmland.
Mostly Solduc,Juno, and Grove gravelly sandy loam. There is also Rough broken land,Juno loam,
Riverwash, Solduc, Grove, and Juno gravelly loam, Hoquiam and Astoria, and
Wapato silt looms, Carstairs gravelly loam.
d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?If so,describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
None
f.Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use?If so,generally describe.
Yes. There is a chance of erosion in areas where logging equipment is moving.
g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for
example,asphalt or buildings)?
1-2%(these currently occur—no new impervious surfaces to be added as a part of the project).
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts on the earth,if any:
Use of tracked equipment(versus equipment with wheels)to help mitigate potential rutting. Covering skid
trails with slash will also help minimize erosion.
2.Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from this proposal (i.e.dust,automobile,odors,
industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed?If any,generally describe
and give approximate quantities if known.
There will be dust and exhaust from vehicles and small engines during operations.
b.Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?If so,generally
describe,
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air if any:
Original equipment manufactured exhaust systems on equipment and vehicles.
4
3.Water
a.Surface:
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)?If yes,describe type and provide names. If
appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into.
Yes. The East Fork Satsop River and Decker Creek pass through the park(see Figure 1). There are no
perennial or seasonal streams within the project area. However, much of the park south of the river is inside
the 100 year flood plan, as defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)flood plain maps.
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.
As noted above and in Figure 1, a portion of the project area occurs within 200 ft of the Satsop River. These
locations were selected for treatment because trees in these areas are exposed to laminated root rot and are
within striking distance of the campground in the eastern end of the project area. NOTE: while some trees
are slated for removal within 200 ft of the river, the number is low and there is advanced regeneration of
laminated root rot resistant/tolerant tree species that will not be cut from these areas(bigleaf maple, red
alder, western hemlock, western red cedar).
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 the fill
material.
None
4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?Give general description,purpose,
and approximate quantities if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain?If so,note location on the site plan.
Much of the park is inside the 100 year floodplain.
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
b.Ground:
1)Will groundwater be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to groundwater?Give general description,
purpose,and approximate quantities if known.
5
No
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.
N/A
c.Water Runoff(including storm water):
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.
There will be soil disturbance from the harvest operations. It is possible(although unlikely)some sediments
may flow into the Satsop River. Extreme care will be exercised to minimize this.
2)Could waste material enter ground or surface waters?If so,generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any:
Follow best management practices to protect water quality as outlined by the Department of Natural
Resources Forest Practices.
4. Plants
a.Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree:red alder, cottonwood, cherry, Oregon ash, bigleaf maple, vine maple
X evergreen tree:Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar
X shrubs:salal, Oregon grape, evergreen blackberry, red huckleberry, oceansproy
X grass
_pasture
X wet soil plants:
X water plants:
X other types of vegetation:ferns, herbs,forbs
b.What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
6
An estimated 400-500,000 board feet, and nearly 1000 trees, will be removed from the project area(a
limited number are already on the ground due to root failure or removal of dead standing individuals by the
agency arborist crew). With very few exceptions, trees to be harvested are Douglas fir(highly susceptible to
laminated root rot).
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources'Natural Heritage Program(NHP)GIS database
does not indicate the presence of any threatened or endangered plant species in the project area or
surrounding landscape.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on
the site,if any:
Select native, root rot resistant tree species(western red cedar, hardwoods, and a limited number of western
hemlock)will be planted into the project area.
5.Animals
a.Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or
near the site:
birds:hawk, heron, eagle,songbirds
mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, cougar,
fish:bass,salmon, trout,herring,shellfish
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species(PHS)GIS database
does not indicate the presence of any threatened or endangered animal species in the project area or
surrounding landscape. Generally,Schafer State Park is located in Mason County and threatened species,
critical habitat, candidate species and species of concern known to occur in Mason County include:
DESIGNATED
Critical habitat for bull trout
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet
Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
CANDIDATE
(Shelton)Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mozama ssp. couchi)
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Cascades frog(Rana cascadae)
Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis(Myotis volons)
Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi)
7
Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyocotriton olympicus)
Pacific Townsends big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei)
Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei)
Western toad(Bufo boreas)
Triangular-lobed moonwort(Botrychium ascendens)
C. Is the site part of a migration route?If so,explain.
Yes, the Pacific flyway. Resident deer and elk populations also migrate through the area.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any:
Coarse wood debris and select snags will be retained on-site. Plantings, combined with advanced
regeneration,should help to restore habitat in time. NOTE: the area is a developed landscape containing a
campground, day-use facilities, ranger residence, and office/maintenance complex.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a.What kinds of energy(electrical,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.
