HomeMy WebLinkAbout060Jefferson County Long Range Planning
Attn: David Wayne Johnson _
Transmitted via email
November 27, 2009
Re: Brinnon Master Planned Resort
Scoping for the "Programatic" EIS
The Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) has been involved in Jefferson
County's approval process for the Statesman Group's proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina
and Golf Resort since the spring of 2006. HCEC submitted written and oral testimony to
the Department of Community Development (DCD) during the scoping and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public input periods for the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Master Plan. We also attended the public scoping
meeting for the "programmatic" EIS on October 28, 2009 and are participating in the
public comment period for that document in writing.
We applaud the developer's interest in solar energy mentioned in the meeting as well as
the reduction in impervious surfaces. We would like to see statements made publicly (in
the papers, during public meetings, in advertisements, on the internet, etc) by the
Statesman Group and/or it's representatives regarding specific details of the resort be
included in the FEIS and development agreements. We incorporate those publicly
distributed documents, presentations, dvd's and ads by reference.
The HCEC has consistently expressed serious concerns about the Statesman Group's
proposal for a Master Planned Resort (MPR). We believe that it will result in
unacceptable environmental impacts to Hood Canal, undermine the complex research and
recovery efforts currently under way to determine probable causes and possible solutions
to the serious water quality problems plaguing the canal, and result in undesirable
changes to the rural character of the area. These and more specific concerns, e.g. water
rights, wastewater treatment method, adequacy of stormwater plans, and wetlands
mitigation, were spelled out in our 10-14-07 letter to the DCD, hereby incorporated by
reference.
In addition, we would like to see the following addressed:
The Jefferson County Website includes a link to a document entitled "Master
Planned Resorts Washington Style" which we incorporate by reference. This
document includes input from county officials in Washington and Oregon on
issues that they have had with their own master planned resorts. According to the
document, less than 10% of the resorts have been profitable for the original
developer. The document covers resorts built over the last 30 years and covers
better economic times than we are experiencing now. MPR's are designed to be
self-contained and must, according to RCW 36.70A.350 pay for the services they
require, yet there is a growing body of information that says they don't. Counties
and the State (taxpayers) are frequently burdened with expenses that should be
attributed to these resorts.
The issues that residents have with the Black Point project are well researched
and valid. Economic issues quickly become environmental issues. In practice,
other resorts have made employment promises to local residents that have not
been fulfilled in part because resorts bring in college students and immigrant
labor. Affordable housing issues abound. Tourist accommodations become
permanent residences in a setting that provides very little in the way of jobs or
goods and services, causing the residents to travel frequently from their rural
housing to urban centers. Traffic issues in rural areas become a primary concern.
The rural area experiences sprawl and urban -like traffic congestion, crime, need
for services grow ... resort residents become voters with little understanding of
rural issues......in short, most resorts are not self-contained over time and they
eventually characterize an area instead of being a more passive participant as they
were originally designed to be.
• All Level of Service (LOS) noted must be updated to current levels. Services
that can have significant effects on county and state oversight of projects, services
received from the county by Statesman Group, and social services provided to
residents have all been reduces dramatically. Reduction in services can have a
direct environmental impact.
• We question whether Jefferson County has the resources necessary for the
regulatory oversight required for this project. The additional burden of
administering and/or ensuring compliance with multiple permit applications and
resource management plans described in the FEIS, e.g. stormwater management
plan, golf course aquifer protection guidelines, LID site design (with the state),
habitat management plan, Shellfish Protection District requirements, and pet
management plan, will undoubtedly strain already tight budgets and staff.
• All data and research should be updated to current. There has been a
tremendous amount of new research in the past two years. For example, studies of
the Hood Canal, Stormwater management, Traffic studies from DOT, etc.
• Statements in the FEIS stating law enforcement LOS required by the
developer are not revenue dependent are misleading and should be
corrected. Levels of service are directly dependent on funding and can have a
direct environmental impact.
• The FEIS statement that there is no or limited runoff to the Canal from the
majority of the site should be verified. The water pictured below appears to
travel through the resort property. Additional photographs show water flowing
through the marina area. Water patterns should be verified during and
immediately after a rain event such as the 30" of rain received in the month of
November of this year.
• Dr. Hoerner wrote an in-depth letter regarding stormwater and traffic issues
dated 12/6/08 which is included in the FEIS, and we incorporate those
comments by reference and as relevant issues for this EIS.
