HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Environmental Impact Statement Theler Park Plan - PLN General - 2/28/1980 FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
THELER MEMORIAL
RECREATION PARK
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
February 1980
Prepared by:
NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
158 Thomas Street, Suite 32
Seattle, Washington 98109
For the Lead Agency :
MASON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
P.O. Box 186 (5th & Birch)
Shelton, Washington 98584
INTRODUCTION
SPONSOR North Mason School District No. 403
P. 0. Box 167 (State Route 3)
Belfair, Washington 98528
NATURE OF Comprehensive plan for development of community recreational
PROPOSAL facilities (playfields, community center building, tennis
courts, and nature trails) . Individual facilities will be
subject to subsequent detailed engineering and/or architec-
tural design.
LOCATION OF Belfair, Mason County, Washington: bounded in general by the
PROPERTY Union River, Lynch Cove (an inlet of Hood Canal ) , and State
Route 3 (Sections 31 and 32, T23N, R1W) .
LEAD AGENCY The North Mason School District has deferred Lead Agency
status to:
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186 (5th & Birch)
Shelton, Washington 98584
RESPONSIBLE James Connolly, Director
OFFICIAL Mason Regional Planning Council
CONTACT Monty Anderson, Principal Planner
PERSON Mason Regional Planning Council
PREPARED BY Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc.
158 Thomas Street, Suite 32
Seattle, Washington 98109
PRINCIPAL Douglas J. Canning, Environmental Scientist
AUTHORS Randall Arnold, Environmental Analyst
Robert Wisseman, Marine Biologist
REQUIRED Mason County
LICENSES Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Building Permit
Washington Department of Transportation
Highway Access Permit
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Shoreline Development Permit ( "Section 404")
Washington Departments of Fisheries and Game
Hydraulic Permit
-i -
LOCATION OF Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc.
BACKGROUND 158 Thomas Street, Suite 32
INFORMATION Seattle, Washington 98109
COST OF $9.00 when initial (free) supply is exhausted
COPIES
DATE OF 30 November 1979
ISSUE
DRAFT EIS
DEADLINE FOR 4 January 1980
COMMENTS
DRAFT EIS
DATE OF 19 February 1980
ISSUE
FINAL EIS
-ii -
CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
DRAFT E. I .S. DISTRIBUTION LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL, AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES. . . 19
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Elements of the Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Elements of the Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . 79
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . . 71
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED. . . . . . . . . . . 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
RESPONSES TO DRAFT E. I .S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
CONTENTS OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
APPENDIX B: PORTIONS OF LAST WILL AND TESTEMENT OF SAMUEL B. THELER. . . . 78
APPENDIX C: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY LETTER . . . . . . . 79
APPENDIX D: LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
APPENDIX E: SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
APPENDIX F: VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
APPENDIX G: LYNCH COVE AND THELER MARSHES INTERTIDAL FAUNA RECONNAISSANCE. 87
APPENDIX H: LYNCH COVE AND THELER MARSH AVIFAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
APPENDIX J : ENERGY CONSERVATION MITIGATIVE SUGGESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 36
APPENDIX K: OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION LETTER . 98
-ili-
L
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. SUMMARIZATION OF CHARACTERISTIC VEGETATION AND SOILS. . . . . . . . . 22
2. TIDAL ELEVATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. VEGETATION AND LAND USE TYPE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4. POPULATION GROWTH IN MASON COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME, VICINITY OF PROJECT SITE. . . . . . . . 48
7. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8. CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS FOR SCHOOLS IN NORTH MASON SCHOOL
DISTRICT 403. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9. OPERATING CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS IN NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403. . . 55
10. EXISTING PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN NORTH MASON SCHOOL
DISTRICT 403. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
11. PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS ACTIVITY IN NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 . 65
12. NORTH MASON COUNTY PEE WEE LEAGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
LIST OF FIGURES
1. LOCATION MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. VICINITY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. COMMUNITY CENTER SITE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. SITE CHARACTERISTICS MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVELS IN VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY NEAR THELER MEMORIAL
RECREATION PARK - 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
-iv-
■
FINAL E. I .S. DISTRIBUTION LIST
Mason County
Board of County Commissioners
Planning Commission
Regional Planning Office
Shorelines Advisory Board
Health Department
Special Purpose Districts
Mason County PUD No. 3
State of Washington
Office of the Govenor
Ecological Commission
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Game
Department of Transportation
Parks and Recreation Commission
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
United States Government
Army Corps of Engineers
-v-
SUMMARY
Description of Proposal
In 1968, Samuel B. Theler gift deeded 70 acres to the community of Belfair
in the name of the North Hason School District. Much of these 70 acres are
tidal wetlands. At an earlier date he had given the district five acres.
Both properties carry stipulations for recreational use. In 1977, the school
district appointed a citizens advisory committee to develop a plan for the
property. Playfields were a suggested use and application was made for
exemption from Substantial Development Permit (Shorelines Management Act)
requirements. This request for exemption was denied.
In 1978 a detailed planning program was undertaken resulting in a comprehen-
sive conceptual development plan which this impact statement reports on.
In general , it is proposed to develop community athletic, recreation, and
meeting facilities. The timing and phasing of the project are not defined;
this will develop on community needs and desires, the availability of funding,
and construction permit requirements.
Playfield construction will consist of: a soccer - baseball field on an
existing brushy field requiring moderate earthmoving; a general purpose play-
field and a baseball field on a non-tidal wetland requiring at least one foot
of fill ; a general purpose playfield and community park and picnic grounds
on a swamp requiring at least one foot of fill ; a community center complex
with tennis courts; and indoor swimming pool on uplands fields requiring minor
regrading.
Mason County has no zoning ordinance; the 1970 Comprehensive Plan has no
development guidelines or criteria. The property is designated Conservancy
under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. The development as proposed
is clearly in compliance with some Conservancy Environment regulations ; however
compliance with other regulations will require consideration by the appropriate
decision makers.
Impacts
Soils will be substantially affected on the community center area where
buildings and pavement may eventually cover 50% of that single area (3.5 acres) .
-1-
The maximum cut depth will be approximately ten feet, otherwise earthmoving
will be minor. Approximately twelve acres of non-tidal wetlands and swamp
land will be filled. The tidal marsh (56 acres) and approximately one acre
of swamp land will be unaffected. Some construction related erosion is in-
evitable.
Near-surface groundwater at the site will be affected by the addition of sep-
tic tank effluents.
Surface drainage channels will not be substantially rerouted, although some
existing ditches will require converting.
The development of the recreation park will not in itself severely degrade
the waters of Hood Canal ; however, attention should be drawn to the existing
high nutrient levels and slow flushing time of the lower Canal and the need
for comprehensive water quality planning.
Undeveloped portions of the site are subject to regular tidal inundation; some
proposed playfields are subject to seasonal inundation by flood tides.
The development will require the conversion of 5.4 acres of non-tidal marsh,
6 acres of swamp and 4. 3 acres of uplands to 15.7 acres of playfields and
community center. Fifty-six acres of tidal marsh will be unaffected except
for the construction of an elevated (on pilings) nature trail boardwalk.
Hood Canal fish and intertidal fauna should be unaffected. Virtually all the
small mammal habitat of the site will be eliminated, the undeveloped areas
apparently being too wet to support small mammal populations. The principal
effect to wildlife will be upon certain bird species.
Traffic generation by the proposed development would be greater than that of
the present (one baseball field, one hunting dog field trial range), but would
continue to be on an erratic rate and schedule. Minor and brief traffic con-
jestion could occur following sports events.
There is a possibility that cultural artifacts are present at or in the vic-
inity of the site. If cultural remains are on the site at areas designated
for development, they may be damaged during construction.
-2-
Alternatives
The alternatives discussed are No Action, Alternative Sites, and Design
Alternatives. The Alternative Sites option is not available to the sponsor
due to restrictive convenants in the Theler will . The use of an alternative
site would require breaking the will .
Mitigative Measures
Surface soils should be stockpiled on site separately to avoid mixing them
with less productive subsoils. Erosion control can be effected by the
timing of construction ; storm drainage should be routed to an existing pond
which will act as a sedimentation basin.
Fill material used in the non-tidal marsh and swamp should be engineered to
have a particle size range that will inhibit capillary rise of the water table.
The use of fertilizers and/or pesticides on the playfields and/or grounds
should be severely restricted.
Extensive perpheral vegetation screens should be left in place or planted
as necessary for both wind breaks and wildlife mitigation purposes.
The state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has recommended a
cultural resources survey of the construction site.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
A large percentage of the soils in the east part of the site will be removed
or redistributed depending on cut and fill requirements. Increased erosion
will also occur during construction phase and will continue afterwards until
revegetation has taken place.
Vegetation and wildlife habitat will be substantially reduced on a portion of
the site. Land use for the east portion will change from a predominantly
natural ecosystem to that of a recreation area. Increases in traffic and
demand on public utilities will also occur.
-3-
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
NAME OF PROPOSAL
Theler Memorial Recreation Park
SPONSOR
North Mason School District No. 403
P. 0. Box 167 (State Route 3)
Belfair, Washington 98528
Norman A. Sanders, Superintendent
LOCATION
The project site is approximately 75 acres of uplands, non-tidal wetlands,
tidal wetlands, and tidal sloughs located in the Belfair community, Mason
County, Washington. The Belfair central business district and the inter-
section of State Route (SR) 3 and SR300 is approximately one mile northeast.
The general location of the project site within the southern Puget Sound
region is shown on Figure 1. The site boundaries in relation to natural
features (Union River, Lynch Cove, Hood Canal ) , section lines (Sections 31
and 32, T23N, R1W, W.M. ) , and cultural features (SR3, SR300) is shown on
Figure 2. A legal description of the property is contained in Appendix A.
REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS
None
PROJECT HISTORY
In August 1968, Samuel B. Theler of Mason County filed a Last Will and Testa-
ment with Mason County Superior Court bequeathing 70 acres of the project
site (Parcel A) to North Mason School District 403. At an earlier date,
Samuel Theler made a gift to the school district of a 5 acre parcel of land
fronting on State Route 3 (Parcel B) . Both parcels were bequeathed for
community athletic and recreational purposes.
The Samuel Theler will further specified that when incomes from certain other
properties bequeathed to the school district accumulated sufficient funds ,
-4-
i
,
I
/
i
Jefferson
I �
/ Bremerton
I j—Kitsap Co.
I I 3
Lake
d I Cushman I
w � Belfair
PROJECT SITE
°I Hoodsport D I Pierce Co.
0 I
01 0
0 2
i
Mason
Lake a ��I 1 o
b
I_I �
D `
Shelton 1\'
I_ Mason Co.
McCleary If Olympia t
12 — -
I �
I�
c
Iw 5
0
0 10 Mi
n
® �o
0 10 K m
Figure 1 LOCATION MAP
,
ov
Ht
3000
O
t
N !p Conservancy
Shoreline pod
NN
/ 4,...•"` 0 J Site y ,•
Bountlar
,
PARCEL �•''� }"
a up f
At
11A
nch Cove / )j IL =\y•.
19
pal
/1
44
••�., Af-- J �' Pam' j/jam J ~)
ST
r � �. •4 ali '�. ��✓ �j/ ��( ,1-'-".' �`/ ell
�o (/
o '
.00
*71
NF)
J �f•^ I
' I
Figure 2 VICINITY MAP
-6-
that a "Mary E. Theler" memorial gymnasium or recreation center be constructed
on the property (Parcel A) and be operated by the school district. (Pertin-
ent details of the will are reproduced in Appendix B) . The school district
was to own and operate the gymnasium or recreation center, but "the building
[is to 1 be used as much as feasible for public gatherings and meetings. "
Following the death of Samuel Theler and transfer of the property (Parcel A)
to the school district, a planning process was initiated to carry out the
intents of the will . The school district commissioners called for the for-
mation of a local citizens committee to coordinate the solicitation of public
opinion regarding use of the property as well as planning and development of
facilities. On 30 November 1977, the Theler Recreation Advisory Committee
was formed.
Throughout the winter of 1977 - 78, the committee conducted a community interest
poll , particularly of local service clubs. Discussion meetings were also held
with Mason Regional Planning Council planners and Mason County Department of
Parks and Recreation staff. The development of three or four ball fields was
proposed for development on the easterly portions of Parcel A. An applica-
tion for exemption from state Shoreline Flanagement Act (SMA) Substantial
Development Permit requirements was made through the Mason Regional Planning
Council .
The Washington Department of Ecology, in reviewing the exemption application,
issued a memorandum of denial on 31 March 1978 (Appendix C) . Stated reasons
included the environmental sensitivity of the project site, the apparent
condition of a portion of the construction area as �;,etlands, and the lack of
a provision in the SMA for a categorical exemption for the project type.
In August 1978 the school district, acting for the advisory committee, engaged
the services of Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc . (NEC) to prepare a
comprehensive development plan for the property and all necessary environmental
documents for permit application processing.
To acquire a broader base of information on community needs and desires for
athletic and recreational facilities , a questionnaire was prepared and
distributed to the 2500 plus residents or the school district. The question-
naire was included in the August 1978 school district newsletter. Questionnaires
-7-
were also sent to local service clubs that had not responded to earlier
opinion solicitation. By the close of the survey period on 5 October 1978,
186 questionnaires had been returned (approximate 7;o return) . The results
of the poll are discussed in the Recreation section of this E. I .S.
During the winter of 1978 - 79 a comprehensive plan for the recreational
development of the property was prepared. A preliminary plan was informally
presented to representatives of state and federal regulatory agencies at
the 10 January 1979 "Muskox" meeting. A Planning Study (NEC 1979) was issued
in February 1979 containing preliminary soil and vegetation study results and
proposed conceptual site plans for the general recreational development of
the property (Parcels A and B) . During this planning study it was determined
to be inadvisable to locate a gymnasium or community center on Parcel A due
to adverse soil conditions, but that conditions on Parcel B are suitable.
-8-
MAJOR PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL ; TIMING & PHASING
In general , it is proposed to develop community athletic, recreation, and
meeting facilities approximately as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan
(Figure 3) . The timing and phasing of the entire project are not defined;
this will depend on community needs and desires, the availability of funding,
and construction permit conditions.
Given the annual income available from the Theler trust fund, it is
highly unlikely that community center development would occur within the
next ten years . Only if a district wide bond issue were to be passed by
the community would money be available for early development of anything
other than playfields . The entire scope of the project is presented
here for impact analysis in conformance with the requirements of WAC
197 - 10 -060, which requires that the total project including functionally
related future expansions be considered.
IPhase lA will be the development of Baseball -Soccer Fields A. The 3.8 acre
site is presently a gently sloping hillside (average grade 2.70') partially
wooded and partially open field. The site will be regraded to a uniform
elevation: approximately 4.0 feet of fill will be placed at the northwest
corner; approximately 0.3 feet of fill will be placed at the southwest cor-
ner; the northeast corner will be cut approximately 4.0 feet; the southeast
corner will be cut approximately 10.0 feet. The cut on the southeast portion
of the field will yield approximately 14,200 cubic yards of material ; the
filling of the northwest portion of the field will require approximately 2,800
cubic yards of compacted material . The excess ( 11,900 cubic yards) will be
used for Phase 1B and subsequent playfield development. A forty-foot undis-
turbed strip will be left along the east and south property lines. The
existing roadway from the North Entrance, south and east to the east end of
Baseball - Soccer Fields A will be widened from its present width of approxi -
mately eight feet to a uniform width of twenty feet (plus shoulders) and paved.
-9-
Parking will be provided as shown (Figure 3) which will necessitate clearing
some Red Alder - Western Redcedar forest and filling (maximum approximately
2.0 feet) to bring the parking area level with the road. The parking area
will be graveled. Phase lA will be initiated as soon as possible after con-
struction permits are granted.
Phase 1B will be the development of Baseball Field B and General Purpose Play-
field C. The site is presently a non-tidal marsh bounded on the north by a
dike, on the east by a slightly elevated (0.5 to 1.0 feet) roadway, and on
the south and west by a pond contained by a dike. The site will be cleared
of vegetation and filled with material from the Phase lA site. (The use of
imported gravel fill may be necessary to mitigate the "wicking" effect of fine
grained fill material on the groundwater. ) Fill depth will be at .least 1.0 foot;
fill material to cover the 5.2 acre site to a 1 .0 foot depth will be approx-
imately 10,000 cubic yards (compacted) . An existing drainage ditch running
west from the North Entrance to the pond will be cleaned of debris and a cul-
vert placed in the ditch. The inlet of the culvert at the North Entrance will
be fitted with a catch basin; the outlet will discharge into the existing pond.
A chain link fence will be erected along the south and west sides of the play-
field five feet back from the edge of the pond.
Subsequent timing and phasing of the development of the Theler Memorial Rec-
reation Park will depend on community needs and desires as well as the
availability of funding. Since the order of development is presently uncer-
tain, no phase numbering is indicated for other aspects of the project, and
the order of presentation should not be construed as indicative of a potential
order of phasing.
Comunity Park & Nature TraiZ Phase: The Community Park site (3.7 acres) is
presently a seasonal alder - cedarswamp; standing water occurs throughout the
winter, with the soil merely saturated or moist during the summer. As
presently envisioned, the Community Park would provide small picnic sites for I
family size groups scattered throughout the existing vegetation and connected
by trails. The Comprehensive Plan (NEC 1979) recommends selective clearing
and filling to raise picnic sites and trails sufficiently above existing
ground level to eliminate saturated soil conditions . The existing natural
vegetation would provide a screen between adjacent picnic sites. Culverts
I
-10-
1\
\ Diked
1 Agricultural
1 1 Fields
1
tt
vs,
JN\ON —Dike
Observation Tower Tidal Marsh
q Mobil Home Park
G. )under construction)
6j,R//i ��a+ �°era) o°
Mud Fiala / Yr/ll � Play/Pose Ix% }
After nefe C /
"� Nalun Trail Existing Dike
rNorth Entrance Observation Platforms—Jr
oc� /� er it ROeea91 Road Co.Rd.an— F
Baseball Field
l \\ B General `6
Purpose 5
Playfield r Community
Center Complex
Tennis Courts
` zz
A
Tidal Marsh `�`�' y; .+�
_ .'.f14� �•.
/�///�illklll ll lllll llllll •''• f,;'��
CoParmmRk w I
;x Roadwa
Existing
trees to
remain
LYNCH ,y�,`ts�Va^:;!•. ia'',tl'irxwf":\Z;�Y S
COVE yr
Baseball Fields /
Soccer Field
Project:
Northwest Environmental Theler Memorial Recreation Park
Consultants, Inc. Phase 2
158 Thomas St., Seattle,WA 98109 Planning Study
Designer: Douglas Canning Dale: Jan., 1979 Sheet: Figure 3
Drawn: Joelly
n Shea Scale:0 00 Conceptual Site Plan
F••t
will be placed as necessary to accomodate existing drainage patterns into the
tidal marsh and the pond. Filling will be from to a minimum of approximately
one foot up to a maximum of three to four feet.
Local interest in nature trails will be provided for by maintaining the exist-
ing pond dike top as a trail , constructing a boardwalk across the tidal marsh
to the Union River, and erecting an observation tower at the end of the board-
walk on the Union River. Intermediate observation platforms along the board-
walk may also be provided. The boardwalk will be constructed of timber spans
supported by thoroughly cured creosoted pilings. The walkway will be at the
same elevation as the pond dike top: approximately 4.5 feet above the marsh
surface. The observation tower at the Union River terminus of the boardwalk is
contemplated at be at least fifteen feet tall with an eight foot square top
platform. The observation platforms would be widenings of the boardwalk at the
same level as the boardwalk.
Co?7�ity Center Co7TZex: The development of the entire Community Center
Complex itself will likely be phased over a number of years. The site is pres-
ently used for a Pee Wee Baseball Field; development of the Community Center
must follow completion of development of the Phase 1A baseball fields. The
site plan (Figure 4) should not be construed as an actual site plan but rather
as a conceptual plan which will be modified during the architectural and
engineering design phase.
The easterly three-quarters of the site — the portion to be developed — has
an average slope of approximately 4ro dropping from SR3 to the west. The
embankment (Figure 4) is ten feet tall . The area between the embankment and
SR3 will be regraded to suit the needs of the final site design. Maximum cuts
or fills should not exceed two or three feet except a possible eight foot cut
over a 2500 square foot area of existing uncompacted fill .