N/A
b.Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?If so,generally
describe.
No
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:
N/A
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.
Minor potential for spilling fuel or lubricants during projects.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Possible EMS should an accident occur involving project staff.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any:
8
Store fuel in OSHA approved safety tanks,fuel and lubricate equipment over an impervious surface.
b. Noise
1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example:traffic,equipment,
operation,other)?
N/A
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 noise will include noise from small and large equipment and traffic noises. There will be no long
term noise. Noises could come from site between 0700 hrs. and 1700 hrs., during project periods.See below
table for details on DbA level ranges for typical equipment used in an operation such as this(from Cornelis F.
de Hoop and Neil J. Lalonde, "Some Measured Levels of Noise Produced by Logging Equipment in 1998
Louisiana Forest Products Development Center,School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State
University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803,August 7,2003, Louisiana Forest Products
9
Development Center, Working Paper#58.
Machuie Idle Full duottle
(dB ((dB)
Skidder 1997 Franklin Tree Farmer 170 (enclosed cab) 73 100
Skidder 1997 Caterpillar 515 (enclosed cab) 72 84
Skidder 1995 Caterpillar 518C 82 94
Skidder 1964 Franklin Tree Farmer C6 78 102
Skidder 1960 Franklin Tree Fariner C5 82 100
Cutter 1998 Tigercat 845 74 90 not cutting)
Cutter 1996 Barko 885 76 96 (not cutting)
Loader 1998 Tiaercat 860S 68 74
Loader 1998 Tiaercat 860S with fan on 82
Loader 1998 T12ercat 860S -with fan and radio on 90
Loader 1996 Barko 169B 78 92
Loader 1996 Prentice 210E SO 90
Loader 1960 Barko 160 90 108
Bulldozer 1997 Caterpillar D4H XL 98 102
Bulldozer 1976 Jolun Deere 450 bulldozer 85 98 (/% throttle)
Bulldozer 1964 Caterpillar D5 84 112
Chalnsaiv 1998 StiW 044 (measured 10 feet away) 78 106
Cliainsaw 1997 Husqi area 272 (measured 10 feet 76 102
a-%vav)
Chaiusaw 1995 Husgvarna 268 (measured 10 feet 82 104
away)
Chainsaw 1990 Stihl 038 (measured 10 feet wi-a SO 100
Cham* saw 2002 Stihl 026 S0 110
Chainsaw 1994 Shindaixva 757 S5 115 — 120
Chainsa-w 1954 Stihl 038 90 112
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any:
Original equipment manufactured muffling devices on equipment and vehicles. Forestry operations will only
be conducted between the hours of 7AM and 5 PM.
8 Land and Shoreline Use
a.What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The treatment area is secondary Douglas fir forest(appears planted)that contains a campground,portions
of a day-use area by park visitors, ranger residence, and an office/maintenance complex. Lands surrounding
the park are used for agriculture, grazing, and timber production, with select private residences within this
landscape.
10
b. Has the site been used for agriculture?If so,describe.
Land within the park is not known to have been used for agriculture.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Ranger residence, office/shop complex, restroom, campground facilities.
d.Will any structures be demolished?If so,what?
No
e.What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The park is within Mason County's jurisdiction and is zoned primarily Rural Residential 10(RR10)
for residential subdivisions or parcels of 10 acres or more.Some parts of the state park are also
zoned as Long Term Commercial Forest(LTCF).
f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The park is designated Recreation in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan.
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Conservancy
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"area?If so,specify.
There are critical areas for slopes and wetlands within the park.
i.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
One ranger and his/her family.
j.Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any:
N/A
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,
if any:
Project is consistent with approved Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission Lands Classifications
and Uses.
9. Housing
11
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low-
income housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
N/A
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?
N/A
b.What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The harvest area will be visible from the county road and park day-use area.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None. No buffer of Douglas fir will be left along roadways as laminated root rot has been identified along all
roadways, and in several areas, the historic Douglas fir trees in these areas have already failed creating an
opening into the residual stand.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?What time of day would it mainly occur?