• Golf courses and lawns should be receiving a permeability rating that is a
low percentage of natural, undisturbed terrain. Golf trade publications
2
provide volumes of information on how permeability is lost due to compaction
from equipment, overhead watering and foot traffic. Permeability is typically low
on both because maintaining permeability is difficult and expensive.
Extremely dry summers and variably wet winters typify the Brinnon area. In
a month such as this, stormwater collection, holding and treatment would
have to handle in the area of 35.45 million gallons of water in 30 days. If the
"natural but disturbed areas" had a functional permeability rating of 50%, the
stormwater collection, holding and treatment systems would need to handle
another 50 million gallons for a total of 85.45 million gallons of water in 30 days.
Stormwater holding and treatment in the maritime village area would have to be
built to handle 6.63 million gallons in 30 days. Not only did the area receive over
30" of rain in 30 days, over 10" fell in one 24-hour period. Stormwater systems
for this 24-hour event would have to be designed to handle 11.82 million gallons
(17% impervious), add another 16.68 million gallons or a total of 28.5 million
gallons (if disturbed soils are given a 50% permeability rating), and the system for
the maritime village alone would have to handle 2.2 million gallons in 24 hours.
This does not include the obvious requirement to build for a 50 & 100 -year storm
nor safety margins nor the volume of the 5 streams that cross the Maritime
Village area.
Because the Brinnon area typically experiences extremely dry summers,
permeability of all soils for the first rains in the winter is low with high
runoff. When the soil particles become as dry as is typical, they retain an
electrical charge, which repels water molecules. Absorption is slow and low.
After about 15" of rain this November we finally saw soils moist below 1" in
depth.
Even with the winter rains, the availability of potable water is a key issue and
we incorporate by reference, The Brinnon Group's letter dated 01/18/09,
addressed to the Department of Ecology. The letter gives an in-depth
description of saltwater incursion issues and the fact that the developer has likely
underestimated water usage significantly among other issues. It should be noted
that there are a number of wells where saltwater incursion has already occurred as
confirmed by the Department of Ecology. One is a well owned by Statesman
Group. Another set of wells is located adjacent to that of a Statesman
representative. Another well near Pleasant Harbor has gone functionally dry in 10
years.
In viewing Statesman's models and conceptual drawings of the proposed
resort, we believe the developer is modeling what it plans to build. If not, the
drawings would potentially mislead investors. The shoreline along Pleasant
Harbor does not appear to retain any natural buffer. It appears that the paved or
cement "promenade" is directly next to the water (first and third drawing). No
buffer is shown on the high bank above Hood Canal where the golf course
appears to be within a few feet of the steep bluff and clearly visible from the
water (2"d drawing). No buffer appears to be shown in the drawing above (4r'
drawing), with wide expanses of lawn stretching to the water. The illustrations
show a clear lack of understanding of key environmental issues in the northwest.
A statement made in the presentation at the last public meeting stated that this
land was "made for a resort". This conflicts with our beliefs on the most
fundamental level; that we all rely on a healthy environment for our own health
but also that the environment has intrinsic value in and of itself. We believe it
should not simply be consider raw material to be used for short-term economic
gain.
Float plane use of Pleasant Harbor is mentioned as not in Statesman Group's
plans but showcased on its website.
Views of the resort built environment should be filtered or hidden. Light
should be shielded from the night sky and from the water. Information on the
resort on the Internet describes expansive views of the mountains and Hood
Canal. This would imply that the views will be intrusive when reversed and that
the resort will have significant visual and light impact from the mountains and
water.
The model of the resort presented at the latest meeting shows standalone
trees surrounded by what looks to be lawn in a rendition that looks much
more like California than the Olympic Peninsula. This type of "landscaping"
should not count towards fully pervious surfaces or be given a classification
as natural. It does not fit in with natural vegetation in the area, nor does it
possess the degree of permeability that a group of trees and natural vegetation like
salal and sword fern would afford
4
• Assure that the resort receives the Platinum certification from Built Green
Ca (Canada) that was promised publicly in a Port Townsend Leader ad.
