Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout009September 30, 2002 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Road NE • Kingston, WA 98346 Board of County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 p� - 4 2002 I} u DEPT. OF RE: 2002 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan/Development Code Amendments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2002 Jefferson County comprehensive plan/development code amendments. Jefferson County has made significant advances in Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance over the past two years. These advances include: adoption of the new Uniform Development Code (UDC), settlement of two UDC court challenges with provisions that strengthen the development rules, creation of an active Natural Resources Department, and adoption of a seawater intrusion ordinance. In addition, Tribal and County staff are now actively working together to map floodplains and channel migration zones in the principal river corridors of east Jefferson County to safeguard flood -prone communities and protect fish habitat. The Tribe commends Jefferson County for this important progress in the areas of community development and natural resources protection. The annual review of the comprehensive plan and development code provides the County, its citizens, and interested parties an important opportunity to review long-term land use goals and policies to encourage proper community development and safeguard our treasured public resources. The Tribes generally defer to counties and applicable state agencies on individual land use decisions. However, in certain circumstances where our Treaty -reserved rights are in jeopardy we do comment on certain aspects of major developments. The 2002 annual review of comp plan amendment packet contains two such developments that the Tribe is concerned with. 1. Fred Hill Materials nuneral resource lands desi nation — The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has not yet taken a position on the proposed Fred Hill Materials, Inc. (FHM) Thorndyke project, which includes pit expansion and construction of a gravel conveyance structure and pier on the shoreline of Hood Canal. Since no comprehensive project proposal has yet been formally proposed, we believe taking a position for/against this project is premature. However, the designation of a mineral resource lands (MRL) (360) 297-2646 (360) 478-4583 (206) 464-7281 (360) 297-7097 Kingston Bremerton Seattle Fax J overlay covering 6,240 acres of Pope Resources commercial forestland has broad implications on the natural and human communities of east Jefferson County and we question if the review process and applicable regulations will be sufficient to avoid apparent conflicts. Jeffcrson Count "tanning staff and FHM representatives have persistently emphasized that the mineral resource land (MRL) designation is the only aspect of this large-scale industrial development under review at this time. However, the Tribe feels that the scope and magnitude of this project warrant a thorough consideration of the entire project given the numerous, substantive environmental considerations. To date, the Tribe has not been afforded an opportunity to review FHM environmental studies on their proposed project. Of our preliminary concerns with this project, one has direct application to the FHM mineral resource lands designation process: Groundwater -surface water impacts — Groundwater resources of the Thorndyke deposit feed the principal salmon streams in the project area, Thorndyke and Shine creeks, as well as numerous lakes and wetlands. These streams and wetlands harbor relatively pristine habitat for coho, fall chum, and potentially ESA -listed summer chum salmon, as well as a host of other valued wildlife populations. The extent of these groundwater deposits transcends the boundaries of designated fish and wildlife habitat buffers and mapped critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs). Various Jefferson County UDC, WA - DNR, and WA -Ecology rules provide some assurances that stormwater run-off and groundwater contamination could be avoided, and that post -mining land reclamation could be accomplished. But there is currently no legal mechanism to protect natural groundwater supply and delivery processes to stream aquifers. With additional information from FHM groundwater studies, Jefferson County could delineate MRL boundaries that were sensitive to these groundwater resources. We suggest that the County investigate this opportunity before proceeding with a blanket MRL designation. In addition, the Tribe has concerns with the FHM Thorndyke project related to impacts on marine water quality, Treaty -reserved fisheries, wildlife migration corridors, and shoreline ecological processes. Though these concerns are arguably beyond the scope of the MRL designation review, we maintain that every aspect of this project needs careful review before FHM is allowed to vest their interests through a 6,240 -acre MRL designation: Marine water quality — The rich fish and shellfish resources of north Hood Canal would be severely compromised by oil or other petrochemical spills associated with increased barge and ship traffic. Approximately 80-90% of Tribal households depend on commercial or subsistence shellfish harvests for their livelihood and an oil spill would have a devastating impact on these families. Treaty -reserved salmon fisheries — Increased barge and ship traffic would disrupt the salmon net fisheries, which concentrate around the Hood Canal bridge area. Tribal fisheries are already constrained by Naval Subbase Bangor operations, and additional limits on salmon net fisheries in north Hood Canal would further erode