None
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
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
12. Recreation
12
a.What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The project is located in a state park that supports camping, hiking,fishing,picnicking, and other
recreational activities. The Sotsop River is popular with fishermen.
b.Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?If so,describe.
The project area and its immediate environs will be closed to access during harvesting operations.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,including recreational opportunities to
be provided by the project or applicant,if any:
This project will be completed in less than three months(excepting possible plantings and final treatment of
slash), thus limiting any long-term recreational impact to the park.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a.Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for,national,state,or local preservation registers
known to be on or next to the site?If so,generally describe.
The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation database lists no historical or archaeological sites
within the park.An application for the National Register of Historic Places is pending.
b.Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archeological,scientific,or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site?
The park itself is historic although the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation database lists no
historical or archaeological sites within the park.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,if any:
Emphasis will be placed on protecting historic structures and their associated landscapes through the
application of best management practices and close compliance of the harvesting operation.
14.Transportation
a. Describe proposed access to the existing street system.Show on site plans if any.
Use of West Schafer Park Road and the internal park road system.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit?If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
The project area is located in a rural area. There are no public transit stops in the project area or
surrounding landscape.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?How many would the project eliminate?
None
13
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways?If so,generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No
e.Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail,or air transportation? If so,
generally describe.
No
r. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?If known, indicate
when peak volumes would occur.
None
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
There will be signs alerting park visitors of forestry operations along the county and park roadways. Floggers
will direct traffic when logging trucks are entering or exiting the road.
a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:fire protection, police
protection,health care,schools,other)?If so,generally describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
N/A
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:electricity, natural gas,water,refuse service,telephone,
sanitary sewer,septic system,other.
There is currently water and electricity available to the park residence, office, and shop. The campground
has water. The residence%ffice/shop a septic 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.
None
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:-a`� ?� '��� Date Submitted: 12-12-2011
14
I � ;halter %!�` � � �. �� � � "'� ���R. '�� wry•'"`
41
K� � �- .fir' y'� ,� �, � ,� ,L• � °� y{ �1y�
x
• - .
Ranger residefi
I } „
@ I
�' "•• ,tt
PLANTSCHEDULE
Iilk
-- ,
R 00 A Big leaf maple(Acer macrophyflum)
Establish 18trees
G\o4 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata)
J �9,gop Establish 442 trees
_
—•, �' o )t Western white pine(Pious monficula)
Establish 286 shrubs
" ' ® Alder(Alnus rubra)
Establish 50 trees
i
I i�
I �
NJ 0 25 50 100, SCHAFER STATE PARK
Scale In feel
R E V E 0 E T A T 1 0 N
ArcIMS Viewer Ma
u 3—tin
CwCae.r 6
Typail(ONR)
^/Typ F
P' -., �� / a\ /✓Tye-1
WAC
Lae-
♦ _ • ` DNR:lmin
IL
to
'N,.
32
Y
Approximate Scale 1:2252 NAD 83 Lambert Conformal Conic 3/9/2012 2:27:48 PM
Creme care was used dump the complaoon o11Ms map to ensuro eccurary,
VASMSATOY SWF�[➢A�fV.F'ifOf owever,due to changes in data and the need to rely on outside information.Cho
apanmenl 01 Natural Resources cannot accapl responsiWfry for armors or
Natural Re50la'ces mse ohs,and therefore,there are no nirlanbes which ac ompany his male al.
v
rn'rt
6 i
_ x
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing Address:600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207
Main Office Location:Natural Resources Building•1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA
February 15,2012
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Attention: Randy Kline,Environmental Program Manager
I I I I Israel Road
P.O.Box 42650
Olympia,Washington 98504-2650
SUBJECT: State Environmental Policy Act Document; Determination of Non-Significance;
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; Schafer State Park Forest
Health-Tree Risk Reduction Project; Sections 29 &32 of Township 19 North,
Range 06 West,Mason County
Dear Mr. Kline:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)reviewed the above-referenced State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)document received on December 22,2011. We offered subsequent
comments specifically addressing marbled murrelets(state and federal threatened species)and suitable
marbled murrelet habitat(critical wildlife habitat(state)and critical habitat(federal)of threatened and
endangered species per WAC 222-16-080)that was identified within Schafer State Park by WDFW and
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission(Parks)staff in back in 1997,within Sections 29 and
32 of Township 30 North,Range 06 West,at Schafer State Park.