• Statesman should be strongly encouraged to reduce all lawn and intensely
maintained golf course surface area. Today individuals are being coaxed to
shrink or remove their lawns due to environmental concerns ranging from
fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide runoff, monoculture issues and the
corresponding loss of species diversity, high carbon usage from equipment used
in the intensive needs of lawn care, etc. Corporations should be encouraged
similarly. The golf course in the developer's plan is located directly above an
aquifer recharge area. It is located on the Hood Canal, a body of water that is
already known to be in serious environmental trouble. It is located in a County
with an existing world class golf course in it's other Master Planned Resort, less
than 30 miles away. That golf course has been reported to be in financial trouble
and has closed a portion to reduce costs. The pictures of the planned resort show
acres of lawn in addition to the golf course.
• The golf course should be organic. In cases where golf courses are located near
sensitive bodies of water there is growing use of organic growing methods to
combat herbicide and pesticide runoff. While it is not a panacea, organic
management will reduce potential for contamination of Hood Canal. It is common
knowledge that conventional golf courses do pollute in this manner.
• All runoff from the golf course should be captured and treated. Nutrients that
are used should be removed from runoff before it leaves the resort.
• Pharmaceuticals and hormones present in recycled wastewater should be
removed. The resort management seeks to inject water back into the aquifer after
treatment. The treatment should include removal of pharmaceuticals and
hormones as well as nutrients, bacteria, viruses, etc. If this does not occur and
contaminants enter the aquifer and are used repeatedly for potable water, the
contaminants may become more concentrated over time.
• Treatment of stormwater should be held to the highest current standard.
• Statesman Group's assurance that revenue from the resort will mitigate
community issues, infrastructure costs, or correction of environmental issues
brought on by the resort is not enough. There are many actual cases where
optimistic economic development statistics have not measured up to revenues,
ultimately costing the environment, taxpayers, counties and the state.
• Tight timetables for resolution, specific remedies, methods for attributing
responsibility, and specific details on who will pay for any damage to the
environment to avoid no net loss should be detailed. Simply "working with the
County" does not necessarily solve the problem nor fulfill the State's mandate for
no net loss.
• It is not acceptable for mitigation to be simply considering the problem or
issue. Mitigation should always offer a remedy that accomplishes no net loss
of habitat or ecological function. It is well known that mitigation attempts often
fall short of their intended goal- a situation we cannot afford.
• It should be noted that the shoulders on Hwy 101 in the vicinity are well
under 3 feet in many places and 10 foot wide shoulders are hard to find. A
typical mountain bike is about 26" wide at the handlebars and it is not uncommon
to be passed by two large RV's going opposite directions when biking on the
highway. Guardrails encroach on much of the shoulder. In the FEIS it was stated
that Hwy 101 has 3 to 10 foot wide shoulders Biking, which is an envisioned
activity of resort residents and visitors is extremely dangerous from Walker
Mountain south.
Non -motorized activities should be encouraged and a safe walking and
biking trail should be mandated to facilitate non -vehicle traffic between the
town of Brinnon and the resort.
It should be noted that drivers on Hwy 101 south of Brinnon are often
unaware of the treacherous road conditions contrary to a statement in the
FEIS. Drivers are often on vacation and unfamiliar with the area. This is born out
by the many accidents attributed to inattention.
Full DOT accident statistics must be used. Accidents in the area of the
proposed resort are only counted at intersections in the FEIS. Most accidents on
Hwy 101 do not occur at intersections. For example, there has been a recent
fatality within a mile of the resort, numerous accidents on Walker Mountain, a
fuel tanker accident just south of Duckabush Rd., two serious accidents on the hill
just south of the resort entrance, and none of these recent accidents would be
counted as accidents at intersections.
The FEIS traffic projections show that the resort is expected to more than
double traffic in the local area. There are discrepancies with regard to the
extrapolation of new traffic patterns that do not follow current traffic patterns.
The resort can be expected to double highway stormwater issues, local traffic
accidents, wear and tear on the highway and local roads, area fuel usage, highway
related emergency services and so on. Every attempt should be made to reduce the
additional trips for a variety of environmental reasons. This should be mitigated at
the state and county level.
Resort traffic between the maritime village and the golf course crosses the
intersection between Black Point Rd and Hwy 101. This will create 4 -way
traffic at or near the intersection and should be considered.
Property to the north side of Hwy 101 (also north of the marina) is owned by
the developer but not included in the MPR map. This property should be
specifically excluded from serving the resort in any way.
