Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout73_Applicant Response to PNPTC Oct 9 2025 LetterOctober 10,2025 This letter is Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort’s (PHMPR) response to the October 9, 2025 Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) letter to the Hearing Examiner and Jefferson County Department of Community Development. We have submitted a response to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (JST), a member tribe to PNPTC, on October 8, 2025 addressing many of the of the comments in this letter. We have attached, Appendix A, to this for your review. Comment 1 - Wildlife Protection We object to the update of the condition in the staff report as the fence requirement is specifically outlined in the Wildlife Management Plan incorporated into the Development Agreement (DA) and does not require fencing around the entire property. We cover this is more detail in the Appendix A comments. The PHMPR is committed to protecting the Elk and wildlife in the area and have even discussed using some of the requested mitigation measures if fencing is ineffective, however, we object to mandating these provisions as conditions. Comment 2 - Water Quality Planning and Monitoring This is discussed in our attached, Appendix A, letter. Comment 3 - Shellfish Resource Protection PHMPR has already agreed to the protection of the Shellfish and agreed to close the trail to the beach and placed the land in a conservation easement that would even further protect the access the beach. Comment 4 - Tribal Communication and Consultation PHMPR has had many conversations over the years and even in the recent times with regional tribes. PHMPR will organize joint meetings with all regional tribes to discuss development as required by the DA. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 73 Comment 5 - Cultural Resources Protection PHMPR has had multiple conversations in recent times with all tribes in the region, including but not limited to, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and natural resource staff. One of those meetings included the PNPTC wildlife preservation biologist. PHMPR is closely following the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) that was agreed to by all the required tribes in the area. We have updated the contact info for your member tribes as requested by them in our recent meetings. The Development Agreement requires we preserved Kettle B or C—not both. At the outset of the planning process the Appliance agreed not to discharge stormwater to Hood Canal in recognition of the ecology of the Canal and tribal reliance on the canal for their treaty rights. To retain stormwater on site a kettle must be used. Kettle B is the larger of the two wetlands and is the only Kettle with a naturally occurring wetland at the bottom. The Applicant initially planned to use this Kettle for stormwater retention and to preserve Kettle C and create a compensatory wetland. During the Development Agreement process commenting tribes indicated that Kettle B was most important because it retained fresh water. At significant cost PHMPR evaluate whether Kettle C could be used in lieu of Kettle B for stormwater retention and, once confirmed, redesigned its stormwater system to use Kettle C. Sincerely, Ryan Hodges Project Manager Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 73 October 8, 2025 Via Email George Terry Community Development Director Jefferson County RE: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Pre-Application Meeting for Preliminary Plan of Subdivision Dear Mr. Terry: By email dated September 5, 2025 you requested that Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort (“Pleasant Harbor”) respond to comments the County received from the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (“Tribe”) pertaining to Pleasant’s Harbor Preliminary Subdivision Application. For ease of reference, we have copied the comments and the Tribe’s proposed solutions in the chart below and added a column with Pleasant Harbor’s response. As a general comment, many of the Tribe’s comments are directed at interpretations of plans Pleasant Harbor prepared during the project-specific SEPA SEIS process for the Development Agreement. These plans were presented as part of the project specific SEIS process, were commented on and vetted during that process and in some cases were revised as part of that process before being approved by the County and incorporated as conditions to development as part of the Development Agreement between the County and Pleasant Harbor. The only way these plans may be modified is through an amendment to the Development Agreement. The preliminary plat application does not provide an opportunity to reopen or revisit decisions made in these approved plans. Fortunately, it appears that Tribe’s comments do not require revisions but rather explanation of what is required by the plans. We provide those responses here: Issue Solution Pleasant Harbor Response Water quality plans, monitoring and controls are inconsistent between documents with no The County can amend the WQ plan to indicate that it supersedes or takes precedent over other plans in relation to We do not believe there are any inconsistencies and without specifics it is difficult to respond to this comment. Some of the Exhibit 73 2 | P a g e indication as to which standard will be followed water quality monitoring, controls and reporting. confusion may result from the fact that there are two water quality monitoring plans that are designed to address different concerns. Appendix O requires monitoring to ensure anticipated groundwater withdrawals are not causing sea water intrusion into the groundwater. Appendix N, on the other hand, addresses monitoring for contaminants and is further divided into monitoring impacts to surface waters in Pleasant Harbor and groundwater. Depending on the plan, the most prominent language around water quality standards seems to be that the resort will not violate WQ criteria and will take corrective action if violated. This "emergency room" response only requires action if water quality is degraded beyond State standards. There should be a trigger point that requires assessment, identification and control as a preventative measure, rather than an reactionary measure once criteria are violated and the harm has been done. Including a condition such as "a trigger point of three consecutive readings above 10% of seasonal baseline levels, one reading at or above 20% of seasonal baseline levels, or state criteria is surpassed - whichever comes first" is an example of early detection and correction condition that will help address issues before early. We disagree with the characterization of the plans as an “emergency room” response. The plans have proactive measures to address possible problems before water quality standards are violated. For example, and without limitation, in the event sampling results show three consecutive increases of contaminant concentrations (regardless of whether water quality standards are violated) Pleasant Harbor must take additional steps to investigate the cause of the increase and take action to address any project construction or operation. No other resort in the region has similar requirements including Port Ludlow or Alderbook. Finally, the Tribe’s focus on the plans ignores other aspects of the resort plan aimed at preventing water quality impacts in the first place including, but not limited to, Exhibit 73 3 | P a g e construction of a WWTP instead of a system of LOSSs and zero- discharge to Hood Canal among other design elements. The WWTP and water re-use is generally a positive attribution of this project but they can fail or malfunction and potentially cause major impacts to nearby shellfish beds (i.e. bacteria contamination). We request that tribes with U&A in Hood Canal be notified within 48 hours if there is any unintended, unplanned or emergency discharge of untreated or partially treated water from the plant to the marine environment. We are pleased that the Tribe views the applicant’s decision to construct a WWTP and re-use water as a positive project attribute. We agree. In the unlikely event of a direct discharge of untreated or partially treated water to Hood Canal the Operator is legally required to report the discharge to the Washington Department of Ecology. Ecology would then report to potentially affected parties including, presumably, the Tribe. Development will act as attractant to nearby elk herds that are a treaty resource - Dosewallips SP is an example of this. Vehicle collisions from increased traffic and lack of exclusions unnecessarily imperils this resource and people's safety. Add exclusionary, elk-proof fencing around the resort to prevent habituation and road crossings will prevent the vast majority of collisions. Tribes will work with Jefferson County to frame out a condition within the Prelim Plat Application to add a layer of specificity of fence requirements (i.e. min 8 ft, etc) as discussed in the technical meeting on 3/14/25. This comment is disappointing. Over the last decade Pleasant Harbor has made a significant effort to address tribal concerns regarding elk migration. Elk exclusionary fencing has been proposed for the portions of the resort fronting 101 for over a decade. The initial plan prepared by a qualified biologist recommended scare tactics and other non-structural methods before fencing. Pleasant Harbor, to address various tribal concerns with that iterative approach, voluntarily agreed to construct fencing outright. The wildlife plan has contradictions, irregularities and dubious action points that make it difficult for us, and eventually the applicant from interpreting its standards. Amend the plan to add clarification with clear action points. We can provide some examples of needed clarifications. Again, the applicant clearly understands its obligation under the approved Wildlife Plan and disagrees with the characterization. To the extent the confusion derives from Exhibit 73 4 | P a g e portions of the plan that emphasized the use of scare tactics prior to constructing an elk fence please note the response above. In addition, it should be noted that Pleasant Harbor redesigned its entire stormwater plan at significant expense to avoid disturbing the wetland in Kettle B to further limit the impact development would have on wildlife. Thank you for considering these responses. Our team is available if further discussion is needed. Sincerely, John (JT) Cooke Attorneys for Pleasant Harbor Maring & Golf Resort LLP Cc: Client (via email) Christina Haworth (via email) Phil Hunsucker (via email) Exhibit 73