After receipt of our comments,project manager Rob Fimbel contacted me to discuss current habitat
conditions within the park along with the status of the former agreement by Parks to conduct a formal
marbled murrelet protocol survey. Mr.Fimbel(Rob)indicated that he could not find any record of a
survey having been completed and that habitat has changed substantially since prior assessment. We met
on site on February 8,2012, in order to review current forest stand conditions and determine the extent of
any remaining potentially suitable murrelet habitat. It was immediately obvious that conditions have
changed significantly since 1997. Forest health has deteriorated throughout the stand proposed for forest
health treatment,resulting in the loss of several of the formerly identified murrelet habitat trees.
Using an old hand drawn map as reference,we went to the location of each of 16 trees that were formerly
documented as potentially suitable habitat. - , }6. wraumisr
pr rs that 5 trees have been cut down due to poor health and associated safe`'
concerns for park visitors and/or infrastructure protection.'The other 6 trees no longer standing appeared
to have been blown down during past storm events. As such,the present stand conditions include a
reduction in number of potentially suitable habitat trees along with existing degradation of forest stand
conditions throughout the entire area due to laminated root rot. Additionally,of the suitable habitat trees
4
Schafer State Park Forest Health—Tree Risk Reduction Project
February 13, 2012
Page 12
that remain standing,it appears that most or all are heavily affected by root rot and are unlikely persist for
very long.
Given the forest health issues along with the significant loss of marbled murrelet habitat trees,Rob and I
agreed that this portion of Schafer State Park is unlikely to provide functional,potentially suitable
murrelet habitat any longer. Therefore,WDFW offers the following suggestions in relation to the
proposal:
• The remaining suitable murrelet habitat trees within the project area should be assessed for
current health/stability. Where feasible,these trees should be retained as-is. If removal is
deemed necessary,perhaps such trees can be topped in order to create functional wildlife snags
rather than being completely removed.
• A marbled murrelet protocol survey of the site is not recommended due to poor stand conditions,
the significant reduction in the number of potentially suitable habitat trees that remain,and the
inherent safety issues associated with park use by the public.
•r"forest
the forested ar fir. i` � .rr ark Road(sout�pground
ntain some healthy suitable murrelet habitat trees hile murrelet activity within
Somaains unknown,these trees s` ld be protected and retained during all pha
treatment.A marbled murrelet protocol survey of this ould be Jr d
prior to any alterations of habitat.
WDFW sincerely appreciates the opportunity to conduct a site review and provide these additional
recommendations concerning the proposal. If you have any questions about these comments,please feel
free to contact me at(360)902-2412 or gary bellQdfw.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Gary Bell,Wildlife Biologist
Protection Division
Forest Habitats Section
eCC: Mark Miller,USFWS,Western Washington Field Office
Steve Desimone,WDFW,Olympia
Bruce Thompson,WDFW,Olympia
Terry Jackson,WDFW,Olympia
David Whipple,WDFW,Olympia
Bob Zeigler,WDFW,Olympia
Gloria Rogers,WDFW,Region 6
Don Nauer,WDFW,Region 6 M P
Dave Kloempken,WDFW,ARHPM,Region 6
Stephan Kalinowski,WDFW,RHPM,Region 6
Kline, Randy (PARKS) Now
From: O NEAL, ELIZABETH (DNR)on behalf of DNR RE SEPACENTER
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Kline, Randy(PARKS)
Subject: FW: Schafer State Park Improved Forest Health
Subject: RE: Schafer State Park Improved Forest Health
To SEPA Center �A
Please route these comments to the Responsible Official:
The whole of Schaeffer state park is in a designated historic site designated by the Department of Archeological and
Historic Preservation. The site is DT00229. In order to obtain a Forest Practices Permit for the area the owner will need
to create a management plan for the area which is approved by DAHP and the affected tribes or to meet with the
affected tribes with the intent of making a plan. DNR recommends that DAHP be consulted before application.
Portions of the proposal are located within the Channel Migration Zone and the Riparian Management Zone of the East
Fork of the Satsop River. Forest Practices do not allow for the harvest of timber within those areas unless there is an
Alternate Plan proposed to improve long term riparian function. It may be necessary in order to harvest trees in these
areas to use WAC 222-50-040,Safety and Health,to take jurisdiction using WAC 352-28-010(1) (b), Emergency trees.
You may need to consult with your AG in regards to this. If this occurs and cutting is to occur in these areas the impact
should be considered as part of your environmental review.