It has been said that we should not assume that mitigation and engineering
efforts will fail, however there are many cases where they do. We are
including photos of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife boat ramp in
Pleasant Harbor. These photos cover three years and appear on the next pages.
Water flows into Pleasant Harbor and the marina can be seen in photos 1&5.
on
y3iiA du at '"
� w
NEW
iiudlatl�F'
�o"'+rw
4 5
• Climate change must be considered. Dramatic changes in weather can be
expected with weather events increasing in intensity. Similarly, this area has a
high earthquake danger. The effects of such an event should be considered with
8
regard to structural integrity of all waste holding areas, areas of chemical,
fertilizer or fuel containment, and geothermal wells where anti -freeze of other
fluids may be lost directly into the aquifer.
The carbon footprint of the resort must be considered. Most if not all supplies,
guests and residents, and potentially many employees will be received by vehicle
or plane. It will truck out most if not all of its waste. Therefore HCEC takes issue
with the resort being characterized as a "sustainable green space."
Affordable housing is a primary concern. The FEIS estimates 40 full-time jobs.
The Statesman Group has claimed in local papers that it expects to create 280
jobs. One might assume that 240 jobs will be part-time and seasonal. Housing 50-
110 of those leaves another 130-190 to commute over long distances or find
affordable housing in the area on a part-time, likely minimum wage job. It has
been noted that there is very little inventory in the area. We are aware of cases in
which, under similar circumstances, employees or those seasonally unemployed
find their housing in unheated storage units, creating an immediate social and
public health crisis which can quickly become an environmental issue. The carbon
footprint of employee travel needs to be considered.
We would like to see the "programmatic EIS" present a reasonable alternative with less
environmental impact. We support an alternative that would halve the number of housing
units and increase the affordable housing units by 100%.
Since it would be in the best interest of the County to protect and support the viability of
it's first Master Planned Resort and protect Hood Canal, we suggest eliminating the Golf
course at Pleasant Harbor and offering a shuttle service to the world-class golf course
already built in Port Ludlow. This more accurately reflects the focus of the Brinnon area
on enjoyment of the Olympic National Forest and one of the "gateways" to the Olympic
National Park. It offers visitors other options for staying in the area. Jefferson County is
comprised of almost 90% state and federal land and should use this unique asset to its
best advantage. At 445 units, and at an estimated 2.2 individuals per unit, the resort still
dwarfs the year-round population of Brinnon, and is a compromise. Increasing the
number of affordable housing units will help stabilize and ensure a happier, healthier
workforce.
The reduction in units and removal of the golf course would lower the environmental
impact of the resort considerably, potentially reducing the extensive cut and fill needed to
build the golf course and additional ERU's, reducing potable water needs, reducing
energy consumption, lowering carbon footprint, and so on.
The argument has been made that a smaller resort will not be cost effective. It should be
noted that the Statesman Group has developed other, smaller resorts and in fact, does not
appear to own a resort incorporating a golf course of it's own. In these times, larger resort
owners are dealing with lack of profitability and the effect can be greater because they
usually are more highly leveraged.
Respectfully submitted,
0
Andrea Mitchell
Board Member
Hood Canal Environmental Council
10
David W. Johnson
From: Kathleen Boutiette [kmbnaturegal@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:36 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Water Rights for proposed Black Point Resort
November 30, 2009
David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping process now taking place.
Statesman has used different numbers in different planning documents for the amount of water that will be
needed for the proposed resort. However, none of the planning documents defines the aquifer from which the
water will be taken. It appears that no one has defined this aquifer. There are already wells with existing water
rights of 5000 gallons per day. Before any water can be claimed by Statesman, there must be a scientific
definition of the capacity of the entire aquifer, minus existing water rights. Then we can begin to define what
water Statesman might be able to use.
To define the aquifer, various tests need to be done for the next year. Wells on Black Point need to be tested at
different times of the year for their capacity and, also, for salt water intrusion. Detailed recommendations by
Waterworks Consultants have been submitted to you during this scoping process and are on the Brinnon Group
website. I support those testing recommendations.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Boutiette
Seabeck, WA
David W. Johnson
From: Gerald Steel [geraldsteel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:27 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Brinnon Scoping Comments for SEIS for BMPR
Attachments: Brinnon Scoping Comments for SETS for BMPR.pdf
David:
Please find attached Brinnon's Scoping Comments for the SEIS for the BMPR.