Building construction phasing and building gross square footage is shown on
Figure 4.
The basic Community Center building unit will house the following:
1. kitchen, dining/meeting area, and food service storage
2. rest rooms and janitors closet
3. meeting room
4. equipment storage
-12-
0
6
F
m
Existing Embankment /
_ ` .. 1 _---q. i ^N 5 n s; Cis z',r 1 .i-4!S- �t ,Y• r i ] / r r
Existing .
••••, �",`�' � _ Pee was Field
Phase 3 Tennis
Swimming Pool Courts
10,000 at /
Community
Park
Phase I Phase
• ,l Phase 28 2A ' 1
sic
• I
l 'p`^,_ I Gymnasium / Multipurpose Lockers iCanmun. a � Future Expasion - �
I �1I etc. Center
I-•-' •••• ' 10,000 at 2500 slI 2500 s1
W ! ` c
10 Cars 10 Cars 10 Cara i It
t—
j 2-Lane Roadway _
/ -'-� j...* �=���-,C�>-lid,•.. :'..cac�✓ 7 ..:..r � \�.� - ��'-•' �-ow.�
o�
0
Project:
Northwest Environmental Theler Memorial Recreation Park
Consultants, Inc. Phase 2
158 Thomas St., Seattle.WA 98109 Planning Study
Designer: Douglas Canning Date:Jan.,1979 Sheet: Figure 4
Drawn: Joellyn she& Scale:° 5 25 ; Community Center Site Plan
FeNI
The construction of either the gymnasium or swimming pool wings would neces-
sitate the simultaneous construction of the centrally located locker/shower
room. The 10,000 square foot spaces indicated for both the swimming pool and
gymnasium wings represent maximum building sizes; each of these functions
could be housed in an area as small as 7000 to 8000 square feet.
Four tennis courts are contemplated for the existing Pee Wee baseball field.
Parking is shown for thirty cars and additional future expansion space is
available. The access road from SR3 will be continued west to connect to the
road serving the playfields and community park.
Screening strips twenty-five feet wide will be planted along the north and
south property lines.
Parking is shown for 30 vehicles and additional space for future parking
expansion is available.
Electrical power will be provided by Mason County Public Utility District No.
3. Water will be supplied by Belfair Water District No. 1. Sewage disposal
will be by on-site septic tank - leach line treatment and groundwater dispersal ,
with leaching fields in the easterly third of the site (Parcel B) .
Drainage of the swimming pool will be by surface drainage through the
on-site storm drainage system. Prior to drainage the pool water will be
de-chlorinated by reacting the pool water chlorine compounds with sodium
thiosulfite.
GeneraZ Purpose PZayfieZd D: The playfield D site is presently an alder -
cedar swamp; standing water occurs throughout the winter, with the soil merely
saturated or moist during the summer. The site will be cleared of vegetation
and filled with imported material . rill depth will be at least 1.0 foot; fill
material to cover the 1.7 acre site will beapproximately 3300 cubic yards.
Existing sheet and channel drainage across the site will be re-routed to cul-
verts and ditches. A forty-foot undisturbed strip will be left along the east
property line.
Wscellaneous: At some stage in development the provision of public restrooms
will be made in the vicinity of Playfields A and the Community Park. Given
-14
the highwater table and saturated soil conditions in the area, these sanitary
facilities will either be connected to a holding tank which would be pumped
out periodically or connected to a pumping system which would automatically
transfer the raw sewage up to the septic tank - leach field system at the
Community Center.
CONSISTANCY WITH ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Zoning
Mason County presently has no zoning ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan
The present Mason County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1970 and is gener-
ally conceded to be obsolete. A new plan is now in preparation. Under the
1970 Comprehensive Plan the outer (westerly) portion of the property is classi-
fied as Flood Plain and the easterly portion as Urban. The 1970 Comprehensive
Plan carries no development guidelines or criteria.
Shoreline Master Plan
The Mason County Shoreline Master Program was officially adopted on 12 August
1975 and amended 18 December 1975. The shorelines of the project site are
classified as Conservancy. The extent of Conservancy shorelines in the site
vicinity is shown on Figure 2.
The definition of Conservancy Environment by the Shoreline Master Program
(section .08.070) is:
"Conservancy Environment" means that environment in which
the objective is to protect, conserve and manage existing
natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas
in order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational bene-
fits to the public and to achieve sustained resource
utilization.
The Conservancy Environment is for those areas which are
intended to maintain their existing character. The prefer-
red uses are those which are nonconsumptive of the
physical and biological resources of the area. Noncon-
sumptive uses are those uses which can utilize resources
on a sustained yield basis while minimally reducing oppor-
tunities for other future uses of the resources in the
area. Activities and uses of a nonpermanent nature which
-15-.
do not substantially degrade the existing character of an
area are appropriate uses for a Conservancy Environment.
Examples of uses that might be predominant in a Conservancy
Environment include diffuse outdoor recreation activities,
timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, passive agri -
cultural uses such as pasture and range lands, and other
related uses and activities.
The designation of Conservancy Environments should seek to
satisfy the needs of the community as to the present and
future location of recreational areas proximate to concen-
trations of population, either existing or projected. For
example, a Conservancy Environment designation can be used
to complement city, county or state plans to legally ac-
quire public access to the water.
The Conservancy Environment would also be the most suitable
designation for those areas which present too severe bio-
physical limitations to be designated as rural or urban
environments. Such limitations would include areas of
steep slopes presenting erosion and slide hazards, areas
prone to flooding, and areas which cannot provide adequate
water supply or sewage disposal .
Of the Use Activities regulated by the Master Program (Chapter 16) , only
Recreation ( . 16.220) appears to be pertinent. Recreation is defined as:
Recreation is the refinement of body and mind through forms
of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational exper-
ience may be either an active one, involving boating,
swimming, fishing or hunting or passive, such as enjoying
the natural beauty of a vista.
The development regulations are:
1. Shoreline developments that serve the variety of recrea-
tional needs of people living in nearby population centers
should be encouraged.
2. All proposed recreational developments shall be analyzed
for their potential effect on environmental quality and
natural resources.
3. Recreational developments should be designed in such a way
as to protect the quality of scenic views and the envir-
onment.
4. Parking areas should be located inland where feasible, away
from the immediate water' s edge, and linked to the shore-
lines by trails and walkways.
5. Recreational developments shall comply at all times, with
all updated local and State health regulations , and such
compliance made a condition of the permit.
-16-
6. Development of public fishing piers, underwater fishing
reefs and underwater gardens , should be encouraged.
7. Regulations listed under Agriculture, Pesticides and
Fertilizers shall apply for the use of fertilizers and
pesticides.
(The waters of irrigation and drainage ditches or canals
shall not be discharged into any contiguous waterway,
if there is reasonable indication that agricultural
chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and/or
other man-caused pollution are in these waters in quanti-
ties which are considered damaging by appropriate codes
and legislation) .
The proposed Theler Memorial Recreation Park appears to be clearly in con-
formance with certain stated definitions of the Conservancy Environment:
• manage existing natural resources . . . in order
to ensure a continuous flow of recreational benefits to
the public "
• should seek to satisfy the needs of the community
as to the present and future location of recreational
areas proximate to concentrations of population . "
• uses that might be predominant in a Conservancy
Environment include diffuse recreation activities . "
Conformance with other stated definitions is less clear and open to subjective
evaluation: ". . .preferred uses are those which are nonconsumptive of the
physical and biological resources of the area. Non consumptive uses are
those uses which can utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while
minimally reducing opportunities for other future uses of the resources in
the area. Activities and uses of a non-permanent nature which do not sub-
stantially degrade the existing character of an area are appropriate uses .
The clearing and filling of the non-tidal wetland and portions of the alder-
cedar and alder swamps is consumptive of those habitats; it is unlikely that
they would ever be returned to their present status . Whether this consti-
tutes a substantial degradation of the existing character of the area is a
matter that must be weighed by decision makers and compared with the project' s
conformance with other stated definition of the Conservancy Environment.
-17-
The proposed project appears to be in conformance with development regulations
1 through 5. Regulation 6 is non-applicable; development of such facilities
is not proposed or practical in Lynch Cove due to the tidal range and extent
of intertidal flats. Regulation 7 is addressed in the Water section of this
E. I .S.
-18-
EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL,
AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Introduction
This chapter is an integrated discussion of those elements of the Physical
and Human Environment as identified in the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act Guidelines (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) , Chapter 197-10)
which pertain to the proposed project. A complete list of the elements
appears in Appendix D.
The existing conditions information presented here is based on known, avail -
able documentation (as referenced) and on original observations made during
site inspections from October 1978 through July 1979.
Impact predictions are based on comparisions with other known development
impacts (and referenced) wherever possible. For the most part, impact
prediction is based on the professional experience and opinion of the
impact analysis authors.
Mitigative suggestions are offered wherever appropriate. Due to the
speculative nature of the proposal , the master planning of a public project
subject to change with changing public interest and financing ability,
few design commitments are being made at this time. Decision makers
approving the project may wish to consider making permit approval con-
conditional on compliance with certain mitigative measures.
-19-
Elements of the Physical Environment
EARTH
Geology
Existing Conditions: The majority of the property is an alluvial tidal marsh
composed of peaty soils lying three to six (or more) feet thick over a dense
layer of grey (blue) clay. Drillers ' logs of water wells surrounding Lynch
Cove appear to indicate that the grey (or blue) clay layer is at least
(approximately) 100 feet thick and follows surface contours somewhat. The
clay layer is impermeable (Molenaar & Noble 1970) and retards percolation
of groundwater to deeper strata.
Impacts: Earthmoving activities are not expected to be of a magnitude that
would cut below surface soils and subsoils into geologic strata.
Mitigative Measv.res: None necessary or recommended.
Soils
Existing Conditions: The property can be divided into seven areas as shown
in Figure 5, based on soil , topographic, and vegetation characteristcs. Soil
and vegetation characteristics are summarized in Table 1; detailed descrip-
tions of the soils are in Appendix E. U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils
mapping (Ness & Fowler 1960) indicates tidal marsh soils on areas 7, 6 and
the northwest unforested corner of area 2. Koch Gravelly Loam is mapped over
areas 3, 5, and most of area 2. Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam is indicated to
cover area 1. None of these soils are described as having any remarkable
agricultural properties or value.
Impacts: There will be no substantial construction effect on the soils of
areas 7 or 6, or the westerly half of area 5. The existing soils of areas 4,
2 and the easterly half of area 5 will be surface stripped during initial
vegetation clearing and the subsoils covered with one or more feet of fill .
The soil and subsoil of area 3 will be excavated and used for fill elsewhere
on the property. The soil of area 1 will be excavated in places and used on
adjacent areas for fill . During earthmoving operations the more productive
surface soils are frequently mixed with subsoils and when placed as fill have
less than optimal ability to support revegetation. In area 1 some soils
will be covered by impervious surface (buildings, tennis courts , etc. ) .
-20-
— — — — � � Iiiiiitl. Iililil� titttta�
/ 11
I �
�o
O �
o °
7 4 o Roessel Road Co. Rd. 6966 F
o
Tidal Marsh
ppox. 50 Acresl
0 Existing
"gyp Embankment
o. m 19 rr
..� / CO
LYNCH 1 5 1
i
COVE /
/ S
V' —
r` J PFOJBCt:
l�✓J Northwest Environmental Theler Memorial Recreation Park
Consultants, Inc. Phase z
158 Thomas St., Seattle,WA 98109 Planning Study
Designer: Douglas Canning Date: Jan.,1979 Sheet: Figure 5
Drawn: Joellyn Shea Scale:° 50` 'ice Site Characteristics Map
Feel
Table 1 SUMMARIZATION OF CHARACTERISTIC VEGETATION AND SOILS
Area Biological Zone Soils Dominant Vegetation Area, acres
1 Uplands sandy, gravelly loam bigleaf maple, red alder, grasses 3.5
or fill material and upland brush and herbs
2 Alder-Cedar Swamp soft peat over compact, red alder, western redcedar, 5.3
silty clay angelica, rushes , buttercups
3 Brushy Fields sandy loam over loamy grasses , blackberry vines , scat- 3. 1
sand tered young red alders
4 Non-tidal Marsh black peat over dark aster, sedges , grasses , bulrush , 5.4
brown compact silt; nightshade, dock, cattail , and
dredged material others
5 Alder Swamp black silty peat red alder, angilica , ferns 1.7
6 (fenced) Tidal Marsh black peat over brown grasses , saltgrass , bulrush 3.9
silty peat
7 (main) Tidal Marsh black peat over brown saltgrass , sedges , bulrush , 52t
silty peat arrowgrass , pickleweed, and
others
Mitigative Measures: Construction specifications and/or contracts should
require that excavated surface soils be stockpiled on-site separately from
other excavated material , and that the segregated surface soils be used ex-
clusively as finish grade fill material . By so doing, the revegetation
potential of the altered areas will be maximized and the need for soil amend-
ments (fertilizer, etc. ) will be minimized.
Cut areas on the flat should be over-cut and back-filled with surface soils ,
particularly if sandy or clay-type subsoils are encountered.
Topography
Existing Conditions: With the exception of areas 1 and 3, the remainder of
the site surface is relatively flat. Average slopes of each area to be
developed are noted in the Description of Proposal . In general , the property
rises from the Union River and Lynch Cove low intertidal mud flats to a
virtually flat high intertidal (tidal elevation 11 to 12 feet) salt marsh.
Where the salt marsh begins a transition to uplands, the slope of the ground
steepens and rises through areas 3, 2 , and 1 to an elevation of approximately
50 feet long State Route 3.
The salt marsh is cut by numerous sloughs (Figure 5) which range in depth
from 0.5 foot at the head to four or five feet deep at the mouths.
The westerly edge of the salt marsh along the Union River is edged by a small ,
old deteriorated dike constructed by hand labor during the late 19th century.
This dike rises approximately one foot above the adjacent marsh, is two to
four feet broad at the top, and is breached in at least five locations. There
was apparently a similar dike along the south (Lynch Cove) shore which has
been totally eroded.
The land abutting the project site on the north is edged by a sound dike that
rises four to five feet above the marsh surface and is at least five to six
feet broad across the top.
The "L" shaped pond along the west and south edges of area 4 was excavated
in the marsh during the late 1940's or early 1950's , to a depth of three to
five feet. The excavated material was used to construct a dike around the
outer (westerly and sourtherly) edges of the pond. This "pond dike" rises
three to four feet above the salt marsh and is a minimum of ten feet broad
across the top.
-23-
Impacts: There will be no changes of topography to areas 7 and 6, the west
half of area 5, or the pond dike. Areas 4 and 2 and the east half of area 5
will be filled (see Description of Proposal for details) , area 3 will be cut,
and a mix of cuts and fills will occur on area 1. Most cuts and fills will
be in the one to four foot range with a maximum cut of ten feet. No gross
changes to topopgraphy will occur, except at the ten foot cut at the
southeast corner of area 3 (playfields A) .
Mitigative Measures: None recommended.
Unique Physical Features
The salt marshes of the project site and the adjacent Lynch Cove intertidal
mudflats should be considered a unique physical feature. Physical and bio-
logical descriptions are contained throughout this impact statement along
with impact predictions and protective mitigative recommendations.
-24-
Erosion
Existing Conditions: There is no evidence of surface erosion from the site.
The salt marsh sloughs appear to be relatively stable in a contemporary time
sense (decades) but are certainly erosional in a historical time sense
(centuries) .
Impacts: Some erosion is the inevitable result of any construction project.
Wind erosion is greatest during dry summer construction periods and water
erosion greatest during the winter rainy season. Water erosion is the more
serious problem. The effects of erosion are on-site soil loss and sedimenta-
tion of down-stream water courses and bays. A variety of techniques and
construction practices are available to minimize erosion.
Mitigative Measures: Construction specification and contracts should require
that no earthmoving activities take place during the winter rainy period and
further that exposed soil be stabilized prior to the onset of the rainy
season. Flat surfaces should be seeded with grass or a grass and clover mix.
Cut banks should be protected with jute matting in addition to seeding.
Earthmoving activities during dry summer months should be accompanied by
water sprinkling of exposed soils to minimize aerial erosion losses and en-
hance proper compaction of fill material .
Since some minor amount of erosion is inevitable even with the most careful
construction and operation practices , as much drainage as possible should be
routed to the pond bordering area 4; the pond could then act as a sedimenta-
tion trap. When detailed engineering plans are prepared for any development
under the proposed master plan, grading plans and drainage plans should be a
required component. Surface stormwater drainage from areas 1, 2 and 4, and
to the extent possible from areas 3 and 5 should be directed to the pond
in area 4 by means of surface channels or subsurface culverts. The first
step in construction following clearing should be the shaping of drainage
ways in conformance with the grading and drainage plans . Culverts and any
inlets should be installed at this time. As areas are brought to finish
grade they should have any recommended erosion control measures applied.
-25-
Acretion/Avulsion
Existing Conditions: Accretion and avulsion are shoreline processes of sedi-
mentation (building up) and erosion respectively. Both processes are occurring
at the project site and vicinity.
The grey clay layer, where it is exposed to Union River flow and tidal or
wave action, is slowly eroding. As the clay is eroded, it undercuts the over-
lying peat soils, blocks of which periodically fall into the Union River or
Lynch Cove. The process is most rapid along the Union River shore of the
property. The over-all rate is slow, probably a few feet a century.
The mud flats of Lynch Cove south of the property are accreting. The
source of the sedimentation mud is primarily eroded material from the Union
River watershed above Belfair. Eroded material from nearby salt marsh banks
is a minor contribution. The overall rate is slow, probably a few inches a
century.
Impacts: None of the construction or activities proposed to take place on the
property will change any of the existing accretion or avulsion rates. The
rate of avulsion along the Union River banks is not sufficiently rapid to pose
any danger to the proposed observation tower within the tower's expected life-
time.
Mitigative Measures: None recommended.
AIR
Air Quality
Existing Conditions: Air quality in the project site area, and the Kitsap
Peninsula as a whole, is good - to - excellent. The nearest representative
monitoring station is in Shelton, Washington. This station recorded suspended
particulate levels (micrograms/m3) of 34 in 1976 and 36 in 1977. These levels
are well below the Federal primary standard (75 micrograms/m3) and the Wash-
ington State standard (65 microgram/m3) .
Impacts: The principal air quality impacts that will occur as a result of
this project will take place during the construction phase. There will be a
-26-
temporary increase in the suspended particulate level due to dust. The
dust problem will be virtually eliminated once new vegetation cover has been
established. There will also be an on-site increase in automobile emissions
which will cause a slight and immeasurably low decrease in air quality.
Mitigative Measures: Soil wetting during construction should be practiced,
especially during prolonged dry periods, to help reduce the potential dust
problem. No other mitigative- measures are recommended.
Odor
There are no known sources of odor on the site or in the surrounding area.
The proposed recreational project will not generate any odors.
Climate
Existing Conditons: The climate in the area is typical of the Puget Sound
region. Mean annual precipitation (1930 - 1957) is approximately 60 inches
(Ness & Fowler 1960) .
Nothing of substance is known regarding micro-climate at the site vicinity.
Lynch Cove, being at the end of a ten mile long unobstructed stretch of Hood
Canal , is subject to frequent winds from the southwest. The forested edges
of the marshes buffer the uplands from the effects of these winds.
Impacts: Removal of forest vegetation will affect micro-climate slightly.
Near-ground temperature will increase a few degrees. Wind velocity will
increase.
Mitigative Measures: The property perimeter vegetation buffer recommendations
on the master plan (Figure 3) should be adhered to rigorously, not only for
visual screening and wildlife reasons, but also for wind barrier purposes.
Further wind reduction over the playfields , particularly fields B, C, and D,
can be obtained by planting along the slopes of the pond dike.
-27-
WATER
Ground Water
Existing Conditions: All low-lying areas of the site are affected by a high
water table. The grey clay layer which underlies the salt-marsh peat soils
apparently somewhat follows surface contours as it extends away from Lynch
Cove and the Union River. This grey clay is an impervious barrier to down-
ward percolation of water, thus creating a high water table. During the
winter, the water table is at or slightly above ground surface level in areas
2, 4, and 5. The water table level drops during the summer, to varying de-
grees, and probably remains within a foot of the surface.