Bruce McDonald
District Manager, Forest Practices
South Puget Sound Region
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
office (360) 802-7009
cell (206) 920-5908
bruce.mcdonald@dnr.wa.gov
www.dnr.wa.gov
From: O NEAL, ELIZABETH (DNR) On Behalf Of DNR RE SEPACENTER
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject: FW: Schafer State Park Improved Forest Health
From: Washington State Parks Planning
Sent:Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:22 PM
To: Kline, Randy (PARKS); Fimbel, Robert(PARKS)
Subject: Schafer State Park Improved Forest Health
FROM: Randy Kline, Environmental Program Manager
SUBJECT: Schafer State Park Improved Forest Health
t
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission issued a SEPA"Determination of Non-Significance" (DNS) for
the proposed Schafer State Park Forest Health Project on December 23, 2011. This decision was made after review of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with State Parks. This environmental checklist, and the
DNS, are attached and will be available at http://www.parks.wa.gov/plans/separeviews/
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2)and State Parks will not act on this proposal until the comment period has
ended. Comments must be submitted by January 13, 2012, or they may not be considered. Any person wishing to
comment on the DNS should submit written comments to:
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Attention: Randy Kline, Environmental Program Manager
PO Box 42650, Olympia WA 98504-2650
Phone: (360) 902-8632 FAX: (360) 586-0207
Email: randy.kline .parks.wa.gov
P Ys
z
Kline, Randy (PARKS)
From: Johnson [icybeaver@centurytel.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:28 AM
To: Kline, Randy(PARKS)
Subject: FW: shaefer state park
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in regards to the cutting of trees in Schaefer State Park. I will
donate my time and skill to fall every dead tree that needs to come down, and you can
donate it or give it away, it doesn't matter, if this will keep this pristine park from being
clear cut. I live just upstream and it had a big effect on why I bought my property.
I have found Indian artifacts that were in the river washed down from the park
while steelhead fishing. I am 61 years old and had been in bush Alaska for 26 years
logging, commercial fishing and trapping. I moved here ten years ago because of this
beautiful park so close to me.
Thank you
DON JOHNSON
1345 W. Plug Mill Rd
Elma, WA 98541
1
Kline, Randy (PARKS)
From: kathleenl@centurytel.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:56 AM
To: Kline, Randy(PARKS)
Subject: Schafer Park Forest Health Project
Jim,
We live on 20 acres on the West boundary of Schafer State Park. We have been very involved in all processes of the
park for 3 plus years, This logging of 17 acres should have been done 10 to 15 years ago when first found. We support
the state parks logging .Everything it takes to make the park safe. Please do not close the park by not logging. Schafer
Park cannot bring in income when it is closed. We can help clean up and make new campsites to make this a year
around campground at Schafer We have a lost market at Schafer to winter time hunting and fishermen. Lets not put this
logging off any longer.
Thankyou,
Max and Katie Muller
3604825754
210 W. Beerbower Rd.
Elma, Wa. 98541
i
STATt
o `
e
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 •Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •P60)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-633-6341
January 13,2012
Randy Kline, Environmental Program Manager
WA State Parks&Recreation Commission
1111 Israel Road Southwest
Olympia, WA 98504-2650
Dear Mr. Kline:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the
Schafer State Park Forest Health-Tree Risk Reduction project located in Mason County as
proposed by Robert Fimbel, WA State Parks&Recreation Commission. The Department of
Ecology(Ecology)reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s):
SEPA REVIEWER: Sonia Mendoza
WATER QUALITY CONTACT: Stephanie Jackson (360)407-6294
Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in
violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to
enforcement action.
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading,or construction.
These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil
and other pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,
silt,clay particles,and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such,they
may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal
requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments,please contact the
appropriate reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(SM:11-6063)
cc: Stephanie Jackson, WQ
Robert Fimbel,WA St. Parks&Recreation Commission(Applicant)
To: Rand Kline and Rob Fimbel Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Jan 13, 2012
Re: Schafer State Park SEPA Checklist Remarks
Dear Randy and Rob,
I reviewed the checklist and have a couple of observations/comments.
• Air Quality Will the logging debris be burned,chipped, removed off site or all of the above?
Our family has 40 acres across the Cloquallum Rd that we logged a few years ago. There is an
access point and large flat area that could be used(at no charge or liability)for equipment
staging and/or debris burning if that would help this project.