Gerald Steel
360.867.1166
GERALD STEEL, PE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
7303 YOUNG ROAD NW
OLYMPW WA 98502
TeVfax (360) 867-1166
Sent by fax to (360) 379-4451 and
email to: dv&hnson@coJefferson.wa.us
November 30, 2009
David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Scoping for SEIS for BMPR
Mr. Johnson:
The Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition (collectively `Brinnon") submits the
following scoping comments for the SEIS for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (`BMPR").
As a preliminary matter, I note that your Notice of Scoping is inadequate because it has an
inaccurate address for written scoping comments (zip code 989368 instead of 98368). Our
members and others are prejudiced by this inaccuracy in your scoping notice and the legal
notice for scoping should be corrected and reissued.
In your Notice of Scoping, you state that three alternatives are to be reviewed with the third
alternative being:
3. An alternative to the preferred layout that shows the
ability to achieve the requirements of the MPR and the
objectives of the proposal on this site in a different form.
The requirement for reasonable alternatives is in WAC 197-11-440(5). In order to meet this
requirement, there must be alternatives that "that could feasibly attain or approximate a
proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental
degradation." So the "different form" that must be analyzed are forms that have less
environmental degradation than the proposal while still developing an MPR.
SEIS Scoping
November 30, 2009
Page 2
Perhaps the most sensitive resource that will be impacted by the MPR is the ground water and
Hood Canal. While the project is seeking water rights from DOE, DOE is not reviewing the
environmental impact of the various levels and uses of requested water rights. These impacts
must be analyzed in the SEIS. Research provided by Brinnon for the MPR water rights
application review suggests that creating the proposed 18 -hole golf course and other fertilized
landscaping in the MPR will result in a substantial increase in nitrogen and other nutrient
levels in the ground and surface waters. The ground water flows directly into the Hood Canal,
which itself has an existing major problem with oxygen depletion caused by existing nutrient
levels and existing nutrient loading. This issue must be adequately analyzed in the SEIS and
there should be an alternative considered without a golf course and with state of the art
nitrogen removal from residential and commercial waste water before injection of treated
waste water into the aquifer. The MPR should be developed in such a way that it results in a
decrease in overall nitrogen loading to Hood Canal compared to the existing condition. The
County should require an alternative analyzed that approximates the objectives of the MPR
but does so in a manner that results in a decrease in overall nitrogen loading to Hood Canal
compared to the existing condition.
As a mitigation for the Preferred Alternative, the County should require a liner under any golf
course on the peninsula to capture the water that otherwise would increase nutrient loading in
the ground water and Hood Canal. The County can then require state of the art nutrient
removal from this captured water before injection of the treated water into the aquifer. This
should be considered a necessary mitigation of putting a golf course on this sensitive site in
Hood Canal. Water traveling into the ground water under a golf course will have a minimum
nitrogen loading of 10 ppm which will cause any unlined golf course to increase nitrogen
loading into Hood Canal significantly compared to the existing condition.
The project has proposed relying just on collection of rain water for its water supply and it
alternatively has proposed relying just on ground water wells. These two options should be
analyzed in the SEIS. The SEIS should consider that preexisting ground water rights are all
fully utilized when analyzing any future withdrawal of ground water for the project. It is likely
that ground water withdrawal for the MPR will result in salt water intrusion which will harm
existing water rights and harm existing lots on the peninsula that otherwise would be able get
drinking water from an exempt well. It is likely that collection of rain water, and treatment
before and after use, and then infection into the aquifer at carefully selected locations will be
the only on-site water supply option that won't have significant adverse environmental impacts
when mitigated.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MUST BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED
In the 9-18-08 FDO in Brinnon Group v. Jefferson Countv (Case No. 08-2-0014) at 32-34 and
40-41, the Growth Board reviewed Brinnon's claim that there was inadequate analysis in the
FEIS regarding the proponent's ability to reach zero discharge from the golf course site,
regarding specifications for "full" treatment of marina water, and regarding water quality
impacts of the anticipated traffic associated with the development. The Growth Board, in
essence, found that these issues were more appropriate for this SEIS. Id. To meet Condition
SEIS Scoping
November 30, 2009
Page 3
63(q) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the regulations should, at a minimum, require that
stormwater facilities be designed in a fail-safe manner so that no stormwater from golf course
associated development can reach the Hood Canal even in a (10 minute, l hour, and 24 hour)
500 -year flood, based on past weather patterns for the site and specifically considering changes
to weather patterns expected in the next 100 years from global warming. Said Condition 63 (q)
should be interpreted to not allow stormwater on a golf course to flow into and through the
ground water into Hood Canal unless the stormwater has been treated to cause no increase in
nutrients in Hood Canal compared to existing conditions on the site. Supra at 2. Water quality
and quantity impacts to be analyzed pursuant to Ordinance Condition 63(o) should include
specifications for "full" treatment of waste and storm water throughout the project site
including water used by boats in the MPR marina, and should include impacts on Hood Canal
and its marine life from the different alternative levels of development including associated
traffic both on and off-site. There must be project analysis parameters such as the 500 -yr flood
condition for 10 minutes,1 hour, and 24 hours that must be specified by the project specific
development regulations to be able to properly size drainage and treatment facilities to meet
the higher requirements for stormwater management applied to this project.