the Tribes' Treaty -reserved rights to harvest salmon. Wildlife migration corridors — The construction of 4-10 foot -wide, 4 -80 -high, 3.9 mile long conveyor system from the Shine pit to the shoreline of Hood Canal has important implications for wildlife migration across the project area. Tribal members depend on the regions dwindling deer populations for sustenance. Disease, road kill, and excessive white recreational harvest have reduced local deer herds and threaten the Tribes' harvest rights. In addition, the project would fragment habitat for a host of other area wildlife populations, which are less mobile and less accommodating than deer. Shoreline ecological processes — Based on preliminary design drawings, FHM has taken commendable steps to design an aggregate material loadout pier facility on the Hood Canal shoreline that is sensitive to important shoreline ecological processes. The company has located this facility off -shore, away from sensitive eelgrass beds, and in an area of apparently low landslide hazard. On the other hand, the Tribe has not yet been afforded the opportunity to review FHM environmental conditions reports (marine resources, geotechnical, wetlands, and habitat management reports) so we remain unconvinced that various shoreline ecological functions and processes would be adequately protected. The area serves as critical habitat for two species of ESA -listed salmon species (Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum) as well as a variety of other fish, shellfish, and bird populations — the potential disruption of natural shoreline erosion and transport processes has immediate consequences on the habitat for these species. At first view, the SEIS list of Jefferson DCD staff -recommended mitigation measures for the Fred Hill Materials MRL designation appears to offer some substantive environmental safeguards (p. 2-40 and 41). However, based on our review of the development code these measures do not go beyond what is already required under the Jefferson County UDC. A project of this magnitude necessitates mitigation measures that go beyond the basic requirements of the UDC, and we suggest that the MRL designation process is one such opportunity for the County to condition this development to avoid future environmental impacts and community conflicts. Based on official meeting notes and an April 25, 2002 letter to Jefferson DCD from FHM counsel James C. Tracy, we understand that the full MRL designation may ultimately include up to 20,000-40,000 acres of Pope Resources commercial forestland. Phased review is allowed under SEPA under limited circumstances (WAC 197-11-060(5)), however Jefferson County is required to state that it is using this approach and that there is the possibility of future MRI. expansion (and how much potential additional lands would be so designated). Otherwise, it is difficult to see how the County is not in violation of SEPA-prohibited piece -meal incremental permitting on this project. 2. Brinnon Subarea Plana P amendment —Jefferson County has invested significant resources in the Brinnon Subarea Planning process in an effort to assist this local community with economic development opportunities. The Tribe supports the County's efforts to alleviate poverty and unemployment in a community that is also home to many of our Tribal members. However, there remain significant unresolved issues associated with the BSP, and the Brinnon community is still deeply divided over certain provisions of the plan. Chief among these issues is the recommendation for the development of a Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Black Point. The development of a MPR at Black Point potentially puts at risk numerous Tribal natural resources and values. In previous correspondence and testimony, we requested that the County complete a full EIS before proceeding with plans to develop a Black Point MPR, or even the adoption of a document that recommends MPR development. The Tribes' concern is that such a document would bias Jefferson DCD staff towards MPR development even though no comprehensive analysis of environmental constraints at Black Point has yet been completed. Unfortunately, the DSEIS contains little substantive analysis of the environmental conditions and constraints at Black Point that limit potential MPR development. Most of the Tribes' concerns outlined in our December 21, 2001 letter to the Commissioners remain outstanding: unstable slopes protection, fish and wildlife habitat protection, water limitations, and protection of Tribal shellfish areas. Within the 137 -page 2002 comp plan amendment DSEIS there is a mere one-page discussion of these concerns and little is resolved, though it does recognize that supplemental environmental analysis is needed. Nonetheless, the Black Point MPR recommendation remains an integral part of the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which is recommended for adoption as a comp plan amendment. The Tribe feels that even a recommendation for the creation of an MPR at Black Point is premature and unwarranted at this time given that many of the environmental site constraints remain unknown and unquantified. We suggest that Jefferson County modify the BSP prior to adoption to remove language recommending development of a Black Point MPR. We look forward to fruitful discussions of these matters with Jefferson County staff and other interested parties. Sincerely, eld G. Charles Tribal Chair CC: Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Point No Point Treaty Council Jefferson Co. Natural Resources Dept. WA Dept. of Natural Resources WA Dept. of Ecology WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Army Corp of Engineers National Marine Fisheries Service