• In several places mention is made that much of the park is in the 100 year flood plain. However,
most,if not all of the area to be logged is well above that floor
• The area was not a replanted area. Old stumps indicate that parcel of land(includes our
property across the road)was probably logged in the early 201"century. Older trees, now gone,
were probably seed source for present trees. I know there were fairly mature trees in the area
since at least 1950.
• Proposed landscaping. I would like to encourage replanting with only trees and other plants
indigenous to the area. This would preclude use of White Pine. To encourage a diverse forest I
believe much of the larger debris would need to be removed and smaller debris chipped.Again,
I'm going on my experience from logging across the road from the park. We replanted with alder
and cedar so removed more debris than you'd probably want to remove from the park area.
• Impact on recreation. The area is under emergency closure. This project will actually improve
recreation in that it will allow rebuilding of the camp area,expansion of camping and reopening
of trails along the river and through the forested area.
• Historic and cultural presence. The park was put on the State Historic Register in 2010 and then
also listed on the National Register of Historic Sites(at statewide significance) in 2010. The
treatment area should not affect the historical significance, however using the main park roads
for equipment and log removal would certainly damage the roads and also the monuments at
the entrance.
• Roads for treatment. I'd like to suggest alternatives for access to the treatment area. Using the
park road at the entrance has two major flaws. First,there would be damage to the park roads
and certainly to the historic monuments. More important,the bridge over the Satsop Is
elevated and traffic coming over the bridge would not see the trucks until too late to stop. Also
the trucks could not adequately clear for traffic to the north. As a safer and less damaging
alternative there are three other options. First,there is an old roadway joining the Cloquallum
Rd at the Southeast corner of the area that is presently hidden by brush that has grown on the
old roadway. It is on a gentle curve of the Cloquallum Rd and there is sufficient sight-distance
for traffic along the road to keep this area safe for any traffic. As a second option there are
several areas to the west where park roads are close enough to the Cloquallum Rd to allow
constructing a temporary roadway. After the logging is completed the roadway could be easily
closed to block any use from the Cloquallum Rd. Also, if done in conjunction with the WSPRC
planner,this roadway could be used later as a camp site when the area is used as an expanded
camping area. A third option would be to open up one of two old and overgrown roadways that
exist south of the south end of the shop/warehouse. One roadway might affect the pump area
but the other one should be well clear and not pose any problem. It opens onto the W Schafer
Park Rd just north of the trailer dump area and would allow plenty of sight line distance for safe
use.
Thanks for your work on this project. I'm hoping the community can take part in replanting and
restoring the area. If I can answer any of your questions or help in any way, please let me know.
Thank you,
Signed
Stet Palmer
7544 49`h Ave NW
Olympia, WA 98502
(360)789-9953
StetPalmer@hotmail.com
ps By chance I just met Ken Russell,a former forest pathologist here in Olympia. He was
involved in some type of assessment as a DNR Forest Pathologist at Schafer when he worked for
DNR.
Page 1 of 1
Grace Miller - Re: Schafer State Park - Log Jam on Satsop
From: Grace Miller �932_.2V- 060 0
To: Jessica (PARKS) Logan
Subject: Re: Schafer State Park- Log Jam on Satsop
Hello Jessica,
Given the situation that this proposal is located within a State Park and assuming that after WDFW looks at it
and allows the removal with an HPA, the proposed removal of the log jam is exempt from county permit
requirements,per the Resource Ordinance section 17.01.110 Fish &Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter
Section(F S.7 . Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you.
Grace Miller
>>> "Logan, Jessica (PARKS)" <Jessica.Logan@ PARKS.WA.GOV> 3/21/2011 9:08 AM >>>
Hello Grace,
This email is to follow up on our recent phone conversation. We have a situation at Schafer State
Park where there is a log jam blocking passage on the east fork of the Satsop, and it is creating a
safety concern. We will be meeting with WDFW tomorrow to ascertain the best way to remove the
obstruction, before applying for an HPA. Per our phone conversation, I would like to confirm that we
will not be needing any county permits to proceed with removing the log jam. Would you please
concur via email for our records?
Thank you for your time,
Jessica Logan I Environmental Specialist } e
Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission
PO Box 42650 1 1111 Israel Road SW Olympia,WA 98504 1
(360)902-8679 HQ
` Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
er
about:blank 3/21/2011