The ground in areas 3 and 1 rises more rapidly from areas 2 and 5 than does
the grey clay layer. Saturated soils were never found in these areas. The
depth to the water table varies and is probably approximately ten feet at the
southeast corner of area 3 and in the western edge of area 1, rising to 30 to
40 feet at the eastern end of area 1 along SR3.
Groundwater flow is undoubtedly from east to west towards Lynch Cove.
Nothing is known regarding water quality; approximately a dozen residences in
the immediate vicinity are discharging septic tank - leach field effluent
into the groundwater.
impacts: Filling on areas 2, 4, and 5 will not affect ground water level ,
flow, or quality. To assure no effect on ground water level , fill material
should be sufficiently porous to prevent the wicking up (capillary rise) of
ground water into the fill material ; see Mitigative Measures.
The proposed earthmoving cut in area 3 is not anticipated to expose the water
table, although this could occur; see Mitigative Measures . Exposure of the
water table could result in seasonal flooding of playfields A.
Earthmoving activities anticipated for area 1 are not expected to have any
effect on ground water level , flow, or quality.
Sewage and other wastes from the community center facilities (area 1) will be
disposed of by means of septic tank - leach fields. This will result in the
regular addition of nitrates , phosphates , chlorides and bacteria to the groundwater.
-28-
No substantial secondary effects of these additions to the ground water are
anticipated. However, cumulative effects are inevitable (refer to Estu-
arine Surface Water discussion) .
Mitigative Measures: Engineering design of the fill material , depth , and
compaction for the construction of playfields in areas 2, 4 and 5 should
specify a fill material particle size range that will inhibit capillary
rise of the water table.
Engineering design of the earthwork for playfields A should investigate
water table depths in the area. Adjustment of the elevation of playfield
A to a level above the water table should be made if necessary.
Architectural and engineering design of the Community Center should be
coordinated from the beginning with local environmental health officials
to assure that adequate leaching fields are provided for the center's
finally selected uses . Regardless , at the building permit approval
stage, additional soils information (percolation tests and test pit
logs) will be required by county health officials for the actual leach
field site. Further, the leaching fields should be placed on the easterly
third of the community center parcel to maximize the vertical and horizon-
tal distance between the leach field and the area of high water table.
Surface Water Run-off
Existing Conditions: Precipitation falling on areas 1 and 3 percolates
through the sandy loam soils to the ground water aquifer. Precipitation fal -
ling on the remainder of the site through most of the rainy season, when the
water table is at the surface, runs off as surface flow. The surface flow
occurs as both sheet overland flow and channel flow in small swales and dit-
ches in a westerly direction. Continuous or near-continuous flow can be
found in a ditch-slough system along the south property line of the site.
Runoff from area 1, most of area 2, all of area 4, and an undetermined area
northeast of the site drains into the pond. Discharge from the pond is via
a culvert and tide gate at the southwest corner of the pond.
-29-
Water quality measurements taken in the pond during July 1979 show a pH range
of 8.7 to 9. 1; a dissolved oxygen range of 9.2 to 13.0 mg/l (milligrams per
liter; approximately parts per million) (oxygen saturation of 116 to 167
percent) ; conductance of 1000 to 4800 micromhos ; temperature of 19 to 290 C.
Water color (by observation) is tannic brown. The measurements are too few
to accurately characterize the pond. The high oxygen levels are due to a
luxuriant growth of submerged aquatic plants. The high temperatures are
due to a lack of shading and flow.
Impacts: The channelization of surface water runoff will result in somewhat
more runoff being directed into the pond from area 3 and the southwest por-
tion of area 2. This increase will be negligable as these areas will not be
covered by impervious surface and infiltration to the groundwater will
continue.
A substantial coverage by impervious surface will occur in area 1. The
conceptual plan (Figure 4) shows approximately 50 percent impervious surface
coverage by buildings, roads, tennis courts, etc. Precipitation falling on
impervious surfaces will runoff as surface flow.
! itigative Measures: Surface drainage from area 1 and all roadways and paved
parking should be directed across area 2 into the existing pond, which
would serve as a detention pond and settling basin. Ail surface drainage
discharges into the pond should pass through an oil and grease skimmer.
Clean-out and maintenance of the oil and grease skimmer should become a
regularly scheduled function of the school district maintenance programs .
-30-
Estuarine Surface Water
Existing Conditions: The project site lies adjacent to the head of Hood
Canal (Lynch Cove) and the mouth of the Union River. Hood Canal is charac-
terized by weak tidal flows, particularly in the eastern arm between Annas
Bay and Lynch Cove. Water exchange and flushing is extremely slow (Yoshinaka
& Ellifrit 1974) . A complete exchange cycle takes years, if not decades. A
review of salinity profiles developed by Collias, Mc Gary and Barnes (1974)
seems to indicate a stratified, low turbulance condition in Lynch Cove most
of the year, relieved by some mixing in late summer or autumn.
Surface waters of Lynch Cove are as well-saturated by oxygen as any surface
waters of Hood Canal . Bottom waters, however, are characterized as being
consistantly the lowest in oxygen saturation of the canal , frequently only
10 to 20 percent. Phosphate concentrations in Lynch Cove are the highest in
Hood Canal , frequently twice that of the central part of the canal (Collias,
et. al 1974) . Likewise, nitrate concentrations probably are similarly high.
There is not sufficient data known to be available to accurately characterize
the state of lower Hood Canal or Lynch Cove. The available data do indicate
the symptoms of an advanced condition comparable tc a lake on the verge of
eutrophication.
Tidal movement at the project site is considerable. At lower low tides,
the exposed mud flats of Lynch Cove often extend southwest at least 12 miles
in the center of the canal . At mean higher high water (11.8 feet at Union ,
15 miles southwest) , all but the northeast 20 acres of the tidal marsh (area
7) is flooded.
Impacts: The development of the Theler Memorial Recreation Park will not
affect the local estuarine waters in any measurable way. However, regulatory
agency staffs and elected officials should be aware of the cumulative effects
of all growth along lower Hood Canal . The existing high nutrient levels and
slow flushing of Lynch Cove make it susceptible to eutrophication. The
addition of excessive nutrients to the Canal via sewage disposal will induce
eutrophication and its symptoms : algae blooms , oxygen depletion in lower
waters, and changes in the composition of the microscopic flora and fauna.
-31-
Swimming pool water will have to be drained occasionally for pool main-
tenance. Drainage will be on the surface via the on-site storm drainage
system. Prior to drainage the required one part per million residual
chlorine in the pool water will be inactivated by reacting the chlorine
compounds (generally HOCL and OCL ) with sodium thiosulfate (Na 2S203' 5H2O) .
The resultant chloride ion, when mixed with theestuarine water of Lynch
Cove , will have no effect on salinity. (The major component of marine
and estuarine water contributing to the quality of salinity is chloride
ion, a wholly different substance from chlorine. )
Iritigative Measures: The use of fertilizers and/or pesticides on the play-
fields and grounds of the project should be severely restricted.
Floods
Existing Conditions: The entire site, except for areas 1 and 3, is subject
to infrequent tidal flooding during unusual tide and storm conditions. Tidal
elevations of the various areas are compared in Table 2. Mean higher high
water at Union (15 miles southwest) is 11.8 feet.
Table 2 TIDAL ELEVATIONS
Area Tidal Elevation Range
2 northwest -4 11.6 to 13.3
2 southwest 4 12.6 to 16.6
2 east 12 12.6 to 20.6
4 11.9 to 12.6
pond dike top 16.0 to 17.4
5 : 12.6 to 15.6
6 : 12.0 to 12 .4
7 : 11.0 to 14.4
-32-
Areas 2 and 4 are protected from ordinary tidal inundation by the pond dike and
the roadway embankment but are subject to flood tide inundation.
Impacts: The development of the recreational park will have no effect on
ordinary tidal movement. The playfields in areas 2 and 4 could conceivably
be subject to flooding under unusually severe combinations of high tide, high
river flow, and heavy winds from the southwest.
Mitigative Measu,-es: The access road through the lower recreation fields
from the pond dike south to area 3 could be raised to tidal elevation 16.0.
The nature trail boardwalk across the tidal marsh should be built to sustain
battering by occasional storm tide driven drift debris.
Public Water Supplies
There are no public water supplies at or in the vicinity of the site.
FLORA
Existing Conditions: The dominant flora of the various areas is character-
ized and correlated with soil conditions in Table 1 in the Soil section. A
detailed description of the flora of the site areas is provided in Appendix F.
In general , areas 4, 6, and 7 are herbaceous marshes, areas 2 and 5 are
swamps, area 3 is a brushy field complex, and area 1 is a highly modified
uplands.
No unique species were found.
The salt marshes surrounding Lynch Cove have been mapped as a "major salt
marsh" (Martinson 1976) of Hood Canal . Other "major salt marshes" identi-
fied on lower Hood Canal are those at the Skokomish and Tahuya River estu-
aries. The Lynch Cove salt marshes have been nominated for preservation by
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study of Hood Canal (Yosinaka & Ellifrit
1974) :
Lynch Cove is the only relatively undisturbed estuarine
marsh - mudflat shoreline remaining in the eastern arm of
Hood Canal . Much of it is in an agricultural or semi-
agricultural state. Destruction of a substantial portion
of this marsh has resulted from recent (1973) filling for rec-
reational development. Land on the north side of Lynch
Cove at the mouth of the Union River has been retained in
-33-
a natural state for recreational use and is under control
of the Washington Department of Game.
The site was diked for agricultural purposes 80 or 90 years ago but does not
appear to have been used for agricultural purposes for at least 50 years.
The Government Land Office survey field notes describe the north third of
area 7 as being used as a hay marsh in 1872. Subsequent to diking, the only
agricultural use was probably hay production.
Impacts: The vegetation of areas 7, 6 and the west half of area 5 will be
unaffected by the proposed development. The marsh of area 4, the swamps of
area 2 and area 5 (east half), and the upland fields of area 3 will be con-
verted to playfields planted with grass. Area 1 will be covered (50°0) with
buildings , tennis courts, and pavement. A summary in Table 3 describes these
changes.
Table 3 VEGETATION AND LAND USE TYPE SUMMARY
Acres
Vegetation Type Existing Full Development Change
Tidal Marsh 56 56 0
Non-tidal Marsh 5.4 0 -5.4
Swamp 7 1 -6
Vegetated Uplands 6.6 2.3 -4. 3
Playfields & Park 1 13.8 +12.8
Community Center 0 2.9 +2.9
The filling of wetlands (marshes , swamps, etc. ) is an issue that has
received considerable public and governmental attention in recent years ,
including a Presidential directive to federal regulatory agencies to closely
examine all proposals ;o fill wetlands . Wetlands are generally areas of
high vegetative productivity and contribute greatly, either directly or
indirectly, to wildlife productivity and diversity.
-34-
The principal vegetative or primary productivity value of wetlands bordering
Hood Canal is the export of food (vegetation fragments) to the Canal 's
estuarine waters. These vegetation fragments are critical to the food
supply of all the fish and shellfish of the Canal . Export of the vegetation
fragments from the marshes to the Canal is accomplished by tidal action:
rising tides that cover the marsh permit fish and shellfish to enter the
marshes and feed; falling tides sweep some of the vegetative fragments
into the Canal .
The wetlands proposed for filling are non-tidal wetlands and therefore have
a relatively low productivity value to the Hood Canal system. Little of
the productivity of the wetlands is now exported to the Canal , thus
little would be eliminated from the total productivity export to the Canal .
Mitigative Measures: Vegetation protection and planting are described in the
Description of Proposal , Noise, Light & Glare, and Fauna sections.
The impacts associated with wetlands filling could be avoided by condi-
tionally approving the project such that no construction, development, or
filling would be allowed in areas 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7. This would eliminate
playfields B, C, and D, the community park, and half of playfields A.
The effect of such a conditioning would be to eliminate any recreational
development value of parcel A, thus leaving the school district with
essentially no property to which the Theler estate development funds could
be applied. Application of the estate funds to a different site would
require breaking the Theler will ; this is discussed in the Alternatives
chapter.
FAUNA
Existing Conditions: The project site and vicinity contains a variety of
habitat types. Faunal use of the habitat types and the general area are
summarized in the text and described in detail in appendices when necessary.
The fisheries resources of eastern Hood Canal are dominated by anadromous
salmon runs in the Union River, Big Mission Creek and Little Mission Creek.
-35-
Coho and chum salmon are produced in all three streams, and a small amount
of chinook in the Union River. The best chum production is in Little Mis-
sion Creek, but the Union River has a higher potential . Coho and chum spawn
in the lower 6.7 miles of the Union River; the small chinook run uses the
lower two miles. The principal limiting factor in the Union River, aside
from stream blocking at mile 6.7 by a falls, is water diversion, primarily
by the City of Bremerton (Williams et al . 1975) . The Union River is also
used by steelhead trout (Martinson 1976).
Herring (Clu ea barengus) spawn on the Hood Canal shorelines and at the head
of the Hood Canal (as approximately defined by lower low tide) . The closest
herring spawn area to the Theler marshes is approximately one mile southwest
(Meyer & Adair 1978) .
Sea run cutthroat trout are found along both the north and south shores of
Hood Canal , from the mouth of the Union River southwestward for at least
six miles (Division of Marine Land Management 1977) .
The intertidal fauna of the Lynch Cove mudflats and Theler marshes was sur-
veyed for this report by a reconnaissance evaluation in June 1979. A detailed
description can be found in Appendix G. In general , the overall productivity
and diversity of the mudflats fauna was found to be quite low in comparison
to other south Puget Sound estuarine mudflats. Organisms noted as being
abundant included Pacific oysters, but these bivalves were associated with
abandoned commercial oyster rafts.
The entire eastern arm of Hood Canal is mapped (Division of Marine Lands
Management 1977) as a Pacific oyster culture area and oyster spawning area.
The easterly three miles of the canal , however, are also mapped as being sub-
ject to oyster drill infestation.
The recreational harvest of intertidal hardshell clams is a popular sport at
Belfair State Park, 1.5 miles west on the north shore of the canal .
The fauna of the marshes was found to be dominated by inset-S (Appendix G) in
June, and in July the density of mosquitos was quite high, p. -icularly in
area 6 and the upper elevations of area 7.
-36-
Small mammal trapping was conducted on the nights of 20 - 21and 21 - 22
July 1979 in the center of area 4, the northeast corner of area 6, and the
west center of area 2. No animals were caught. Small mammals (mice , voles,
etc. ) are probably present in areas 1 and 3. One possible explanation for
the absence of small mammals is the high moisture content of the soils . Also,
there is standing water throughout much of the alder - cedar swamp during the
winter months which may also prevent small mammals from permanently inhabiting
the area. Larger small mammals , such as raccoons, are likely present.
The presence of avifauna at Lynch Cove and the Theler marshes is described
in Appendix H from observations conducted primarily between October 1978
and July 1979 . With certain exceptions , the diversity and abundance of
the avifauna of the site and vicinity are approximately average for an
area of its acreage and habitat diversity.
Shorebird use the the Lynch Cove mudflats is less than would be expected,
although this may be explained by the generally low density of benthic
invertebrates found (Appendix G) . The low occurrence of Corophium spp.
(an amphipod) , a principal shorebird food article, is of particular impor-
tance in explaining this phenomena.
Few birds would be expected to make major use of the Theler marshes given
their frequency of tidal inundation. That more regular use by surface
feeding ducks was not seen during the winter is unexplained; the vegeta-
tion of the marsh (Appendix F) would seem to be conducive to regular
feeding by larger numbers . Present low use of the tidal marshes by ducks
may be due to previous hunting pressure in past decades . The use of over-
wintering feeding grounds and migratory rest stops by waterfowl is highly
traditional (Hochbaum 1944, 1955) . It is possible that the hunting pressure
was sufficient to drive surface feeding ducks from the marshes , thus
breaking the traditional use. Great Blue Herons are a prominent resident of
the marshes and the Lynch Cove mudflats.
-37-
I,-pacts: No impacts are anticipated for the estuarine or anadromous fish
of Hood Canal and the Union River, nor are there expected to be any effects
to the intertidal invertebrates of Lynch Cove or the tidal marshes.
Small mammal habitat on the site, such as may exist in areas 1 and 3, will
be destroyed by earthmoving operations. The 25 to 40 foot wide vegetation or
planting strips to remain along the edges of these areas will provide a small
amount of habitat.
The principal fuanal effect will be that on the bird life of the site and
vicinity. Great Blue Herons , which hunt and loaf on the Theler marshes, are
highly susceptible to disturbance and would be driven from the Theler marshes
by any major activity on area 4 playfields (B and C) . Likewise, ducks using
the pond and nearby marsh sloughs and shallow depressions would be driven off
by activities on playfields B and/or C. The habitat of Ruffed Grouse on the
site would be severly restricted and probably eliminated. A small portion of
the habitat used by Common Snipe, Killdeer, and Savannah Sparrows would be
eliminated with the filling of area 4, the non-tidal wetlands. Swallows ,
Robins, sparrows and other birds which nest or roost in the swamps or uplands
would have their habitat severely restricted. Use of the nature trail board-
walk would be a disturbance principally to Great Blue Herons and those ducks
which occasionally feed in the flooded Theler marshes during the winter.
As extensive use of the playfields begins, mid-summer complaints about twi -
light mosquitos can be expected. This could lead to annual demands for some
form of mosquito abatement, most likely the application of diesel oil or
organo-chemical insecticides to the marshes and the pond. The application of
any mosquito control insecticide to the marshes would have certain definite
secondary effects. Not only would mosquitos be killed, but so also would be
virtually all other insect life of the spray area. (See Appendix G for a recon-
naissance survey of marsh insect life. ) These insects form an important dietary
staple for many birds. Principally affected at the Theler marsh would be
swallows , nighthawks, sparrows (particularly Savannah Sparrows) , killdeer,
common snipe and blackbirds . Also affected, but to a much lesser degree would
be certain waterfowl and Great Blue Herons . Insecticide sprays could be washed
into the Hood Canal system by extreme high tide flushing. This would have no
direct effect on marine life , due to dilution of the insecticide in tidal
water; however, sub-lethal effects are possible.
-38-
ICE tigative Measures: Vegetative screening (Figure 3) should be planted as
follows : the outer and inner slopes of the pond dike should be planted with
willows and alders. This screening will provide habitat for such birds as
Song Sparrows, Red-winged Blackbirds, swallows , warblers, etc. , and a protec-
tive screen for herons and ducks using the tidal marshes. This screen will
also provide a windbreak for playfield B and C. When mature, this screening
should effectively shield playfield activities from the tidal marsh. Addi-
tional alder plantings for habitat enhancement could be done along the west
and north sides of playfield C.
The fourty-foot wide (minimum) existing vegetation strips recommended to
remain along the north and east side of playfield D, between the community
park and the community center, and along the east, south and west sides of
playfields A, should be adhered to rigorously. These vegetation strips will
provide not only habitat for birds and small mammals, but will also provide
wind breaks for the playfields and visual screening for adjacent properties.
The chance of mosquito nuisance complaints and requests for mosquito control
could be eliminated or greatly minimized if use of the playfields is limited
to daylight hours .
For a discussion of the implications of not allowing wetlands filling, see
the preceeding Flora section.
-39-
NOISE
Existing Conditions: There are no permanent noise sources on the property.
Upon occasion, the Retrievers Club, a local sportsmans organization , uses
the upper marshes around the pond for hunting, dog training and field trials.
At such times shot gun blanks are fired. The edge of the property along SR3
is presently used for baseball games (primarily Pee Wee teams) and a certain
amount of noise associated with those activities occurs.
Impacts: At full development, noise generation sources will have increased
from one baseball field to four or five playing fields, depending on how the
use is scheduled. Additional sources of noise will be associated with the
tennis courts and community center traffic.
Mitigative Measures: The vegetative screening proposed in the conceptual plan
should be adhered to rigorously for both noise and light and glare mitigation.
Construction noise can be mitigated to a certain extent by restricting con-
struction to normal working hours, use of adequate mufflers and installation
of temporary noise barriers.