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
The FEIS did not consider enough reasonable alternatives. The SEIS should not make the
same mistake. There must be reasonable alternatives with their own zoning code amendments,
development agreement and master plan. As discussed above one reasonable alternative
should not allow a golf course. In this alternative, the housing should be laid out to minimize
grading and disturbed areas and maximize retention and viewing of existing trees, habitat, and
natural amenities. There could be walking, biking (rented), and horse (hired) trails as well as
water features, boat rentals at the marina, and other recreational facilities for active visitors.
This alternative could be laid out to be a resort with a natural theme that is respectful of the
existing natural environment. This alternative could be broken into two sub -alternatives one
with the maximum allowed 890 units and another with about half that number of units.
Commercial and recreational spaces must be well-defined.
The conceptual plan set forth in the FEIS as the Proposal does not have any commercial
directly on the Highway. In the area the Planning Commission proposed for Tourist
Commercial north of Black Point Road, the FEIS Proposal shows just a residential district.
Brinnon prefers the residential district in this area of the MPR. Further Brinnon requests that
the proj ect boundary with Highway 101 be required to be bermed with natural landscaping that
will retain a natural look from Highway 101 looking toward the project and from the project
looking toward Highway 101. The parking area is too close to Highway 101 in this area to not
have a well-designed visual break between the Highway and the project.
TRAFFIC PLANNING
Traffic circulation, particularly in the vicinity of Black Point Road and Highway 101, is a
major problem for the project. If Black Point Road is not realigned near Highway 101, there
will be traffic jams created where the entrances to the north and south sides of the project
intersect Black Point Road. Cars seeking to enter the marina site will be backed up waiting
to make a left turn while traffic leaving the peninsula are backed up on Black Point Road
waiting to get onto Highway 101. There should be alternative entrances to the project
analyzed in the SEIS. One alternative would be to move the entrance to the project to the
south on Highway 101 to get as long a queue as possible between the new tee intersection and
the existing proposed intersection of the site roads with Black Point Road. The new Marina
SEIS Scoping
November 30, 2009
Page 4
Entrance road alignment would begin going east off Highway 101 and then curve to the north
to align with the Marina Site entrance without any stop signs when going from Highway 101
into the Marina Site. Black Point Road would then end in a tee with this Marina Site entrance
road. There would be a stop sign on Black Point Road where it tees into the Marina Site
entrance road. There could be a right turn off the new Marina Site entrance road to enter the
Resort District. Such a realignment would significantly improve traffic conflicts created by
the FEIS proposed circulation pattern.
SIGNAGE
The attractiveness, sophistication, and success of the MPR will in part be established by the
signage that the project is allowed and particularly that which is visible from Highway 101.
The most successful new projects are limited to one landscaped and front lighted monument
sign visible from both directions (in a vee or perpendicular to the Highway) that is not higher
than 8 feet. The SEIS should illustrate alternative signage regulations for major signs visible
from Highway 101 and for minor signage. Signage should be sophisticated and not excessive,
vulgar, and cheap. The signage regulations should address allowed on-site signage that is not
designed to be read from Highway 101, including street signs, residential building numbering
and unit numbering, commercial identification signage on non-residential buildings, check-in
office and lobby signage and small directional signs that should be limited to small monument
signs with a one or more directions identified. Safety signs should also be regulated as to type
and size. No outdoor signage should be allowed that does not meet specific requirements in
the detailed BMPR signage regulations.
