PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)

Home Browse Search

Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-119 uses may be subject to enforcement activities, but such enforcement is likely to be ineffective in controlling the demand for such use, absent adequate designated facilities in the area. The major effect of the project on adjacent public lands owned by the Forest Service and Washington DNR is likely to be continued long-term chronic enforcement problems. Because of the difficulty of enforcing restrictions on highly mobile uses such as ORV and snowmobiles, in the absence of a designated trail system continued use of informal trails would likely result in impacts of erosion and disturbance of wildlife. Alternatives 1 and 2 recreation impacts would result from a community roughly equivalent to the size of the communities of Kittitas or Roslyn. Table 3-17 indicates the range of potential demand for a variety of types of park that may result from a community of that size. The proposed provision of 1.88 acres of park at three locations would not meet Kittitas County standards and would be much less than NRPA guidelines. Other potential areas for recreation are present on the site, including the BPA transmission line easement, which is currently used by off-road vehicles and snowmobiles. The proposal includes no formal designation of trails to meet the County standards of between a third and a little more than half a mile of trails. The proposal includes no formal connections to allow potential open space use of public land at the Easton State Airport or the National Forest to the northeast and north of the site. Informal access to that public land likely would continue along the BPA transmission line easement, although that easement passes through a private parcel. The current design makes inadequate provision for shared or public recreation facilities and makes no formal provision for informal off-road and snowmobile activities likely to be used by a substantial proportion of residents. Off-road vehicles and snowmobiles can use roadways; however, the use of unlicensed vehicles presents legal issues and the potential for conflict with motor vehicles at a substantial risk of life to off-road and snowmobile users. Alternative 2 includes a considerable area of open space in debris flow hazard areas that have the potential to provide for informal and formal parks and recreation use, if developed for that purpose. This presumes that the risk to potential users would be acceptable. For these alternatives, the lack of provision for recreation likely would result in either greater use of off-site facilities or a lack of opportunities for recreational activities to serve residents. The population likely served the least would be the demand for youth sports. Off-site facilities most affected would likely be State of Washington lands that provide a buffer area north of the Easton State Airport and U.S. Forest Service land to the north, as well as playfields at the Easton School. Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4, and 5 would result with potential populations between 250 and 635, depending on the tenure scenario. There would be no formal provisions for park and recreation facilities because they are intended to be conceptual to illustrate development options. Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D with larger lots may be considered to provide more opportunities for private recreation on the lots. All the alternatives with fewer residences would place less demand on off-site facilities.