Light and Glare
Existing Conditions: There are presently no sources of light or glare located
on the site. House lights and yard lights associated with the residences
directly to the north and east of the project site affect the easterly edge
of the site. Automobiles utilizing SR3 are sources of light and glare.
Impacts: The proposed project will increase the total amount of illumination
in the community center area due to the use of parking lot lights, and inter-
ior and exterior building lights.
If playfield lighting is installed this may have a significant impact on the
local fauna and on neighbors due to the high intensity lights normally used.
The neighbors will receive most of the impact during the spring and summer
when people normally participate in outdoor activities (e.g. baseball , soccer,
etc. ) . Also, most wildlife will avoid those areas which are brightly illumin-
ated.
-40-
Mitigative Measures: Standard illumination engineering and landscaping
techniques should be utilized to reduce the glare of parking lot and building
exterior lighting. Playfield lighting, if considered, should be restricted
to the fields in area 3, where it should be directed away from adjacent prop-
erties. Refer also to Appendix J for energy conservation mitigation.
LAND USE
Existing Conditions: Land use patterns in the site vicinity are dominated by
residential strip development along SR3, interspersed with home-occupancy
commercial activities. Two public uses, a library and public school , are
nearby. East of SR3 are forested ridges used for timber harvest. North of
the site are cleared diked fields formerly used as hay or grazing pasture.
Northeast of the site a mobile home park is under construction (Figure 3) .
The site was used in the past for agriculture (see Flora section) and pro-
bably timber harvest. In recent years it has been essentially unused save
for occasional recreational use by a local sportsmans club.
Impacts: The use of the site for community recreational facilities will not
affect local land use patterns.
Mitigative Measures: None necessary or recommended.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions: The principal natural resource value of the property
are the tidal marshes. There are no known mineral resources. Organic peat
does exist throughout most of the site, but it is not of an economically
exploitable nature.
Impacts: There will be a variety of renewable and non-renewable resources
used for construction of the recreational park. However, this project will
not cause a significant depletion of these resources in regard to regional or
state supplies. Refer to the Flora and Fauna sections for discussions of the
tidal marshes.
Mitigative Measures: No mitigative measures are recommended.
-41-
Elements of the Human Environment
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Existing Conditions: Past population growth and future population projections
for Mason County are given in Tables 4 and 5. The anuual growth rate for
Mason county between 1960 and 1970 was 2.8 percent, as compared to the rate
of 3.8 percent for 1970 to 1978. The higher growth rate for the recent years
is due primarily to three factors:
• spillover from Kitsap County due in• part to construction of
the Trident Base
economic growth in Mason County and Puget Sound area
• movement of people from urban to rural areas
Belfair in particular is closely tied in with the population fluctuations of
Kitsap County and has been and will continue to be affected by the expan-
sion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the construction of the Trident
Nuclear Base. The total population growth that will be associated with the
Trident Nuclear Base is approximately 2100 persons. About 3 percent of
this population increase is expected to reside in Mason County (Trident Fiscal
Impact Analysis 1977) .
There is a need for low to moderate income housing, as well as rentals, through-
out the county. However, there has been a significant amount of construction
taking place in the Belfair area in the last few years as a result of the
economic growth in Kitsap County (Mason Regional Housing Plan 1977) .
Impacts: Construction of the proposed recreational center will not have a
direct influence on the population or housing situation in North Mason County.
There may be, however, an indirect growth inducement effect due to the
recreational development.
Mitigative pleasures: No mitigative measures are recommended. •
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Vehicular Transportation Generated
Existing Conditions: The site presently generates occasional vehicular
-43-
Table 4. POPULATION GROWTH IN MASON COUNTY
Year County Population
1970 20,918
1971 21,100
1972 21,200
1973 21,500
1974 21 ,500
1975 22,200
1976 24,300
1977 24,600
1978 26,000
Source: State of Washington Population Trends
1978
Table 5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Area 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
North Mason* 6,660 8,190 9,100 9,920 10,740
Total County 27 ,540 31,830 34,750 37,370 39,890
*School District No. 403
Source: State of Washington Population Trends 1978
-44-
traffic at an erratic rate and schedule. Events occasioning traffic are
Pee Wee ball games held at the existingball field adjacent to SR3 and Puget
Sound Retrievers field trial events at the pond. Traffic generation does
not occur at peak traffic hours.
Impacts: Upon completion of the project as presently envisioned, trip gener-
ation would continue to have an erratic rate and schedule; however, the rate
would be greater and the schedule would be more frequent. Trip generation
would continue to be at non-peak traffic hours.
Mitigative Measures: Events should be scheduled to begin and end at times
other than peak a.m. and p.m. traffic periods.
Parking
Existing Conditions: Parking facilities presently available for Pee Wee
ball game events are sometimes inadequate. Some off road parking exists,
but parking along the SR3 shoulder is not uncommon during well -attended
games.
Impacts: The conceptual plan (Figure 3) shows parking to be constructed
along the internal access road past the playfields and community park, as
well as thirty spaces at the community center. Additional space for parking
is available at the community center.
Mitigative Measures: When architectural and engineering plans are prepared
for the Community Center, parking needs should be addressed to insure that
adequate parking is provided for whatever size and type of community center
is finally constructed. Playfields and park facilities on the lower portion
of the property along the internal access road should be constructed at least
thirty feet removed from the edge of the pavement to insure that adequate
space is available for any future parking needs.
Transportation Systems
Existing Conditions: The site vicinity is served by the road net shown in
Figure 6. State Route 3 provides access from Belfair to Bremerton to the
north and to Shelton to the south. In Belfair, SR3 connects with SR300 which
provides access to the northshore of lower Hood Canal and the Tahuya Penin-
sula. Approximately one half mile south of the site SR3 connects with SR106
-45-
G � I
G
s 3
t � l
Ln
Belfair
I
o
o°/
Project
s o�� Sate � 0� Beltair Elementary
,c School
5
Lynch
Cove
�o
!J
O�
�O
1�' o
00
L �
P 106
� P I
�O
O�
t
1
3
I
0 .5 1 Mi
Devereaux 0 .5 1 Km }
i Lake €
Figure 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVELS IN VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY
NEAR THELER MEMORIAL RECREATIONAL PARK - 1978
-46-
which provides access to the south shore of lower Hood Canal .
Recent average daily traffic volumes (ADTV) for selected locations along
SR3 are shown in Table 6 and 1978 ADTV's are plotted on Figure 6. Average
annual increase rates of ADTV' s in the area in recent years have ranged from
4. 3 to 8.0 percent. The data in Table 6 show that SR3 between SR106 and
SR300 may be approaching capacity; a detailed traffic engineering study
would be necessary to confirm this .
The current Washington State Department of Transportation six-year plan for
SR3 between SR106 and SR300 indicates only a proposed resurfacing of that 1.4
mile length of roadway during the 1983 - 1985 biennium. This maintenance
work has not been funded, and a funding decision will not be made until the
1983 - 1985 biennium budget is prepared. No other improvements to ,this
length of SR3 are contemplated for the 1980 - 1986 period.
Impacts: Vehicular traffic generated by the proposed recreational develop-
ment will affect primarily SR3, and secondarily SR106, SR300 and local county
roads. Trip generation will occur at non-peak traffic hours, therefore no
substantial effect to the local transportation system is likely. Minor
traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity of the project site is likely
following the ending of some sporting events. This congestion will be short-
lived and is not expected to coincide with ordinary peak traffic hours.
When the Community Center is constructed, an access to SR3 will be required.
Mitigative Measures: Events should be scheduled to begin and end at times
other than peak a.m. and p.m. traffic periods.
The use of the north entrance (Figure 3) as a vehicular access to the play-
fields and community park should be encouraged. This could be accomplished
by a number of methods:
• Directional signs along SR3 for the playfields and community park
should not be placed at the Community Center entrance, but should
be restricted to the intersection of County Road 6966 and SR3.
• The final architectural and engineering design of the Community
Center grounds should make inobvious the roadway connection
between the Community Center and the playfields.
-47-
Table 6 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME, VICINITY OF PROJECT SITE
Location 1975 1976 1977 1978
SR3 junction of SR106 3000 3250 3400 3600
SR3 junction of SR106 WYE Conn 4600 5000 5200 6000
SR106 junction of SR3 WYE Conn 2050 2200 2300 2400
SR3 junction of SR300 5000 5500 7400 7600
SR300 junction of SR3 WYE Conn 3500 3700 3850 4150
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation
-48-
• The internal circulation roadway could be posted as one-way
between the Community Center and the community park.
Regardless, the architect/engineer engaged to prepare construction plans for
the Community Center should coordinate their efforts with the State Department
of Transportation early in the design phase.
Movement/Circulation of People or Goods
Existing Conditions: The movement of people and goods in the Belfair area
is dependent on the private automobile (people) and private trucks and com-
mercial master freight carriers (goods) . No local public transportation
facilities are available.
Impacts: The development and operation of Theler Memorial Recreation Park
will not affect the movement of people or goods other than the traffic vol-
ume increases discussed above.
Mitigative Measures: None necessary.
Waterborne, Rail , and Air Traffic
Existing Conditions: There are no water, air, or rail traffic facilities in
the immediate project vicinity. The Kitsap County Airport is approximately
six miles northeast of the project site on SR3. Ferry service to Seattle
is provided in Bremerton, 12 miles north of Belfair.
Impacts. None
Mitigative Measures: None necessary.
Traffic Hazards
Existing Condtions: The recent traffic accident history of a two-thirds
mile segment of SR3 centered on the project site is summarized in Table 7.
The principal vehicle accident events are the collision of a vehicle with a
stationary road side object or accidents involving turning movements into
driveways.
Impacts: As traffic volumes along this length of roadway increase, the in-
cidence of traffic accidents can be expected to increase proportionally.
-49-
Table 7 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMARY
Date Incident
1 May 1970 Car - bicycle collision
28 June 1971 Two car collision
23 Sept 1971 Vehicle - utility pole collision
16 April 1972 Vehicle off road
28 Nov • 1973 Vehicle entering driveway
28 Nov 1973 Vehicle entering driveway
20 Oct 1974 Vehicle off road
24 Dec 1974 Vehicle entering driveway
27 Dec 1974 Vehicle off road
16 May 1975 Vehicle - utility pole collision
4 April 1976 Vehicle - tree collision
6 May 1976 Vehicle - tree collision
23 Feb 1976 Vehicle - building collision
14 Sept 1977 Vehicle entering driveway
1 Nov 1977 Vehicle overturned
25 Oct 1977 Two car collision
5 Sept 1978 Vehicle off road
9 May 1978 Vehicle into lake
Source: Washington State Department of Transportation
-50-
Mitigative 1,,easures: Given the proliferation of private driveways along
this length of SR3, the ultimate traffic hazard control device will even-
tually be the general provision of traffic signals or a center turn lane
from Belfair south to the project site vicinity.
-54-
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection
Existing Conditions: The proposed project is located in Mason County Fire
District 2. The closest fire station is located approximately 2 miles north
of the site in Belfair. This station is equipped with two pumper trucks
(500 and 1000 gallon capacity) , a tanker (1000 gallons) and two ambulances.
The district has a fire class rating of 8.
Impacts: Increase in public use of the proposed community center will increase
the demand on the fire department for fire fighting. Recreational activities
will increase the demand for medical aid and assistance. According to acting
fire chief Dave Hunt, the fire department is capable of handling the potential
increase in demand.
Mitigative Measures: Compliance with all fire codes will be required for
approval of the community center building and site plans .
Law Enforcement
Existing Conditions: The site is under the jurisdiction of the Mlason County
Sheriff' s Office. There is a substation in Belfair which covers the North
Mason County area. The Sheriff's Department currently has 13 deputies. For
the present Mason County population, this is 5 less than the national average.
Due to the low staffing level , the department operates on a response basis
instead of a patrol basis.
Impacts: The proposed recreational development will not add significantly to
the current demand; however, any increase will add to the work load.
Mitigative Measures: To minimize vandalism and trash dumping at the playfields ,
locking gates should be placed at the North Entrace and between the community
center and the cummunity park.
Schools
Existing Conditions: North Mason School District 403 is presently served by
two elementary schools. The newer of the two schools was constructed in
-52-
1969 and the older elementary school was remodeled in 1971. There is also
one middle school and one high school serving the district.
The north part of Mason County is the most rapidly growing area in the county.
This factor has had a significant impact on the schools. The elementary schools
and middle school are operating well above their capacity; the high school
enrollment is presently below capacity. Current and projected enrollments of Bel -
fair schools are shown in Table 8; operating capacity is summarized in Table 9.
Impacts: The proposed project will not directly cause an increase in school
enrollment. The proposed recreational center could have an indirect popula-
tion inducement effect which in turn may cause an increase in school enroll-
ment. Any increase in enrollment would add to present over-crowding.
Mitigative Measures: According to North Mason School District 403, the
district will require an additional 52,000 square feet for elementary school
use and 29 ,000 square feet for junior high use by 1983. A bond issue was
passed in June 1979 which will provide funds for the construction of a new
elementary school .
Parks and Recreational Facilities
A detailed discussion is given in the Recreation section.
Maintenance
Existing Conditions: There is presently little demand for on-site maintenance.
The Pee Wee ball field is maintained with volunteer help.
Impacts: The North Mason School District 403 will be responsible for main-
taining the playing fields , parking areas, and roads , as well as any buildings
or other structures constructed on the site. Any exterior lighting that is
used for the parking area and playfields will also require periodic maintenance.
This will add to the existing maintenance materials and labor costs of the
district.
Mitigative Measures: No specific mitigative measures are recommended.
-53-
Table 8 . CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS FOR SCHOOLS IN NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403
School Location Grades Enrollment Projected Enrollment
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Belfair Elementary Schools Belfair K 56 82 88 62 72 75 82 90 98 107 117 128
1 64 65 88 90 63 77 82 90 99 108 118 129
2 65 69 63 81 90 78 80 86 94 103 113 123
3 59 71 72 63 87 91 82 84 90 99 108 118
4 81 61 76 76 71 90 98 89 91 97 107 117
5 87 78 72 87 87 84 99 108 98 100 107 118
6 86 99 83 83 86 90 91 107 117 106 108 116
v, North Mason Middle School Belfair 7 83 106 110 96 91 99 102 103 121 133 120 123
-A
' 8 79 87 115 122 106 92 105 108 109 128 141 127
9 93 90 115 123 117 105 100 114 118 119 139 154
North Mason High School Belfair 10 87 85 95 127 116 137 108 103 117 122 123 143
11 95 79 84 95 101 101 127 100 96 109 113 114
12 53 84 68 91 73 81 88 111 87 84 95 99
TOTALS 988 1056 1129 1196 1160 1200 1244 1293 1335 1415 1509 1609
Source: North Mason School District 403
Table 9 OPERATING CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS IN
NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403
Projected
School Grades Location Capacity Enrollment* Enrollment 1983
Elementary Schools K-6 Belfair 331 519 1167
Middle School 7-9 Belfair 137 350 483
High School 10-12 Belfair 358 241 350
* Enrollment as of June 1976
Source: Project Envolvement: A Planning Study of Our Future. North Mason
School District 403
-55-
ENERGY
Existing Conditions: Presently, no energy is consumed at the project site.
Electrical energy is supplied to the site by Mason County Public Utility
District No. 3 as described below in the Energy section of the Utilities
topic.
Impacts: Development of the property will entail energy expenditures for
both construction and operations.
Readily available data on annual energy consumption for recreational or community
center complexes are lacking. Also, such factors as swimming pool water temper-
ature and volume, gymnasium cubic volume, and operational hours per day and
days per year will greatly influence energy consumption rates .
Based on surveys of a broad class of restuarant - recreation facilities (Skidmore,
Owings & Merrill 1977 ) , approximately 200,000 Br`,-�ish thermal units (Btu 's)
or approximately 60 kilowatt hours (kwh) per square foot (sf) per year are
consumed by such building occupancies . The Theler community center will prob-
ably have a lower operational energy demand of approximately 40 kwh/sf/year.
At this rate the proposed 25,000 sf complex would consume approximately one
million kwh/year. Swimming pool energy consumption would be some indeterminable
additional amount.
By way of comparison , energy consumption by detached single family residences
averages 28,370 kwh/year (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 1977 ) . One million kwh/
year is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of approximately 35 homes .
Mitigative Measures: Mason County does not yet have an energy conservation
policy or ordinance, although the development of such a policy is alluded to
in the proposed new county Comprehensive Plan. PUD No. 3 expects to have energy
conservation performance standards or guidelines within 24 months. Mason County
may wish to cooperate with the PUD in developing and promulgating those
guidelines .
Given the approaching deficit in energy supply availa`."lity (see discussion in
following section on Energy Utilities) serious considt ,-ation should be given to
conservation and efficient use of existing supplies and sources . There are
-56-
two principal ways to reduce demand on electrical supplies : one to increase
the efficiency of use, and two to substitute other supply sources as appro-
priate. A comprehensive survey of available efficiency technologies and
source substitution opportunities appropriate for this proposal are provided
in Appendix J.
UTILITIES
Energy
Existing Conditions: Electric power service is provided to the Belfair vicinity
by Mason County Public Utility District (PUD) No. 3 (main office : Shelton,
Washington) . The site is served by overhead powerlines now in place along the
east side of the property in the SR3 right-of-way. The district also has an
underground main feeder line which crosses the project site . This feeder
line delivers power from the district 's substation on SR3 south of the project
site, to the North Shore area on the north side of Hood Canal .
PUD No. 3 purchases 100 percent of its power from the Bonneville Power Admin-
istration (BPA) . As of 1 July 1983, BPA will no longer be able to guarantee
an energy supply sufficient to meet energy demand growth. At this time (1983)
available BPA power will be proportionally allocated to BPA customers . Power
supply shortfalls by local power distributors such as PUD No. 3 will have to
be met by purchasing power from other sources. In anticipation of the need
to seek additional power supplies elsewhere, PUD No. 3 is participating in
the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) . PUD No. 3 has an interest
in the WPPSS nuclear power plant construction program, as well as an existing
WPPSS hydroelectric facility at Packwood.
The construction schedule for WPPSS nuclear plants has suffered numerous
set-backs. The plants are currently expected to be on line as follows:
Plant Number Location Date
1 Hanford December 1983
2 Hanford September 1981
3 Satsop December 1984
4 Hanford June 1985
5 Satsop June 1986
This schedule can be expected to be set-back further due to design changes
likely to be required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to the
incident at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.
-57-
After 1 July 1983, PUD No. 3 will be able to draw on 6 megawatts from the 200
megawatt Packwood hydroelectric facility. The district 's share of the WPPSS
nuclear program will be 20 megawatts from plants 4 and 5.
PUD No. 3 expects to be increasing its monthly customer rates within the next
month or two. The Schedule 20 rate for facilities such as the proposed community
center-gymnasium is expected to be 2.35 cents/kwh for the first 15,000 kwh
and 1.28 cents/kwh for consumption in excess of 15,000 kwh/month.
Impacts: As described in the preceeding Energy section, the proposed project,
if built and operated as presently conceived, will generate an additional elec-
trical power demand of approximately one million kilowatt hours (kwh) exclusive
of the energy demands of the swimming pool . PUD No. 3 distribution lines in
the Belfair area are approaching capacity; service capability at the time of
development of the community center is not predictable ; however, due to the
lack of a firm development schedule. There is some doubt as to the availability
of power for delivery after 1 July 1983. Also, by 1983 there are likely to be
in effect U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration guidelines
for the distribution of power to non-essential consumers such as the proposed
project.
While not a part of the present proposal , it is likely that future interest
could develop in the provision of night lighting for some of the playfields
and the tennis courts. This would create some additional energy demand on
PUD No. 3.
Playfields development could result in damage or excessive burial of the under-
ground main feeder line if detailed design and construction are not carefully
coordinated with PUD No. 3 engineering staff.
Mitigative Measures: Energy demand of the proposed project on PUD No. 3 can
be lessened by following the recommended design practices and innovations
itemized in Appendix J, particularly the application of solar space heating for
the buildings and solar water heating for both domestic water and swimming pool
water. Solar space heating can supply from thirty to over fifty percent of
annual demand. Swimming pool water heating could be 100 percent solar with
shut-downs during periods of inadequate heat gain .