PARKING AND ROAD STANDARDS
There should be parking and road standards defined in the MPR regulations including
regulations for sidewalks in high density residential and in commercial areas. No parking
should be allowed in areas not shown on the master plan for parking.
URBAN SERVICES
The project is required to provide all urban services inside the MPR including urban fire,
EMP, and police services. The County may not allow these urban services to extend outside
the development site. The SEIS must provide analysis of how the project would provide urban
services inside the project site that would not be available outside the project site. For
example, it would not be reasonable to put new fire equipment in an existing fire station
outside the project site because this would upgrade fire service outside the project site in the
same way it would upgrade fire service inside the project site. The same is true for emergency
medical and police service that serves the site.
LAND USE
The SEIS should address how the master plan, development regulations, and development
agreement and all alternatives will comply with all of the requirements established by
Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and all of the requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, including
the Brinnon Subarea Plan, and with the existing development regulations that apply to all
MPRs and with all mitigation conditions in the FEIS. Further, the proposed development
regulations should explicitly require that any development associated with the project must be
done in a manner consistent with and in compliance with all requirements of Ordinance No.
SEIS Scoping
November 30, 2009
Page 5
01-0128-08, all requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Brinnon Subarea Plan,
and with the existing development regulations that apply to all MPRs and with all mitigation
conditions in the FEIS and FSEIS.
OPEN SPACE
The master plan and master plan alternatives should explicitly identify and permanently
protect open spaces and natural areas to be left natural and development regulations should
explicitly keep development including other that native plant landscaping out of identified
open space areas.
SHORT TERM RENTALS
The County general regulations provide:
Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited
to, hotels, motels, lodges, and other residential uses, that are
made available for short-term rental; provided, that short-term
visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent
of the total resort accommodation units.
JCC 18.15.123(2).
This regulation requires 65 percent of the total units to be available for "short-term rental."
This would preclude time-share owners from purchasing and using these units because when
the units are used by owners they are not available for "short term rental." The development
regulations must be clear that at least 65 percent of the total units can only be used for "short
term rental" and cannot be used by owners. The maximum rental period for short-term visitor
accommodations must be defined in the development regulations. It would not be consistent
with this regulation for an owner to use their unit for three summer months and then have the
unit available for rent for the rest of the year and consider this to be part of the 65 percent of
the total resort accommodations units that are made available for shore -term rental. Such a
unit is better described as part of the 35 percent of total resort accommodation units that are
not short-term visitor accommodation units made available for short-term rental.
CRITICAL AREAS
The SEIS should provide an updated wetland delineation.
for Brinnon
David W. Johnson
From: Bob Foster [brinnonbob@netzero.net]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:18 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Brinnon MPR SEIS Comments
Attachments: WeatherCover.jpg; Weather2.jpg; Weather1.jpg
To: David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner dwiohnson(@co.iefferson.wa.us Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping process now taking place.
Statesman has used different numbers in different planning documents for the amount of water
that will be needed for the proposed resort. However, none of the planning documents defines
the aquifer from which the water will be taken. It appears that no one has defined this
aquifer. There are already wells with existing water rights of 5000 gallons per day. Before
any water can be claimed by Statesman, there must be a scientific definition of the capacity
of the entire aquifer, minus existing water rights. Then we can begin to define what water
Statesman might be able to use.
To define the aquifer, various tests need to be done for the next year.
Wells on Black Point need to be tested at different times of the year for their capacity and,
also, for salt water intrusion. Detailed recommendations by Waterworks Consultants have been
submitted to you during this scoping process and are on the Brinnon Group website. I support
those testing recommendations.
Additionally, the latest climatalogical study done for Puget Sound/Western Washington is a
280 page book by Cliff Mass 2008 University of Washington Press that stipulates that the
current flooding of major rivers is due to the deforestation done since the early 1950's and
that "local" weather predictions can and do vary "mile by mile". The use of weather data
procured from a locality 13 miles distant from the proposed site is totally ridiculous!
Furthermore, abnormal rain patterns that will occur during the year long cut and fill of 2
million yds of earth will most certainly create uncontrollable situations the developer
cannot foresee nor control.