-58-
Solar systems can be effective in saving not only energy but also operating
expenses. At the currently proposed rates, annual power bills for one million
kwh would be at least approximately $15,000. By 1990 when power rates are
expected to be approximately five cents/kwh, annual power bills could total
$50,000.
Communication
Existing Conditions: Telephone service is provided to the area by Pacific
Northwest Bell . Pacific Bell is capable of providing service to the site.
Impacts: The proposed project will cause no significant impacts.
Mitigative Measures: No mitigative measures are recommended.
Water
Existing Conditions: The project site is located in Belfair Water District
Number 1. There is an 8-inch gravity fed water main along State Route 3
from which water is available. The water pressure is 120 psi .
Impacts: The proposed recreational development will use approximately 1000
gallons per day. This does not include the water that will be needed for
the swimming pool , which will be an annual one time use of approximately 50,000
to 100,000 gallons, depending on the size of the pool .
Mitigative Measures: Belfair Water District Number 1 is capable of handling
the water needs of the recreational complex. Therefore, no mitigative measures
are recommended.
Sewer
Existing Conditions: At present, no sanitary sewer lines or centralized sewage
treatment is available in the area. . All of the dwellings in the area utilize
septic tanks . There have been attempts during the past ten years to establish
a sewer district; however, these attempts have met with no success. Attempts
have also been made recently to establish several large community septic tank -
leach field systems, each of which would be used by several businesses or
residential houses . This too has met with no success .
-59-
Impacts: Refer to the Ground Water section for a discussion of leach field
impacts.
Mitigative Measures: Refer to Ground Water section.
Storm Water
There are no public untility storm sewers in the area; refer to the Surface
Water section for a discussion of storm water runoff.
Solid Waste
Existing Conditions: The area is presently served by Mason County Garbage
Company.
Impacts: Mason county Garbage Company has adequate facilities to provide
service to the site.
Mitigative Measures: No mitigative measures are recommended.
HUMAN HEALTH
Existing Conditions: At present, the project site mi _. , no demand on health
care facilities. Emergency medical treatment is provided by the fire station
located two miles north in Belfair, which has two ambulances. Patients are
normally taken to one of the health care facilities in Bermerton: Harrison
Memorial Hospital , Kitsap County Public Hospital , or the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard Hospital .
Impacts: A variety of accidents normally occur when people participate in out-
door and indoor sports. Potential accidents that may occur at the proposed
recreational center will not significantly add to the demand for health care
facilities in the area.
Mitigative Measures: No mitigative measures are recommended.
AESTHETICS
Existing Conditions: Views into the site from the north, west and south are
of a tidal wetlands. Views from the southeast, east and northeast are of an
-60-
upland forest or swamp which screens most views of the wetlands. Views out
of the site to the south and west are of Hood Canal and Lynch Cove; views to
to the northwest are of Union River and associated wetlands. Views to the
north and south are primarily of forested woodlands. Views of the east are
of State Highway 3, numerous single family homes and Belfair Elementary
Schools.
Impacts: The east half of the property is where all of the proposed con-
struction will take place. A majority of the vegetation in the area will
be removed during construction; however, peripheral vegetation will remain.
Therefore, views into the site from the north and south will be unchanged.
Views from the west will be altered from those of a tidal wetland and upland
forest to those of a tidal wetland with adjacent playfields.
Mitigative Measures: Recommended vegetative screening should be used without
exception to screen the development from nearby neighbors.
RECREATION
Existing Conditions: The majority of multi-use parks in Mason County are
state parks located on Hood Canal or south Puget Sound shorelines. These
facilities frequently experience overcrowding during the summer recreation
season. Stretch Point, McMicken Island, and Squaxin Island state parks are
accessible only by boat. There are a total of seven public boat launch ramps
in Mason County; two of them are located on lower Hood Canal near Belfair.
The majority of the freshwater recreation sites in the county are located on
the Olympic Peninsula , either in the national park or the national forest.
Mason Lake, which has both private and public (county) recreational facilities
lies soutwest of Belfair. The state Department of Natural Resources manages
its Tahuya Peninsula properties (west of Belfair on north shore of Hood Canal )
for multiple use, including recreation. In general , state parks and public
school facilities provide most of the community recreation facilities in the
county.
A Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan for Mason County prepared by Mason
Regional Planning Council and Mason County Department of Parks and Recreation
-61-
was released in April 1979. The purpose of the study was to provide a working
tool to assist 11ason County in the planning and development of parks and
recreational facilities and programs responsive to the needs and desires of
the people of the county. The study concluded (from a public opinion survey)
that the following prioritized list of facilities and programs are considered
most needed or desired:
Youth Recreation - programs and facilities
Bicycle Trails - coordinated with schools and parks
Adult Recreation - programs and facilities
Boat Facilities - launching and moorage
Swimming Pools - cooperation venture with school districts
Saltwater Beach - existing facilities overcrowded during summer
Picnic Areas - particularly needed near population centers
Indoor Recreation Areas/Gymnasiums - existing school facilities
inadequate
Hiking Trails/Natural Areas - coordinate with preservation of
natural areas
Fishing Areas - coordinate with state Game and Fisheries
departments
Freshwater Access - both lake and river access
Tennis Courts - coordinate with school districts
Dance Floor - limited development
Playground - coordinate with subdivision development
Ballfields - coordinate with school districts
Golf Courses - low priority
ORV Trails - low priority
Horse Trails - low priority
One of the objectives of the plan is to place undeveloped properties and
donated lands in a high priority category to expediate utilization.
The recreational amenities of North Mason School District 403 consist primar-
ily of state park and public school facilities (Table 10) .
A separate public opinion survey was conducted by the Theler Advisory Commit-
tee and Northwest Environmental Consultants in September and October 1978.
The purpose of that survey was to determine community interest and goals in
development alternatives for the Theler estate.
-62-
Table 10 EXISTING PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
IN NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT #403
Belfair Elementary School
Playing field (small ) and play equipment
Multipurpose/gymnasium room with basketball nets
Middle School and High School
Gymnasium
Tennis courts (2)
Tennis ban board
Football field (with bleachers)
Baseball/playfield
Potential Soccer field (cleared and leveled only)
Belfair State Park
Playfield (1)
Playground Equipment
Camping Facilities
Swimming Area (tidal pool )
Picnic Grounds
Twanoh State Park
Tennis Court
Camping Facilities
Boat Moorage and Dock
Swimming Area (tide pool )
Boat Launch
Picnic Grounds
Hiking Trail
Tahuya Multiple Use Area (Department of Natural Resources)
Campgrounds (7)
Hiking, Horse, and ORV Trails
North Shore Ramp (Port of Allyn)
Boat Launch
Sources: NEC 1978. Theler Recreational Site Phase I Report and Goals and
Public Opinion Surv.ey. Mason County Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Plan
-63-
Primary interests were determined based on a criterion of greater than 33
percent response to opinion survey items:
Multipurpose Community Recreation Center with:
kitchen/dining facilities
equipment storage lockers or rooms
rest rooms
meeting rooms
dance floor
indoor swimming pool
Outdoor Recreational Facilities :
nature trails & wetlands uses
baseball fields
tennis courts
picnic area
Secondary interests were determined based on a criterion of less than 33 per-
cent response, and greater than 200 response:
Community Center Features:
lounge with fireplace
Outdoor Facilities:
general purpose playfields
4H horse training arena
soccer field
lawn games, such as:
shuffleboard,
horseshoes , and
lawn bowling
Community recreational activities in the school district are presently charac-
terized by participation in school sports programs (Table 11 ) and the North
Mason County Pee Wee League (Table 12) . Participation in school sports pro-
grams is anticipated to increase at a rate at least equivalent to projections
for general student populations increase. Participation in Pee Wee League
activities has fluctuated and is reported to be limited primarily by the
availability of playing fields .
The project site is presently used for a small number of recreational activi-
ties, many of them informal . The Puget Sound Retrievers Club, a Kitsap
Peninsula sportsman' s group, constructed the pond and associated dike on the
property approximately thirty years ago. The group continues to use the dike
-64-
Table 11 PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS ACTIVITY IN
NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT #403
Current Projected
Activity Participation Participation - 1984
Pee Wee Sports 240 280
(Football , Basketball , Baseball ,
Soccer)
Jr. Soccer Association Boys 55 70
Girls Softball 75 95
Ladies Softball 20 72
Boys Boxing 40 80 - 90
Church Softball 18 48 - 50
Rugby NA NA
Tennis 120 150
4-H (Horsemanship) 13 20
Girls fastpitch 105 150
Gymnastics 79 90
NOTE: Projections based on extension of existing participation to total
student population projections.
Source: Superintendent Norman E. Sanders, North Mason School District #403
Table 12 NORTH MASON COUNTY PEE WEE LEAGUE
Number of Participants
Activity 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Total
Baseball NA 62 66 62 78 78 95 70 69 580
Football NA NA 65 70 72 70 65 57 NA 399
Basketball 50 52 NA 48 39 44 44 34 NA 311
Soccer NA NA NA NA 47 49 64 74 NA 234
Girl ' s Basketball NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 9 NA 22
Source: North Mason School District 403
-65-
and pond for training hunting dogs and conducting organized field trials. The
trial events are widely attended by participants from throughout the Pacific
Northwest and California. The marshes are hunted during waterfowl season.
Nothing is known about the level of use, although use is evident from hunter
debris such as spent shot gun shells.
Impacts: If fully developed to the uses proposed in the conceptual plan,
certain needed and desired recreational facilities would be provided to the
Belfair community: three baseball fields, a soccer field, two general purpose
playfields, a community park and picnic grounds , tennis courts, and a commun-
ity center consisting of a gymnasium/multipurpose wing, a swimming pool wing,
and a food service - meeting rooms core. Full development is not assured and
is dependent on the availability of funding and citizen interest. The monies
available from the Theler Trust will not be sufficient to pay for all proposed
construction. Playfields may be constructed with volunteer labor and donated
materials. A bond issue may be necessary to complete the Community Center
building program.
Full development of the playfields will preclude the effective use of the dike
and ponds for dog training and field trials by the Puget Sound Retrievers
Club.
Mitigative Measures: None recommended, see Alternatives.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
Existing Conditions: The project area has not been surveyed for cultural
resources. Given the project site location at the mouth of the Union River
and on the shores of Hood Canal , there is a reasonable probability that Native
American cultural resources are present in the area, if not at the project
site.
When the site vicinity section lines were surveyed in 1872 (Government Land
Office field notes) the northerly portion of the tidal marsh (then a swamp)
had been cleared for use as a "hay marsh" . At approximately the turn of the
century the shoreline along the Union River and Lynch Cove was diked with
hand labor, and the entire marsh converted to ae!•icultural lands , probably
hay fields or pasturage. Agricultural use ceased, probably in the 1930' s.
-606- 1
The existing road through the property was originally constructed as a logging
railroad.
Impacts: If any cultural resources are present in areas 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, they
will likely be destroyed or damaged during earthmoving operations.
Mitigative Measures: The state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
has recommended a cultural resources survey of the construction site (Appendix
K) . Project approval could be made conditional on the provision of a cultural
resources survey by the school district. The -Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation has "strongly recommended" such conditional approval in
their commentary in the Draft EIS.
-67-
ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Should no action be taken on the project by virtue of the denial of shore-
lines permit applications, the site would probably continue to be used as
at present. The Puget Sound Retrievers would continue to use the area
around the pond for dog training and field trials . The North Mason School
District, if it were to be able to use the Theler trust funds for development
of community recreational facilities , would be required to break the Theler
will in order to apply those funds to an alternative site.
Design Alternatives
Assuming a maintenance of the proposed intensity of development, no
substantially different design alternatives are practical . The community
center has been sited on the area best suited for it from sewage disposal ,
soil bearing strength, and access considerations. The playfields have been
sited on the remaining land, leaving the tidal marsh undeveloped. Changes
in design and development details are to be expected through time as com-
munity perceptions of need change.
Lower Intensity of Development
The principal issues raised by commentators during the environmental review
process center around the filling of the non-tidal marsh and swamp for
playfield development. The project scope could be modified to not fill any
wetlands on the site, and utilize only the ;elands for development. This ,
however, would leave only three to four acres of the 70 acre Theler estate
available for playfields . This course of action would have the same
practical effect as the denial of permit application approvals (see No Action
Alternative) .
Alternative Site(s)
Alternative sites for this project were not considered by the school district.
The Theler will is clear: the trust funds for development of the stipulated
play fields and memorial gymnasium are to be applied to the seventy gift
deeded acres. The project as proposed complies with the intent, if not the
-68-
letter of the will , by proposing to apply the trust funds to the seventy gift
deeded acres plus an adjacent five acres donated earlier by Sam Theler. It is
important to note, in this regard, that while Parcel A (70 acres) was gift
deeded to the Community of Belfair in the name of the School District for the
use of the community at large, this is not true of Parcel B (5 acres) . Parcel
B was specifically given to the School District for use as school facility
athletic and play fields in association with the public schools located directly
across the highway. By allowing Parcel B to be "annexed" to the Theler Memorial
project, the School District is abdicating total . control over Parcel B in
order to make the best of a difficult situation.
The application of the trust funds to the development of an alternative site
would require breaking of the Theler will by court decree.
In proposing this project, the School District is merely attempting to comply
with the intents of the Theler will and the wishes of the community. The
School District has received a legal opinion that should development be denied
for the seventy gift deeded acres, that there would be justification for
breaking the will . This action would enable the School District to apply the
trust funds to the development of an alternative site. An alternative site
is nct, however, held by the School District, nor does the School District
or the community have the necessary funds to purchase an alternative site.
Presumably, if the Theler will were broken, the School District could then
sell the seventy gift deeded acres and apply the sale proceeds to the purchase
of an alternative site. This would be difficult, if not impossible. The
clear implications of the denial of development permits for this project
would be the assured denial of development permits for virtually any future
development proposal for the site. In effect, the only value the land would
then have would be as a wildlife refuge, waterfowl hunt club property, or
state hunting range. Land uses such as these are not foreign to the Belfair
area. The state-owned Union River Wildlife Recreation Area lies less than one
mile north of the Theler property.
This does not rule out sale or lease of Parcel A to a hunt club or some similar
organization or agency. Another scenario might be a land exchange between the
School District and a governmental resource management agency or similar pri-
vate organization : the exchange of Parcel A for an appropriate uplands site
in the Belfair area.
-69-
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES
Conversion of a uplands/non-tidal swamp to that of a recreational area and
the expenditure of materials and energy for construction of materials and
energy for construction are the main irreversible resource commitments. The
amount of materials and energy that will be used will not be of a significant
amount. However, development of the site to that of a recreational complex
will commit the site to this land use for an extended period of time. Devel-
opment of the property will also require a commitment involving public ser-
vices.
-70-
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
-- OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Land that is developed (e.g. used for recreational complexes , residential
homes, etc. ) is seldom returned to that of a natural system. Conversion of
natural ecosystems to developed lands usually results in certain losses of
soils, vegetation, wildlife and habitat resources. The primary function of
the project site at the present time is its value as a natural ecosystem
providing wildlife habitat, oxygen production .as well as aiding in the hydro-
logical cycle.
-71-
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED
Earth
Soils in the eastern part of the site will be removed during construction.
Erosion will occur during construction.
Air
There will be some minor degradation of air quality during construction. Gas-
eous pollutants will also be contributed to the area by motor vehicles using
the site.
Water
There will be minor increase in stormwater runoff due to increases in impermeable
surfaces. Water which enters the Hood Canal may be degraded somewhat as a re-
sult of sediment, herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer compounds .
Flora and Fauna
Significant amounts of vegetation will be removed from 15.7 acres of the site.
Vegetation removal will in turn reduce the amount of wildlife habitat available.
Transportation/Circulation
There will be minor, but permanent, increases in traffic, particularly on SR3.
Public Services - Utilities
There will be increased demand placed on public services, as well as on utili-
ties. These impacts will be minor but permanent.
-72-
BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES
Collias, E.E. , N. McGary and C.A. Barnes. 1974. Atlas of Physical and
Chemical Properties of Puget Sound and its Approaches. University
of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
Department of Ecology. 1977. Washington State Air Monitoring Data.
Olympia, Washington.
Department of Transportation. Accident Data for SR3: 1970-1977. Olympia,
Washington.
Department of Transportation. 1978. Annual Traffic Report. Olympia, WA.
Hanna, G.D. 1966. "Introduced Mollusks of Western North America." Occ. Pap.
Calif. Acad. of Science. No 48. 108 p.
Mason County Regional Planning Council . 1979. Park, Recreational and Open
Space Plan for Mason County, Washington. Shelton, Washington.
Mason County Regional Planning Council . 1977. Mason Regional Housing Plan.
Shelton, Washington.
Meyer, J .H. and R.A. Adair. 1978. Puget Sound Herring Surveys. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington.
Molenaar, D. and J.B. Noble. 1970. Geology and related round-water occur-
rance, southeastern Mason County, ��.ashington Water Supply Bulletin 29) .
Washington Department of Water Resources. Olympia, Washington.
Ness, A.O. and R.H. Fowler. 1960. Soil Survey of Mason Count , Washington
(Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Series 1951, No. 9) . U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.
North Mason School District 403. 1976. Project Involvement: The Plan for
the Future. Belfair, Washington.
Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1978. Theler Recreational Site:
Phase I Report. Goals and Public Opinion Survey_ . NEC. Seattle,
Washington.
Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1979. Theler Memorial Recreational
Park Planning Study. NEC. Seattle, Washington.
Washington State Office of Community Development. 1977. Trident Fiscal
Impact Analysis. Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Division of Marine Land Management. 1977. Washington
Marine Atlas , Volume 2: South Inland Waters. Olympia, Washington.
Williams, R.W. , R.M. Laramie and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington
Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1 : Puget Sound Region. Wash-
ington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington.
-73-
Wiggins , G.B. 1977. Larvae Of The North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichop-
tera) . University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 401p.
Yoshinaka, M.S. and N.J. Ellifrit. 1974. Hood Canal - Priorities for
Tomarrow. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.
addenda
Hochbaum, H.A. 1944. The Canvasback on a Prairie Marsh. The American Wild-
life Institute. Washington.
Hochbaum, H.A. 1955. Travels and Traditions of Waterfowl . The University
of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis .
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill . 1977. Energy Conservation Choices for the City
of Portland, Oregon. Volume 3A: Residential Conservation Choices.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington , D.C.
-74-
APPENDICES
-75-
APPENDIX A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PARCEL A
Lots 38 and 39, Plat of "Sam B. Theler's Home and Garden Tracts" , as recorded
in Volume 4, Page 20, Book of Plats, Records of the Mason County Auditor.
PARCEL B
Lot 24, Plat of "Sam B. Theler's Home and Garden Tracts" , as recorded in
Volume 4, Page 20, Book of Plats, Records of the Mason County Auditor.
-77-
APPENDIX B
PORTIONS OF LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF SAMUEL B. THELER
ARTICLE III
I give, devise and bequeth to North Mason County School District, a political
sub-division, or its successor in interest, all of that real property abutting
and adjoining the present "Sam Theler" playground in Belfair, Washington , to
be used for athletic and recreational purposes and a portion of which real
estate shall be used for a gymnasium or recreation center as hereinafter
specified.
ARTICLE IV
(c) Upon the death of my sister, Clara M. Fisher, my trustee shall continue to
administer the entire trust estate and after payment of the portion of the net
income of the estate to the boy scouts and girl scouts, as above set forth,
shall accumulate funds for a gymnasium and recreation center as hereinafter
provided and shall in its discretion pay over and distribute any and all
accrued or accumulated income thereof at such times as it deems advisable to
the North Mason County School District, a political sub-division of the State
of Washington, for playfield and athletic purposes only. It is my desire and
wish that when said trustee has accumulated sufficient funds from the income
of my trust estate that my trustee, in its discretion either turn over suffi-
cient funds to said School District for, or cause to be constructed a gymnasium
or center to be known as the "Mary E. Theler" gymnasium or recreation center.
It is my further desire and wish that said School District own and operate said
gymnasium and/or center and to have full control of the same but that the
building be used as much as feasible for public gatherings and meetings. The
trustee in its discretion may expend such sums from the income of said trust
estate as it deems necessary and proper for the maintenance, improvements and
additions to said gymnasium or center, and if circumstances appear to trustee
and said School District to warrant, and if funds from income and capital
growth purposes are available, trustee may use or apply such funds for the
demolition of the original structure and construction of a newer one more
adapted to the needs of the community for any time being.
-78-
APPENDIX C
March 31 , 1978
Mason County ���lS�lltl-lO11
Board of County Commissioners Lx•a»rmuent
Mason County Courthouse
Shelton, Washington 93584 = --
SUBJECT: Shoreline Exemption dated March 22, 1978
Issued to NORTH MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dear Commissioners:
T±le subject eXcmptl0n 1,?S rPCe��'e for --vineat the Cnutti;`fit PoyiCnul
Office on March 23, 1978. A thorough review of the exemption has been
conducted. Department staff visited the subject property on several
occasions as part of our review.
:de understand that the proposal includes develo pmnent of at least 3 and pos-
sibly 4 play fields. Althouah notmentioned in supporting data, discussion
with tiason County's Planning Staffindicated that approximately 6,000 cubic
yards of fill material will be required to level and grade the fields.
At least 2 of the playfields are located within the Union River Estuary.
Although landward of an existing dike, this area appears to be %-,etlands and,
therefore, any development would be under the Shoreline Management Act's
jurisdiction.
This is an environmentally sensitive area and the proposal ' s possible adverse
effects should be fully evaluated. Although there may be some question over
the exact location of the shoreline jurisdictional boundaries in this area,
the exemption procedure does not accomodate such evaluations.
In reviewing the list of exemptions defined under WA.0 173-14-040 we find no
category exempting developments such as proposed. Although no cost of fair
r;zrl nt Val lUe eSti-m+nc I.;`-� inCl ded ;+k +L,e + •+ y 1 _1.�1
— .N.- �.V. LI. :.;I LnClilp U IUI1, l L. Is ricL i iNP ly
that this development ti•rould fall under the $1 ,000 limit.
Therefore �,,e cannot accept the subject exemption and hereby request that a
substantial development permit application be filed and processed for this
proposal .
-79-
APPENDIX D
LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(1) Every EIS shall have appended to it a list of the elements of the environ-
ment in subsection (2), (3) and (4) of this section. The lead agency shall place
"N/A" ("not applicable") next to an item when the proposal, including its indi-
rect impacts, will not significantly affect the area (or subarea) of the environment
in question. Items marked "N/A" need not be mentioned in the body of the EIS.
Subsections (2) and (3) of this section correspond in subject matter to the ques-
tions contained in the environmental checklist used for threshold determination,
and the questions in the checklist may be used to interpret this outline listing.
(Provided, this list of elements need not be appended to an EIS being prepared to
satisfy both the National Environmental Policy Act and SEPA.)
(2) ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL (3) . ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT. ENVIRONMENT
(a) Earth. (a) Population.
(i) Geology. (b) Housing.
(ii) Soils. (c) Transportation/circulation.
(iii) Topography. (i) Vehicular transportation generated.
(iv) Unique physical features. (ii) Parking facilities.
(v) Erosion. (iii) Transportation systems.
(vi) Accretion/avulsion. (iv) Movement/circulation of people or
(b) Air. goods.
(i) Air quality. (v) Waterborne, rail and air traffic.
(ii) Odor. (vi) Traffic hazards.
(iii) Climate. (d) Public services.
(c) Water. (i) Fire.
(i) Surface water movement. (ii) Police.
(ii) Runoff/absorption. (iii) Schools.
(iii) Floods. (iv) Parks or other recreational facilities.
(iv) Surface water quantity. (v) Maintenance.
(v) Surface water quality. (vi) Other governmental services.
(vi) Ground water movement. (e) Energy.
(vii) Ground water quantity. (i) Amount required.
(viii) Ground water quality. (ii) Source/availability.
(ix) Public water supplies. (f) Utilities.
(d) Flora. (i) Energy.
(i) Numbers or diversity of species. (ii) Communications.
(ii) Unique species. (iii) Water.
(iii) Barriers and/or corridors. (iv) Sewer.
(iv) Agricultural crops. (v) Storm water.
(e) Fauna. (vi) Solid waste.
(i) Numbers or diversity of species. (g) Human health (including mental health). N/A
(ii) Unique species. (h) Aesthetics.
(iii) Barriers and/or corridors. (i) Recreation.
(iv) Fish or wildlife habitat. 0) Archeological/histori,_al.
(f) Noise: (4) The following additional element shall be cov-
(g) Light and glare. ered in all EISs, either by being discussed or marked
(h) Land use. "N/A," but shall not be considered part of the environ-
(i) Natural resources. ment for other purposes:
(i) Rate of use. (a) Additional population characteristics.
(ii) Nonrenewable resources. (i) Distribution by age, sex and ethnic
0) Risk of explosion or hazardous emissions. N/A characteristics of the residents in the
geographical area affected by the en-
vironmental impacts of the proposal.
N/A
-80-
APPENDIX E
SOILS
This appendix describes surface soil conditions (to depths of up to 18 inches)
on the Theler Recreational property. Investigation methods were limited to
hand-dug pits in each section of the property.
Land (Area 1)
The upland area soils are a sandy gravelly loam to depths of at least 12 to 18
inches. Additionally some fill materials have been imported and dumped in
piles on the area. These fill materials range from loamy sands to sandy gravels.
AZder - Cedar Swa= (Area 2)
Soils in this area are also saturated to the surface at least seasonally. The
upper layer is a soft peat embedded with branches, roots and other woody mat-
erials. The lower sediments are a more compact silty clay. Hummocks of higher
elevation soils are present near trees or due to sediment deposition. Soils
in these areas tend to be a peaty loam, generally covered with 2 to 4 inches
of leaves and cedar needles.
Brushy FieZds (Area 3)
Soil profiles in this area consisted of a 1 or 2 inch topsoil covering of black
organic loam underlain by 10 to 12 inches of dark brown sand. The soils in this
area are generally moist, but not saturated.
LhLked ,'on-tidcZ Marsh (Area 4)
The diked non-tidal marsh is characterized by soft peaty marsh soils over much
of its extent. Dredge soils derived from the adjacent ponds have been piled
along the west and south edges of the diked marsh, raising these areas above
the water table. Other isolated patches in the marsh also have dry soils due
to elevation differences.
The basic diked marsh soils are a soft black peat, overlying a firmer brown-
black compact silt. This is similar to the first profile observed in the tidal
-81-
marsh. In the diked marsh, however, the sediments are softer and the surface
layer is deeper in places (6 to 12 inches) .
Alder Swa= (Area 5)
The alder swamp adjoining the tidal marsh has similar characteristics to the
marsh, but the soils are less densely packed and appear blacker. The organ-
ic material in the top soil layers (0 to 12 inch depth) are a woody mat rather
than the herbaceous root mat found in the marsh. Alder swamp soils can be
characterized as a silty black peatlike mixture with a high wood content.
These soils were found to be highly saturated during field investigations.
Water table is at the surface much,if not all ,of the year.
TidaZ Marsh (Areas 6 and 7)
The tidal marsh which comprises most of the property consists of at least two
variations of a solid silty peat substrate:
• A layer of black peat intermixed with roots of herbaceous vege-
tation (0 - 6" depth) underlain by a dark brown silty peat
containing pea sized gravels (below 6") .
e A dense, solidly packed dark brown peat extending at least to
depths of 18 inches.
Tidal guts and channels draining the marsh show one or the other of these
cross sections. In general , the peat is fairly uniform in composition from
depths of 6 inches to five feet. The fenced tidal marsh (Area 6) has identi-
cal soil profiles to the outer marsh areas (Area 7) .
-82-
APPENDIX F
VEGETATION
Vegetation surveys were conducted during October and November, 1978. It
should be noted that this is a less than ideal season to conduct vegetation
studies, as most species have died by this time, making identification diffi-
cult. Other species which died very early in the year and had decayed already
were, of course, not identified at all .
UpZand (Area 1)
The upland area is within the five acre parcel . It is partly occupied by a
baseball field with little vegetation cover. The western portion of Area 1
is an open field bordered on the north and south by a few alder and bigleaved
maple trees (Acer macrophyllum) . Indian plum (Osmaronia cerasiformis) ,
bracken and sword ferns are also found around the border. The field is a mixed
composit of upland grasses, dock, plantain, dandelion, and a number of upland
perennial and annual weedy species.
AZder - Cedar Swawp (Area 2)
This swamp is divided from the diked marsh by the roadbed of a dirt road. The
dominant plants are red alder (Alnus rubra) and western redcedar (Thuja 1p ica-
ta) . These dominants are well developed with cedars in the 40 to 60 foot
height range, and alders being 80 to 90 feet tall . The alder and cedar are
roughly co-dominant, each species covering about 50 percent of the canopy.
The brush and ground cover plants are moderately diverse in number and include
devils club (Herculus horidium) , skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) , bracken
fern (Pteridium aquilinum) , angelica (Angelica genuflexus) , salmonberry ( Rubus
spectibilis) , red elderberry (Sambucus arborescens) , and pacific blackberry
(Rubus ursinus) . The brush layer is generally moderately dense with most of
the plants growing on higher elevation hummocks.
Brushy FieZds (Area 3)
The field area on the south side of the property is characterized by uplands
grasses ( few of which were identifiable during field surveys due to lack of
seed) , annual herbs (dandelion, dock, plantain) and a few scattered 1 to 3
year old red alders. The area is bordered by a dense tangle of blackberry
-83-
vines on the south and east sides and the alder swamp to the west.
Diked 9arsh (Area 4)
The dikes which were created inside the upper tidal marsh form a barrier to
tidal influence. A dredged pond exists bordering the dike on the inside. A
tidegate provides a minor amount of water exchange from the tidal marsh, which
is probably responsible for some salt or brackish influence into the diked
marsh. Both dike vegetation and marsh vegetation are discussed below.
Dike Vegetation: The dike supports a mixture of upland grasses and weedy
species in addition to the few individual or clumped willow trees (Salix spp. ) .
The grasses include velvetgrass (Holcus sp. ) and fescue (Festuca sp. ) . Other
plants include thistle (Cirsium vulgare) , dandelion (Taraxacum officionale) ,
plantain (Plantago spp. ) , dock (Rumex crispus) and clover (Trifollium spp. ) .
These plants are all characteristic of upland areas. In addition, several
types of blackberry (Rubus spp. ) are found scattered along the dike.
Marsh Vegetation: The marsh behind the dike and ponds is, in some respects,
a transition zone, although wetland vegetation is dominant. Isolated dry
areas higher than the rest of the marsh result in transitions between marsh
and upland vegetation in places. The marsh's saltwater influence is apparently
minor, but sufficient to result in patches of both brackish tolerant and fresh-
water plants in a somewhat random fashion.
The few upland plants found in the marsh are grasses (Phalaris sp. , Holcus sp. ) ,
nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) , thistle (Circium vulgare) and rose (Rosa nut-
kana) . The other plants are characteristic of brackish - freshwater marshes
with hairgrass (Deschampsia sp. ) , aster (Aster suspicatus) , silverweed (Poten-
tilla pacifica) ,dock (Rumex brittancia) , angelica (Angelica lucida) , orache
(Atriplex atula) and rush (Juncus effusus) being the main species. Due to
the patchy nature of the marsh, all of these plants are co-dominant to varying
degrees, although the aster appears dominant because of its height. Addition-
ally, there are patches of bulrush (Scir us vali� js) and cattail (Typha lati-
folia) in one area. There is also a saltgrass clamp (Distichlis s ip�cata) near
the pond edge. Apparently there was salt influence during recent periods
when the tidegate was non-functional .
-34-
'Zder Swamp (Area 5)
This area is characterized by a stand of alders in a moist, bottomland situ-
ation, kept damp by upland runoff. The area is not protected by dikes , but
is of sufficient elevation to be effected only by abnormally high spring tides.
The understory is clear of vegetation with only a scattered groundcover of
angelica (Angelica genuflexus) and swordfern (Polystichum munitum) .
TidaZ Marsh (Area 6)
This section is a portion of the high marsh which was originally fenced. Vege-
tationally it is identical to the high marsh in Area 7, except that this high
marsh grades into alder swamp rather than dikes at its upper edge.
Tidal Marsh (Area 7)
This area comprises roughly 52 acres of tidally influenced wetland. Such
marshes are under permit jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as
well as state agencies through the Shorelines Management Act. The marsh bor-
ders Hood Canal on the west and south. To the north it is bordered by a dike
on adjacent farm property. To the northeast a dike separates the tidal marsh
from some duck ponds and a non-tidal marsh. The tidal marsh can be divided
into upper and lower marsh areas, the former being close to the dike and the
latter characterizing the outer marsh.
The upper marsh begins at the base of the dike and is elevationally 6 to 24
inches higher than the low marsh. The upper marsh is characterized by salt-
grass (Distichlis s icata) as the dominant plant, with bulrush (Scirpus mari-
tima and S. fluviatilus) acting as a dominant in small patches. These are
intermixed with occasional specimens or patches of orache (Atriplex atula) ,
arrowgrass (Triglochin maritium) , dulichium (Dulichium arundinaceum) , reedgrass
(Calamagrostis sp. ) and smartweed (Polygonum spp. ) . Scattered specimens of
water starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica) , sneezeweed (Helenium autunmale)
and lance leaved violet (Viola lanceolata) occur. Sedges (Carex spp. ) gener-
ally line the tidal sloughs or areas at the base of the dikes.
The lower tidal marsh grades gradually from the upper marsh. Since the domin-
ant plant is still saltgrass , there are not sharp boundaries of this zone.
The lower marsh can be distinguished, however, by the disappearance of orache,
-85-
dulichium, reedgrass, sneezeweed and several annuals. The lower marsh is also
distinguished by a higher prevalence of arrowgrass and the appearance of
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) . The lower marsh is bordered in some places
on the west and south by an old, mostly decayed dike containing grasses and
weedy species similar to those described for the inner dikes (Area 4) .
-86-
APPENDIX G
LYNCH COVE AND THELER MARSHES
INTERTIDAL FAUNA RECONNAISSANCE
9 June 1979
Robert J. Wisseman
TIDAL FLATS: General
An extensive set of intertidal mudflats occupies the head of Lynch Cove.
The slope of these flats is virtually 0 %, but rises perceptibly near the
saltmarsh edge. Fine grain mud comprises the substrate of the main flats.
Anoxic conditions (black mud) prevail below 1 cm depth. This mud is vir-
tually free of organic debris (i .e. plant litter, bark, shells) . A band of
firmer silt/fine sand borders the salt marsh edge.
Oyster rafts (remnants of a commercial operation) are widely scattered on
the intertidal flats. These usually rise approximately 0.3 meters above the
surrounding mud.
Several shallow, poorly developed drainage sloughs issue from the marsh and
cross the flats.
Nludflat Infauna: Infaunal diversity and productivity of the main mudflats is
low. The total biomass is significantly lower than similar type substrates
found in southern Puget Sound. Salinity is probably a limiting factor here,
although one would expect a few resistant species to be prolific (i .e. Macoma,
Corophium, or various polychaetes) .
Ghost shrimp (Calianassa spp. ) were present, but in low numbers (<five bur-
rows/m2) . Callianassa burrows are important in that they provide an oxygen-
ated habitat for other infaunal invertebrates.
Clams were restricted to low densities of Macoma balthica and Macoma nasuta.
Spent shells of Mya grenaria and Clinocardium nuttalli were found, but no
living specimens. Polychaetes were virtually nonexistent, and were restricted
to a few Glycerids and a Nereis found.
Sieving of surficial material produced Corophium salmonis and Corophium
insidiosum, but in low numbers. These amphipods are ubiquitous estuarine
-37-
mud flat organisms. Large concentrations of Corophium spp. were expected to
be found, as well as other lower crustaceans such as Cumuceans and Tanaids.
None of the latter were found.
Two cephalaspideans (Haminoea vesicula and Retusa sp. ) occurred on the mud
surface. A mussel , Modiolus senhousei (Benson) occurs rarely on the mud
surface. This is an introduced species from the Orient (probably brought
in with oysters) . It has thus far only been reported from Samish Bay in
Puget Sound waters (Hanna 1966) .
Oyster FZats: These concentrations of Pacific/Japanese oysters (Crassotrea
gigas) provide oases of solid substrate for other invertebrates. Barnacles
(Balanus glandula) and mussels (Mytilus edulis) form heavy encrusting masses
on the oyster shells. Invertebrate species found within these masses are:
Neme rtea Paranemertes peregrina abundant
Nemertea rare
Mol1usca Notoacmea ersona rare
Crepipatella lingulata rare
Collisella strigatella rare
Littor-Ina scutulata common
Mytilus edulis abundant
Crustaceans Balanus gladula abundant
Hyale plumulosa common
Guorimosphaerona oregonense rare
Polychaeta Glycera sp. common
Cnidaria Epiactus prolifera common
Pools at the bases of these rafts contained Crangon franciscorum and Ampithoe
iacertosa.
Drainage sloughs crossing the flats contained small patches of eelgrass (Zos-
tera marina) . Crangon franciscorum (a shrimp) , Ampithoe lacertosa (amphipoda) ,
and stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus) utilize this eelgrass for cover.
Elsewhere in the sloughs , a few Hemigrapsus oregonensis, Crangon, sticklebacks ,
and juvenile cottids (Leptocultus armatus) are found. Seasonal and floodtide
immigration of other crustaceans and fish (particularly perch species and
starry flounder) is expected.
-83-
L;o er ewe Flats: The flats adjacent to the salt marsh, as previously stated,
are of a firmer silt/fine sand. They end abruptly with the saltmarsh bank
(1 - 1.5 m high bank).
Spent shells from a significant part of the substrate. Clams are abundant
here, Mya arenaria (soft-shell clam) being dominant, along with occasional
Macoma balthica and Tapes japonica. Polychaetes are rare. Abarenicola Paci-
fica is the only conspicuous species.
Modiolus ? senhousei , Corophium insidiosum, Ampithoe lacertosa, and Crangon
franciscorum were inhabitants of the surface of this area. Hemigrapsus ore-
onesis could be found under debris and salt marsh peat.
One specimen of an unknown Tanaidacea (probably Tanais sp. ) was found. This
tanaid has been found in other inland waters of Puget Sound, but has not been
adequately described. It may be associated with the importation of oysters.
A particularly conspicuous component of the epifauna of this silty portion
is Batillaria zonalis (Bruguiere) . This gastropod was introduced into the west
coast along with oysters (Hanna 1966) . Its distribution is not well docu-
mented and has not been previously reported from Lynch Cover or Hood Canal .
Algae coverage was limited to few scattered patches of Enteromorpha sp. , Ulva
sp. , and Navicula sp. Since field work was conducted in early summer, the
height of the seasonal algae bloom had not been achieved.
TidaZ FZats: Summary Discussion
Overall productivity and diversity of the benthos of these flats is extremely
low; except on the scattered oyster rafts, and a narrow band near the salt
marsh. Since this area was sampled at the end of a minus tide (midday) cycle,
during very hot weather, it is expected that many of the mobile crustaceans
had migrated out with the tide. Seasonal sampling may well show there to be
higher populations of epifaunal crustaceans on these flats.
The old oyster rafts and softshell clams are of recreational value.
SALT MARSH
Insects dominated the invertebrate fauna of the salt marsh surface and vege-
tation. Arachnids (spiders of numerous species) and mites (Halacardae) were
-5�-
also well represented. Pincipal insect groups were:
Hemiptera: Sadidae (2 species)
Orthoptera (grasshopper)
Diptera: Sciomyzidae (Marsh flies)
Brachycera (Flies)
Culicidae (Mosquitos)
Homoptera : Cicadellidae (Leafhoppers)
Thysanoptera (Trips)
Trichoptera (Caddis flies)
Odonata (Dragon and damsel flies)
The presence of Trichoptera larvae here is noteworthy. This being an un-
usual habitat for caddis flies (normally a freshwater/aquatic order) . Liter-
ature confirming the existence of Trichoptera in saltmarshes was not found.
The larvae could not be placed taxonomically even at the family level (Wiggins
1977) . This larvae is undergoing futher research at this time.
Phytia myosotis, a pulmonate snail , was the only additional macroinvertebrate
found within the saltmarsh vegetation.
Dragonflies and damselflies were common in the air space above the marsh.
Most of these natural predators of mosquitos breed in the artificial L-shaped
pond found on the eastern verge of the saltmarsh.
SaZt Marsh Pans: The pans were nearly dry when the field work was conducted.
They still supported large populations of juvenile sticklebacks (Gasterasteus
aculeatus) . A few oligochaetes and (rarely) Glycerid polychaetes were found
in the benthos of these pans. The bottom substrate is composed of plant litter
and anoxic mud.
These pans have an extremely harsh aquatic environment (low dissolved oxygen,
high salinity variation, and wide temperature range) . Very high tidal cycles
may temporarily fill these pans with ephemeral species (particularly crusta-
ceans) ; but only a few species are completely adapted to these pans (i .e. ,
oligochaetes, algae, and diatoms) .
Marsh sZovghs: Sloughs within this marsh are weakly developed, the maximum
depth and width being on the order of 1.5 meters. An occasional patch of eel -
grass (Zostera) is found on the slough bottoms. The bentic substratum is
-90-
composed of plant litter and mud (anoxic) . Sieving of this material produced
no invertebrates. Hemigrapsus oregonensis (shore crab) and sticklebacks were
found here during low tide. Flood tides undoubtely bring an influx of other
crustaceans (Amphipoda, shrimp, Mysids) and fish (Cottids) .
-�1-
APPENDIX H
LYNCH COVE AND THELER MARSH AVIFAUNA
Douglas J. Canning
The following notes summarize observations made in March, October, and
November 1978 and February, March, April , June and July 1979. Comparisons
with other areas, when drawn, are with the Gorst estuary, Port Orchard inlet
(Kitsap County) , Kennedy Creek estuary, Oyster Bay (Mason County) , and Nis-
qually National Wildlife Refuge (Thurston County) , as well as with the
remainder of the east area of Hood Canal .
GREBES
Horned Grebes, moderately common throughout Hood Canal as a wintering bird,
were seen in Lynch Cove only once. Western Grebes, which commonly occur in
rafts of 100 or more in Hood Canal and in rafts of 1000 or more on Annas Bay,
were infrequently seen in Lynch Cove during the winter. The largest group
seen was 50 birds in April 1979.
CORMORANTS
Double-crested Cormorants, frequently seen on Hood Canal as individuals or
in small groups, were not seen at Lynch Cove.
HERONS
Great Blue Herons are resident at the Lynch Cove saltmarshes. They are always
to be found loafing or hunting in the saltmarshes on either bank of the river
and hunting in Lynch Cove. The maximum population observed was 12 birds in
July 1979. Their roosting site(s) was not located, but probably lies in the
nearby Douglas-fir forests on the Hood Canal canyon slopes .
SURFACE FEEDING DUCKS
Mallards are resident in Lynch Cove and apparently roost in the saltmarshes
on the north side of the river. They commonly are found in small numbers
(1 to 4 birds) on the Theler pond. Over-wintering and migrating ducks are
not consistantly found at Lynch Cove. Two thousand ducks, principally Pin-
tail , are reported to have been on the flooded Theler Marshes in January 1979.
-92-
A flock of approximately 40 Green-winged Teal appear to have wintered on
Lynch Cove. American Wigeon, a common bird at Annas Bay , was seen only
once at Lynch Cove.
DIVING DUCKS
A variety of diving ducks, Canvasbacks, Greater Scaups, Common Goldeneyes,
Buffleheads, and Surf Scoters, were found fairly regularly on Lynch Cove
throughout the winter, their total population ranging from 20 to 70 birds.
MERGANSERS
In June a female Common Merganser with eight ducklings drifted down the Union
River into Lynch Cove. The young were raised and fledged in the cove.
HAWKS, ETC.
Two Bald Eagles were seen hunting over Lynch Cove in February, a common sight
at many Hood Canal estuaries at this time of the year. No hawks were seen at
Lynch Cove or vicinity, although raptor pellets were found on the Theler
marshes and dikes throughout the winter.
GROUSE, ETC.
Ruffled Grouse (6 to 8) were flushed from the brush of the Theler swamps and
uplands in October 1978 and July 1979 and presumably are resident in the area.
RAILS, ETC.
American Coots, a bird commonly seen in small numbers elsewhere on Hood Canal ,
was seen only once at Lynch Cove in February 1979 as a flock of ten.
SHOREBIRDS
Killdeer were seen or at least heard at the Theler marshes throughout the win-
ter, spring and summer of 1979, and presumably one or two pair nested in the
vicinity. Common Snipe were found in the marshes during fall and spring mi -
grating periods. Peeps (Western or Least Sandpipers) were seen in flocks of
200 to 400 birds feeding on the Lynch Cove mud flats at irregular intervals
from February through July 1979. These flocks are of small to average size
in comparison to flocks observed elsewhere on the same days. Three Greater
-93-
Yellowlegs were seen once (April 1979) in migration.
GULLS
Approximately 100 juvenile and young adult Glaucous - winged Gulls were resi-
dent at Lynch Cove throughout the observation period. They commonly loaf at
the mouth of the Union River and occasionally feed on the Lynch Cove flats.
During the winter Bonapartes Gulls (20 to 50) were seen mixed with the Glaucous-
winged Gulls.
OWLS
No owls were seen or heard during the observation period (including two nights
of small mammal trapping) , although unidentified raptor scats were occasionally
found.
GOATSUCKERS
Two Common ;!ighthawks could be seen nightly in July 1979 taking insects
(mostly mosquitos) over the Theler marshes and pond. They likely roosted in
the adjacent alder - cedar swamp.
KINGFISHERS
A Belted Kingfisher was seen at Lynch Cove at intervals throughout the obser-
vation period and is presumably resident in the area. It was seen hunting over
Lynch Cove, the Theler marsh pans and sloughs, and the Theler pond.
WOODPECKERS
The only evidence of woodpeckers in the area was the partially eaten carcass
of a Common Flicker found on the Theler pond dike.
SWALLOWS
The swallow flocks that hawk over the Theler marshes and Lynch Cove are domin-
ated by Barn Swallows, with lesser numbers of Tree Swallows and Violet-green
Swallows. The Barn Swallow likely nested in near-by sheds, barns, and aban-
doned houses. The Tree and Violet-green Swallows may have nested in the
adjacent alder - cedar swamp.
-94-
JAYS, ETC.
Crows are resident in the area, and can generally be found on the Lynch Cove
mud flats at low tide in numbers varying from 5 to 40 birds.
THRUSHES, ETC.
Robins are a common bird in the area from February through the summer. They
presumably nest in the swamps and adjacent uplands, and are occasionally seen
feeding on the marshes.
WAXWINGS
Cedar Waxwings were seen once (July 1979) in the Theler swamps and dike brush.
STARLINGS
Starlings were seen once (April 1979) .
WOODWARBLERS
A flock of six migrating Yellow-rumped Warblers was seen once in April 1979.
MEADOWLARKS, ETC.
Red-winged Blackbirds are presumed to have nested in the vicinity; in July
numerous juvenals were congregated around the Theler pond. Two female and/or
juvenal Yellow-headed Blackbirds were seen in a Union River bulrush stand in
June 1979; they are presumed to have nested in a dense bulrush stand in a
drainage ditch on an adjacent agricultural property. Brown-headed Cowbirds
were seen in June and July 1979 and may also have nested in the area.
GROSBEAKES, ETC.
American Goldfinches were seen once (July 1979) ; nesting in the area is likely.
During April through June Savannah Sparrows were quite common along all the
dikes edging the marshes; nesting is presumed. Migrating White-crowned and
Golden-crowned Sparrows were seen as small flocks in local bush during the
period February through April . Song Sparrows are resident to the area, being
found in the dike and forest brush throughout the year.
-95-
APPENDIX J
ENERGY CONSERVATION MITIGATIVE SUGGESTIONS
The following outline of topical energy conservation measures is not exhaustive,
and is intented only as a guideline. No strictly operational measures are
included ; those are beyond the appropriate scope of an environmental impact
statement, and certainly are unenforceable under land planning and building
design regulations .
Site Planning
1. Natural vegetation on the winter windward side of the site should be retained
and supplemented with plantings of trees to act as a windbreak. This may
be in conflict with other goals to attain winter sun exposure.
2. Buildings should be oriented to minimize the need for north wall glazing,
i .e. active use spaces should be oriented to the south, with storage rooms
and the like oriented to the north.
3. Building orientation and siting should account for winter and summer winds
to minimize winter heat loss and maximize summer ventilation. Sun angle
should be considered for winter heat gain in conjunction with landscape
design.
Space Heating/Cooling
1. Building insulation (walls , ceilings , floors) should have the maximum in-
sulation R value with respect to life cycle cost analysis .
2. Ground level exterior walls can be insulated, at least partially, with
earth berms against exterior walls .
3. Passive and/or active solar heating methods should be considered for all
buildings in conjunction with back-up traditional mechanical heating systems
and heat pump systems.
4. Double glazed windows should be specified. Regardless, all windows should
be at least partially operable to provide summer ventilation.
5. Artificial cooling in the Belfair climate should be unnecessary with proper
building design utilizing insulation, roof over-hangs , and ventiliation.
6. Exterior joints around all doors, windows , and other openings, penetrations
or building panel joints should be well caulked or weather-stripped.
7. Heating systems should be designed for zone operation where appropriate
with automatic thermostat timers to control day and night heating levels.
8. Site-built fireplaces , if used in assembly or meeting rooms , should be
provided with a tight-fitting flue damper, an outside source of combustion
air, and a tight fitting, operable solid metal face screen .
-y6-
9 . The selection of a heating/ventilation system should be based on a life
cycle cost analysis. Electrical resistance heating (baseboard heating)
is rarely the most efficient system despite low first costs.
Water Heating
1. Passive and/or active solar water heating systems should be used for
both building water service and swimming pool water heating systems .
Solar systems may be used in conjunction with traditional domestic water
heating systems. An exclusive solar system should be used for swimming
pool water.
2. Water heaters should be properly insulated to minimize heat loss.
3. Service water heating equipment should not be dependent on year-round oper-
ation of space heating biolers .
4. Shower heads should be of the flow limiting type to minimize water flow.
5. Public lavatories should have flow limiting devices on sinks with automatic
shut-off valves.
Lighting
1. Exterior lighting should be minimized. Automatic timers/sensors should be
used to shut off all but security lighting after operation hours, and to
shut off security lighting during daylight hours .
2. Reflective colored ceilings should be specified to maximize benefit from
interior lighting.
3. Flourescent interior lighting should be specified wherever possible in place
of incandescent lighting systems.
4. Exterior lighting and lamping design should balance the requirements for
minimization of glare and maximization of lighting efficiency. These can
often be conflicting. Tall lamp standards with highly efficient lamps
can light up large areas and also produce undesirable glare. The use of
high pressure sodium (125 lumens/watt) or metal halide ( 100 lumens/watt)
lamps should be specified for exterior lamping rather than the more commonly
used quartz iodide or incandenscent lamps (40 lumens/watt) to minimize
wattage demand.
-97-
APPENDIX K
STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON
1;i It s! Twenty first Avenue.,oiympia.Washington 98504 znh,753 4( .
Dtxy Lee Ray
Governor Date: July 12, 1979
Randall C. Arnold In reply refer to:
Northwest Environmental Consultants,Inc. 54-C-MS-04
158 Thomas Street - Suite 32 Re: Development of a recreational park
Seattle, WA 98109
Dear Applicant:
We have reviewed the project materials forwarded to us for the above project and
would like to make the following comments:
Insufficient information: We will need: a detailed narrative of the project
elements; a vicinity map; a map of the project site and surrounding area
showing topography, drainage, specific project boundaries, and indicating
County, Section, Township, and Range; line drawings of the project; photo-
graphs of structures to be renovated or demolished.
No resources known: No properties are listed in the National or State Registers
of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places which may be
impacted by the project. Properties include archaeological and historic
resources.
XX project area_has/XXhas not been surveyed for cultural resources.
XX potentiaZ effects on unidentified resources: There is reasonable probability that
cultural resources exist in the project areas. XXA cultural resources survey)
monitoring of the project area is recommended as part of project constructioi
Resources present: _no effect/ effect uncertain; see below for comment.
No adverse effect/ Adverse effect on National Register property. See below for
comment.
XX In the event that cultural materials are disclosed during construction, work in
the immediate vicinity should be discontinued and this office notified.
Sincerely,
JEANNE M. WELCH, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
1
Sheila Stump, Archaeologist
and
Comments:
-98-
Form AHP R-5 (Rev 1/79) r. -
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIS
AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED PAGE
Federal
Environmental Protection Agency No -
Fish & Wildlife Service No -
Soil Conservation Service No -
Army Corps of Engineers Yes 100
State of Washington
Department of Ecology Yes 102
Department of Fisheries Yes (NRN) 104
Department of Natural Resources No -
Department of Social & Health Services No -
Department of Game Yes 105
Department of Commerce & Economic Development No -
Department of Transportation Yes 108
Parks & Recreation Commission Yes (NRN) 110
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation No -
Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Yes 111
Planning & Community Affairs Agency No -
Mason County
Health Department Yes 112
Prosecuting Attorney No -
Parks Department No -
Public Works Department No -
Sheriffs Department No -
Special Purpose Districts
North Mason School District No -
Mason County Conservation District No -
Mason County PUD No. 3 Yes 115
Belfair Fire District No. 2 No -
PU4-IC RESPONSES
Public Meeting 118
Belfair Firehall , 17 January 1980
Others
Irene B. Davis 120
Margaret Livingston 123
Black Hills Audubon Society 125
NRN: No response necessary
-99-
is r. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
_ P.O. BOX C-3755
" SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER i i J A N 1980
James Connolly, Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
Dear Mr. Connolly:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
Theler Memorial Recreation Park Comprehensive Plan, Belfair,
Washington, with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
areas of responsibility for flood control, navigation, and regula-
tory functions.
The Mason County Regional Planning Council should be advised that a
Department of the Army permit is required for all work in navigable
waters of the United States and the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States including adjacent wetlands.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. If you have
any questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206)
764-3624, of my staff.
Sincerely,
W- 1
K-zz�lt
SIDNEY KNUTSON, P.E.
Ati Ch4 LIUWS4MVWM
-i00-
Response to U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Seattle District:
An Army Corps of Engineers permit application under Section 404 of the Water
Pollution Control Act is being submitted to your office.
-101-
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON Mail Stop PV•11 206,'753_2800
<` = Dixy Lee Ray Olympia,Washington 98504
L; Governor
January 4, 1980
Monty Anderson
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft
environmental impact statement for the Theler Memorial
Recreation Park comprehensive plan.
1 A septic tank/drainfield system of sewage disposal is
planned for the community center and some soils information
is included in the EIS. However, additional soil information
is needed to judge the suitability of this area for septic
tank/drainfield disposal of sewage.
2 A swimming pool is planned as part of the project but the
EIS does not discuss drainage of the pool. The final EIS
should indicate where the water will drain and what impacts
will result from the drainage. We are particularly concerned
about impacts from chlorine.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Krull of
our Southwest Regional Office at 753-0145.
Sincerely,
c(
Barbara J. Ritchie
Environmental Review Section
BJR:mgh
cc: Jim Krull, DOE, Southwest Region
-102-
Response to DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY:
1. This comment is correct. As noted in the Ground Water mitigative measures
section, detailed soils studies (percolation tests and test pit logs) will
be required by county health officials when the actual uses of the
community center are determined and a final site plan determines the
location of leach fields.
2. Additional information has been added to the Description of Proposal re-
garding swimming pool drainage and de-chlorination of the water. Impacts
are discussed in the Estuarine Surface Water section.
-103-
STATE OF
�`r/ _ WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
175 General Administration Building,Olympia,Washington 98504 206 753 6600
1 Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
January 2, 1980
Mr. James Connolly, Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
5th And Birch
Shelton, Washington 98584
Attention Mr. Monty K. Anderson
Gentlemen:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Theler Recreation Park Plan
Mason County WRIA C-14
The Washington Department of Fisheries has reviewed the above-referenced
document and offers the following comments.
The description of existing fishery resources on and adjacent to the
project site are generally accurate. Additionally, we find that
anticipated direct impacts to these resources are described adequately,
and appear to be negligible.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this statement and hope you
find our comments useful .
Sincerely,
Olt
Gordo San ison,
Director
mr
H14-
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
DEPARTMENT OF GAME
600 North Capitol Way,GJ-11 Olympia,Washington 98504
December 31, 1979
James Connolly, Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P. O. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
77U�TTT Tl. ``ITT ♦+AwT 1.T fn T T1w T1T T �+ Tr..r+tT
�4'al 1 i:+11 V l n\J.r 1.11',LV lAL 11':r raC 1 �7 1 ty l f�1.11iLV 1
Theler Memorial Recreation Park
Mr. Connolly:
Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested;
comments follow.
1 As indicated (pp. 18 and 34) , this proposal would result
in the filling of about six acres of "swamp" and five and
one-half acres of "non-tidal marsh" . Such wetland alter-
ation or destruction can result in substantial impacts on
wildlife as these habitat types are extremely productive
in terms of both animal diversity ,and populations. The
greatest impacts would be expected to occur to small
mammals, and waterfowl and other birds which depend on
this area for nesting and rearing. We strongly recommend
that alternative sites or design configurations be consi-
dered which would exclude any wetland filling.
On page 31, it does not appear that oil/water separators
2 would he included in surface water _runoff control. These
facilities can provide additional mitigation and should at
least be provided for the parking areas to reduce chances
of contaminants entering wetlands and marine waters.
We are very concerned with the discussion on page 37 con-
cerning mosquito control and the application of diesel oil
and/or pesticides to the marshes and pond. Such insect
growth regulators would not only reduce mosquito popula-
tions, which are important for young waterfowl, but other
aquatic insects, many of which are important to fish and
other wildlife. Non-target insects include dragonfly
larvae, damsel fly larvae, water beetle, water boatmen,
-JQ:5�1. 3
Page 2
December 31, 1979
caddis fly, mayfly, crane fly, midge, stonefly, and
others. Such insect control measures would more than
kill just the target species (mosquitoes) . By non-
selectively killing waterborn insects, many species of
wildlife, especially birds and higher level consumers,
would be adversely affected by diminished food supplies.
We recommend that this type of mosquito abatement program
be deleted from the proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your document. We
hope that you find our comments helpful.
Sincerely,
THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
Fred H. Maybee, Assistant Program Manager
Environmental Affairs
Habitat Management Division
FHM:mjf
cc : Regional Manager
Agencies
-106-
Response to DEPARTMENT OF GAME:
1. Additional discussion regarding the implications of wetland filling has
been added to the Flora and Fauna sections. As noted in the Draft EIS,
there is little likelyhood of wetlands filling having substantial impact
on small mammal populations: trapping programs in these habitats during
July 1979 were unsuccessful , the likely reason being that the saturated
soils and seasonal flooding make these areas unsuitable for small mammals
in the mouse-vole size range. Habitat for other mammals in the raccoon
size class would be eliminated. The elimination of avifauna habitat is
acknowledged..
Regarding alternate sites, the Draft EIS indicated that the School District
is bound by terms of the Theler will to use this site. Mechanisms by
which this provision of the will could be broken are discussed in the
Alternatives section.
2. This over sight has been corrected. Additional mitigative discussion has
been added to the surface water section.
3. Your concerns regarding the effects of anticipated mosquito control pro-
grams are well taken and additional detail has been added to the impacts
and mitigative measures sections of the Fauna topic.
You are wrong, however, in identifying this as a "proposed mosquito
abatement program". No such proposal has been made. The Draft EIS merely
predicted the likelyhood of such a request in response to the nuisance
effect of mosquito in proximity to the playfields.
For the record, certain of the potential non-target species you list are
inappropriate. Mayflies, stone flies and cranef lies are aquatic insects
that are indigenous to streams , not standing pools. A reconnaissance
inventory of marsh insects was provided in the Draft EIS in Appendix G.
This inventory is not complete, being the result of only a single visit.
-107-
\ l
STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION hF 01
r j�f Highway Administration&iilding,OiVmpia,Washin_cton 98504 206/715360;5
Dixy Lec Ray
Gouernor January 8, 1980
Mr. James Connolly, Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P. 0. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
Mason Regional Planning Council
Theler Memorial Recreation Park
Comprehensive Plan
Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment
Dear Mr. Connolly:
Ile have reviewed the subject document and have the following comments:
1 It is the policy of the Department on state highways to
provide facilities which allow a full and continuous flow
of traffic. To do this requires control of the number of
access points on a highway. Therefore, we request that
the Recreational Park be redesigned with an internal roadway
system so that all access to SR 3 will be via the existing
county road (Roessel Road, 96966) . We believe the proposed
direct access to SR 3 for the community center complex is
not necessary and could create additional traffic hazards.
2 Signs advertising t71e proposal which are visible from the
State highway must comply with the regulations contained
in the State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971. Contact Don hicks
at (206) 753-7226 if there are any questions regarding the
signing regulations.
If you have any questions, please call me at 753-3811.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. NIELSEN
Assistant Secretary for Public
Transportation and, Planning
RSN:f ih By: 1,11ILLIADI P. ALBORN
idPA/i9EH Environmental Planner
cc: A. R. Morrell
R. Albert
Environmental Section
108.E 3 ,
Response to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
1. Initial project development of the play fields will have access only from
the existing ccunty road (Roessell Road) . To provide access to the com-
munity center and tennis courts, facilities located on SR3, by a circuitous
route from Roessel Road would be illogical from an access consideration.
The hazard associated with driveways entering roadways is acknowledged.
There is, however, an equal hazard associated with slow moving vehicles
whose drivers are searching for non-existant entrances to facilities that
appear to have access only from the main roadway on which they are located.
The School District would consider leaving the site access road, now
indicated as a through road from SR3 to Roessell Road as two cul -de-sacs,
eliminating the connection between Playfield 'A and the Community Center.
2. No advertising signs for the proposal are contemplated.
-109-
STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
=t + r`'- WASHINGTON
7150 Clcanwater lane,Olympia,Washinglon 9&504 M.S. KY-11 206,1753-5755
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
December 10, 1979
35-2650-1820
DEIS - Theler Memorial
Recreation Park Comprehensive
Plan
(E-1828)
Mr. Monty K. Anderson
Assistant Planning Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
5th and Birch
Shelton, Washington 98584
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The staff of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
has reviewed the above-noted document and does not wish to make
any comment.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
David W. Heiser, E.P. , Chief
Environmental Coordination
DWH/PJP:jh
-110-
0 7
STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON 11I ult Twcnt First Avenue,Olympia,y ympia,Washington 98504 206,'753 4011
i. n
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
i
December 19, 1979
James Connolly, Director In reply
Mason Regional Planning Council refer to: 54-F-COE-S-04
P.O. Box 186 (5th & Birch)
Shelton, WA 98584 Reg: Theler Memorial Recreational
Park Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Connolly:
A staff review has been completed of your draft environmental
impact statement. The project was reviewed previously by this
office with reference to 54-C-MS-04 (July 12, 1979) , at which
time we recommended professional survey for cultural resources.
We strongly recommend that project approval be so conditioned.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
JEANNE M. WELCH, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
Sheila A. Stump, Archaeologist
lre
-111-
a 3
Response to OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
The mitigative measures section of the Archaeological/Historic topic has been
amended to further indicate your concern for protection of cultural resources.
-112-
Masora Cotmty Deal h Department
MEDICAL-NURSING SECTION B.M.Pederson,M.D. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION
1 10 West"K"Street County Health 69icer 428 West Birch Street
Shelton,Washington 98584 Shelton,Washington 98584
Phone 426-4407 February 7, 1980 Phone 426-5561
James E. Connolly, Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re: Comment on Theler Memorial
Recreation Park Comprehensive
Plan E.I.S.
Dear Mr. Connolly:
This department has some concern over this project. There has been no soils
work done to determine the suitability of the proposed drainfield area.
Until this has been done - more specifically, a Site Inspection Approval
made - this department cannot give assurances that the sewage to be generated
on-site will be properly disposed on-site.
The soils in the area referred to as the septic tank leach field area are
anticipated to be sandy and gravelly, though they may be overlain in part by
a shallow layer of peat.
SCS soils map shows Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam (Eh) in the several hundred
feet next to the highway, with a small intrusion of Mukilteo Peat (Mh) at the
north border about 2/3 of the way down the property, and Koch Gravelly Loam
(Kf) covering the lower areas. The proposed drainfield area will be in an
area mapped with Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam, which is generally a suitable
soil for that use.
Please contact us if we may be of further assistance regarding this matter.
M Sincerely,
Bruce Pederson, M. D.
County Health Officer
FEB 8 1980 �-
REGIONAL PLANNING. Je se T. Wilkins, III, R. S.
En 'ronmental Health Specialist
JTW:vl
cc: Mr. Norm Sanders, North Mason School District
Northwest Environmental Consultants
Equal Opp;147 Employer
Response to MASON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
This commentary was received after the close of the 35 day review period and too late
for substantive action to be taken prior to the publication of the Final EIS. The
School District is proceeding with recommended soil studies in cooperation with
the Health Department. That information will be issued as a supplementary report
upon application to the Lead Agency.
-114-
�Iz�l
NU B LI C UJILITY ]STRICT N o.
3
OFFICERS MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ioo — THIRD and COTA STREET
P„6%:c Power M.D. PARRETT - President POST OFFICE BOX 490
E.W. TAYLOR - Vice President
` -0, < L.M. SUHR - Secretary SHELTON,WASH. 98584
R.D. HOLLAND- Manager TELEPHONE 426-8255
COMMISSIONERS R.J. BAMFORD - Auditor
M.D. PARRETT
E.W. TAYLOR
L.M SUHR
January 3, 1980
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
ATTENTION: Monty K. Anderson
SUBJECT: Draft EIS, Theler Memorial Recreation Park
Dear Mr. Anderson:
1 The District has evaluated the above document and does have some
concern on this project. Across the Easterly 1/2 of Soccer
Field A, the District has, in service, a main feeder to serve
the North Shore area and are concerned about it's disruption
during the construction period.
Z As designated on page 15, Mason County Public Utility District #3
does provide electrical service in this area, but on page 54,
under Utilities, the existing conditions are designated as Puget
Power and Light having service in this area.
In this time of energy concern in the United States and the very
3 real energy shortages predicted in the Pacific Northwest within
the next 10 years, the addition of loads other than basic needs
are becoming a concern to all of us. The National Department of
Energy has taken a very dim view of the use of short energy supplies
to heat swimming pools, as an example. Exterior lighting for night
time recreational use will also be closely evaluated.
It would appear then that the midigating measures on energy
efficiency, should be more explicit and mandatory with the use
of the word "shall" rather than "should", and that all portions
of the complex be totally energy effecient and be designed with
-115-
,� P U D's - Ut 5uw��--c % ...au ...04VL TM- �t4- P"C „
POWER' U B LI C -
1...�,:.1.r�' TILITY ISTRICT No.
owe.-
Mason Regional Planning Council
January 3, 1980
Page 2
the maximum of concervation in mind. The identification of
impacts on the Utilities, where it states "the energy required
will not cause a significant depletion in available energy",
_ needs to be changed. This complex will use the equivalent
of requirements for 5 to 6 new homes within Mason County and
at the time of construction, energy shortages are a very real
possibility.
Yours truly,
Richard L. Thompson
Environmental Officer
Mason County P.U.D. #3
cc: Dennis Rohr
-116-
" P U D's — SClwic % E ...oAtd- Tm- rttt P"-)C'e „
Response to PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 3:
1. The presure of the feeder line has been noted in the text, with additional
comments regarding coordination of detail design with PUD No. 3.
2. This error has been corrected.
3. In response to your comments and other recent events regarding energy
availability, the Energy topics have been extensively re-written to
reflect anticipated shortages, preferred uses, and detailed mitigative
possiblities. Regarding the designation of mitigative measures as manda-
tory, only the county commissioners can require that. An environmental
impact statement does not regulate, rather it merely provides governmental
decision makers with information.
-117-
PUBLIC HEARING
January 17, 1980
Belfair Firehall 7:00 P.M.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Theler Memorial Recreation Park Comprehensive Plan
The following concerns were expressed by those who attended the Public Hearing
on the Theler Memorial Recreation Park Comprehensive Plan. The eomments whicb were
recorded at the Public Hearing in writing are edited to reflect the major points
made.
1. Senior Citizens
The senior citizens program has a need for a meeting place with
cooking facilities and this should be considered in the portion
of the plan for the community center.
2. Capacity for Parking.
The concern for adequate parking was expressed for the community
center and the recreation activities which would draw spectators.
It was felt that there may not be enough space allocated for off-
street parking.
3. Drainage and Septic Tank Effluent.
Concern was raised regarding surface water runoff and the potential
for failing septic tanks since the land is marginal in accepting
effluent because of the high water table and clay soils.
4. Filling
Concern for filling of the tidelands and marshland was expressed and
what the effect would be in the long term on the ecology of the tidal
marsh.
Other related comments were that the wetlands had alread.- sustained '
modification through diking and maybe they should be restored. Also,
the filling of the marshlands for ballfields would be very expensive
and that other upland sites would be preferable for that type of
development. Also, that filling of the marshlands might create a
precedent to do more filling in Lynch Cove and that the wetlands are
being used for their best value, which means that they are important
to the food chain.
5. Financing
Discussion on financing of the project ensued and it was concluded that
the facilities should be developed which can be financed by the Theler
Estate now and not what a bond issue could raise.
The hearing was attended by seven citizens and adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
-118-
Response to PUBLIC HEARING
1. The Description of Proposal notes that the basic Community Center building
unit is intended to contain meeting rooms and cooking facilities .
2. The conceptual plans do not delineate the actual parking spaces to be
provided. Space for 30 vehicles is shown on Figure 4 for parking at
the Community Center, and the parking area shown on Figure 3 (playfields)
has a capacity of 75 to 80 vehicles . If need be, additional parking
could be provided at the Community Center, the Community Park, or at
Playfield A.
Additional parking is now available also at the Belfair Elementary School
site across the highway from the existing Pee Wee ballfield and proposed
Community Center. Present highway crossing facilities consist of a
designated crosswalk protected by a manually operated set of flashing
yellow lights . This crosswalk facility was installed by the State
Department of Transportation at the request of the School District. At
the time of crosswalk installation , the Department of Transportation agreed
to listing pedestrian overpass at the crosswalk location in their long
range plan for SR3. The overpass has not yet been nominated for funding
on the Department's six-year improvement program.
3. At such time as the Community Center is actually proposed to be built,
detailed soils analyses will be required by the County Health Department
to determine the sizing of the sewage facility leaching field.
4. The effects of wetlands filling are addressed in the text of the EIS . The
expense of playfields development on this site is acknowledged by the School
District; unfortunately the condition of the Theler will attach the trust
funds to this property unless the will can be broken for cause.
The issue of setting precedents is discussed in the response to the follow-
ing letter ( Irene B. Davis) .
5. While the financing of the proposed public project is a valid topic of
public debate, the EIS process is not an appropriate vehicle for that
discussion under the State Environmental Policy Act guidelines of the
regulations of Mason County.
-il',-
January 23, 1960
Yeson Rer! onal Planning Gcuncll
P . 0. Box 186
Shelton , tiA 96584
Subject : E .I .S . for Theler School Trust LRnO,- Recreation Plan .
Fr iends :
I have read the Draft EIS and am offering the following
coilrents :
Preservation of Salt I:Iarsh: The Plan 1;rovic.es thst all the salt
marsh be preserved , with very little delelcrr-ent, and that is a
plus for the Flan . This salt harsh is ;srt of the Lynch Cove
Lstuary, also called the Union River "Estuary . It is a very special
sensitive natural area at Belfair . It is the last remaining larce
estuary in the east arm cf mood Canal .
The decline of fish and shellfish in Lynch Cove has taken
place over t1.e years at the sa-me tire salt ?nersh was reduced by
the construction of Belfair State Park, Lynch Cove ^evelor-rent,
Beard 's Cove Recreation area , and other fills . As for the absence
of oysters on the Theler tidelands , they were re'eGved by dredging
not too long ago, and were not replanted . There is reason_ to
believe oysters would eo well novr, as in the past , , -.th proper
.:�anagement .
2 a11-,v:a4: In my opinion , the -reposed rPl'k-.Ysjr across the salt r:arsh
is not neeced at present . It miEht be desirnble at some future time
if the dikes and salt mersh are fiver-used by the FLblic . The dikes
and marsh are not greatly used by nature calkers at this time . This
fray be because rsany potential bird e-atchers do not k_.ov- this is a '
public access. Bird watchers have no trouble observing birds from
the exist inb dikes and from the state �,ame 1e;d upriver . I do not
believe a natural area shculd be Cevelcted at all if it is to be
kept natural .
3 Risk of Fcllution in Hood Canal . The 13 ecres of swamp and Fresh
water ti•.e tie n s are now acting as a cetch-basin for runoff 1:•1;ster
frcm the playgrounds , parking cress, and highway uphill from the
site . Several horses on the uclsnd tract directly east of the Theler
wetlands r;ay be crsining septic tank effluent into the sv:amp below
the hill . A proposed r:obile home park to the north of the site
could add more effluent to the scamp. There is also a question of
proper selvage r'isresal from the proposed gr»nasiun complex, including
the svrimming pcel is c..lorinated rater.
-120-
1/23/80 Fage 2
Filling for a 20-font wide road , perking area , and ballfields
B, C , end D �roulc remove 12 of the 13 acres of %yetland . The crater
has nowhere to go except into the L-shaped pond ane ditches into
L;;nch Cove . If there is septic tank failure , this pond could more
or less act as a sewsF.e collection lagoon .
1{ Financial Feasibility of Projects The questionnaire to the public
implied that a complete recreation building for all ages , a swimming
pool, t.i:nis courts , and a variety of ballfields were all_ possible .
The proposed development needs at least 25 acres of good, flat,
well-drained land, and the site has less than 10 acres of land ,with
a low enough it:ater table .
The Theler Fund cannot support either construction or maintenance
of this proposal. Ballfields in the wet areas will have lots of
mosquitoes , and will be expensive to build and maintain . If public
or private funds other than Theler Trust monies are used , the community
;could more likely get their money 's worth by purchasing suitable land
for ballfields elsewhere in the Belfsir area . An accessible , well-
drained area , free of mosquitoes, is not too -uch to expect, and no
real effort has been made to pursue this Alternative .
If the Shorelines Application is approved , knowing most of the
projects could not be built for 10 years or More , it vinulr be a
disservice to the community. It would mean cc-rmznity rressure on
the Theler Citizen 's Committee and the Korth ?:''&son School Board to
seek su'-)stantisl funds for the work before the Permits expire . These
fear: dedicated people will be faulted if they fail to produce the eree.m.
No effort will be ma(fe to eevelop a more comprehensive community
recreation plan, using ether sites .
5 Alternatives ; The EIS suggests no reel alternatives except A, No
eevelopment at all . There should be another alternative ;
Build a modest gymnasium, as had been proposed by the Citizens
Comirittee two y-eers ago, retaining one pleyfield vrhere it exists
at present . Build Flayfield A, the cor.bination soccer and baseball
field on the south end of the tract, with access road from Highway
Three . The surplus fill material from levelling this site cen be
used to fill for 1 e picnic area and Ae jscent parking. This plan
would leave the swamp and non-tie'al ::etlands untouched . Such an
alternate plan might be accomplished in large part with Theler
Trvs t funds .
6 Setting rrecedent : If the s:vamp area is filled in for ballfields ,
owners of similar c,etland along Lynch Cove will expect to be allc::ed
to develop in the same way for '.omesites . Seversl such fills is
bound to Lave an adverse impact on Lynch Cove .
Respectfully submitted ,
Route 3, Box 60
2
Eelfair, 'Vt , 9E� 8
-121-
Response to IRENE B. DAVIS:
I. Thank you for this additional information.
2. No time schedule is proposed for any of the development features beyond
the first playfields. Your comments regarding timing of the development
of the walkway do bear discussion.
It may be true that there is no current need for a nature trail boardwalk.
The inclusion of a nature trail boardwalk was in response to stated interest
in the community opinion poll . The purpose of boardwalk nature trails
and observation towers in wetland areas is to direct public use to non-
sensitive walkways , and to discourage pedestrian traffic across easily
damaged habitats . These features are not uncommon in natural areas open
to the public.
3. Please refer to comment and response 3 in the preceeding summary transcript
of the Belfair Public Hearing.
Regarding swimming pool drain water and chlorine, please refer to the
Washington Department of Ecology commentary letter and response.
4. Your comments regarding financing of the project are valid concerns ;
however, the environmental impact statement process is not the appropriate
vehicle for their expression.
5. The Alternatives section has been rewritten to include a discussion of
the project at a lower intensity of development.
6. There is already sufficient precedent for filling wetlands in the Belfair
area as your first topic of comment points out. It is true, though,
that a permit to fill the Theler wetlands would add to the list of
precedents . There is one important difference , however: this EIS
acknowledges that filled wetlands are not an appropriate location for
building construction due to structural problems (load bearing strength,
differential settling, etc. ) and a lack of proper soil for septic tank
leach line installation. The Mason County Commissioners will have ample
and valid reasons for denying permits to fill wetlands for residential
development.
-122-
Star Route 2 , Box 310
Belfair , Washington 98528
To: Mason Regional Planning Council
Shelton, WA
Re: '.Theler Memorial Recreation Park Comprehensive Plan
I feel that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains sufficient
reasons to modify the complete development of the Theler site.
The associated wetlands development with three playfields, roads, parking,
necessary rest rooms, etc., would contribute definitely to the degradation of
the Union River estuary salt marsh. These wetlands, left in what remains of their
natural state, maintain an invaluable buffer against upland development and would
preserve rapidly dwindling wildlife habitats. A natural landscape to be looked at
and used sparingly is a recreational resource of great value to a developing
community. The land is admirable suited for what it is -- an associated wetland
with adjoining salt marshes. The location for playfields B and C would easily
return to salt marsh were the dikes not maintained.
The second reason for not developing the wetland portion is the economic
cost. Filling, road building, drains, etc., and maintenance costs would be much
beyond the income from the Theler fund. If money is to be raised by bond or
otherwise from the community, better locations could be found for playfields.
It is probable that the lower playfields would be unusable a great part of the
fall and winter months and would be plagued by mosquitoes in the summer.
In the light of energy shortages and rising costs, it is questionable that
a swimming pool and large gymnasium, lighted tennis courts, etc. , will ever
be feasible here.
I believe that the questionaire sent out by the Theler committee did not
fully address the questions of probable costs to taxpayers. People replying in-
dicated what they would like to have under the supposition that the ultimate costs
would be covered by the Theler bequest. It seems that this is not assured.
I would urge that playfields, which are needed now, be built on the upland
portion of the property with one or two small buildings which would satisfy
the needs of playfield users.
Respectfully submitted, •
�_�
f,�`�et Livingston
-123-
Response to MARGARET LIVINGSTON
Your letter raises some valid issues which should be aired before the Shorelines
Hearings Board and the County Commissioners . Your letter, however, raises no
questions regarding the technical aspects of the Draft EIS beyond those
addressed by the preceeding commentary letter.
-124-
BLACK HILLS A UD UBON SOCIETY
A Washington State Chapter of the National Audubon Society
Office: Suite 12, 108 W. 22nd Ave., Olympia,WA. • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2524, Olympia, WA. 98507
Phone(206) 357-4664
2 February 1980
Monty K . Anderson
Assistant Planning Director
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O . Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
Mr. Anderson:
I have reviewed the Draft EIS for the Sam Theler Park project.
Restricting development to the uplands should help preserve
the Union River estuary, which we feel is quite important.
The boardwalk through the salt marsh is a good idea , it
could be an excellent facility for the North Mason School
District for environmental education.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Sincerly ,
Pj
Bill Harrington-Tweit
President
-125-
Response to BLACK HILLS AUDUBON SOCIETY
Thank you for your comments . Additional detail has been added to the Alterna-
tives section describing the development constraints on the property regarding
uplands use only.
-126-