Sincerely,
Robert E Foster
PO Box 291
Brinnon WA 98320
Culinary Arts School
Write your own Recipe for Success. Search Culinary Schools today!
http•//thirdpartyoffers netzero net/TGL2241/c?cp=31NXpPaMomI9g7ZCOXv eeg_AA31EX7VP2nrliRZeX Kf
9 c-AAQAAAAFAAAAAEvfdzOAAANSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABNlkw =
1
om4, the W -1r
ISI V I "Clem View Of inmmift wtwllet .25swil"J';
Mdal Although- wpAchef -sawlilte trJwmatian is
Inskle- druds and !.to rmir, in tto it 0,. 1. %*aWf
mda- can vuw it --,e pc e7. ipi tut i u i ;. and -K-,mds deep.
LOCAL POINt'"ON OWULIMSES
ootol w.,
.vormians, many of whiell, fire "wif4weil With:
tltl bv m I and ri vi Shboin um! bry
,tKlrhmd. Itild -.I(b va'Aflowrowt be tmder-
rmd ant kainro"oka w d,,,, This can be 11'2us-
'trated* evarniming three regwool wmfte, lea-
nim- to woperaimm ed cvr-lea v4 Rill;
it'd u1nd vorialians between
and %Ztm
oxw
oft tpholf9wo 00 �"N
atid- qlp ejral' a
aw, frW ;4tvint.a bw spots beimm
to FW.011-r
chapwm
I,bpTc zTe.,oftmlar gx! i g,t t iftleMpet
-
til e benbe
tPon land ml, water.11 beaqwrallum.-
sorutio. all "'S"Vol
11
a
David W. Johnson
From:
Ellie [info@whitneygardens.com]
Sent:
Monday, November 30, 2009 1:25 PM
To:
David W. Johnson
Subject:
Brinnon MPR SEIS Comments
To: David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner
dwjohnson _co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping process now taking place.
Statesman has used different numbers in different planning documents for the amount of
water that will be needed for the proposed resort. However, none of the planning
documents defines the aquifer from which the water will be taken. It appears that no one
has defined this aquifer. There are already wells with existing water rights of 5000 gallons
per day. Before any water can be claimed by Statesman, there must be a scientific
definition of the capacity of the entire aquifer, minus existing water rights. Then we can
begin to define what water Statesman might be able to use.
To define the aquifer, various tests need to be done for the next year. Wells on Black
Point need to be tested at different times of the year for their capacity and, also, for salt
water intrusion. Detailed recommendations by Waterworks Consultants have been
submitted to you during this scoping process and are on the Brinnon Group website. I
support those testing recommendations.
Sincerely,
David W. Johnson
From: Mendoza, Sonia (ECY) [Smen461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:56 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: SEPA No. 09-6038 Scoping SEIS "Brinnon Master Planned Resort project" Comment Letter
Attachments: image001.gif; imageQ02.gif; 09-6038.pdf
Importance: High
Mr. David Wayne Johnson,
Per your request is our comments for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort project (Ecology SEPA
File No. 09-6038). Comments are due today 11/30/09.
Department of Ecology-SWRO
SEPA Coordinator
360-407-6313 (P)
360-407-6305(F)
4
STATE. OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 .Olympia, Washington 08504-7775 (360) 407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service - Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
November 30, 2009
David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner
Jefferson County
Community Development Department
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98936
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping for preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort project as proposed by
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLC c/o Pleasant Harbor Marina. The Department of Ecology
(Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s):
SEPA REGIONAL PROJECT LEAD: Sarah Lukas (360) 407-7459
Shorelands/Wetlands
The proposed supplemental document should include analysis of all impacts to waters of the state
of Washington. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) disclosed that several kettle
wetlands as well as Pleasant Harbor will be impacted by this proposal.
To analyze impacts to shorelands, I recommend the SEIS include site specific maps detailing the
proposed development activities within shoreline jurisdiction. I recommend that the site plans be
consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-27-180(9), to receive substantive comments.
According to the Washington Coastal Atlas eel grass beds are present within the Harbor. I
recommend the SEIS be supplemented with an eel grass survey to document current conditions.
Wetlands should be mapped and all impacts should be disclosed. Proximity to proposed buildings
should be clearly defined. If there are any direct impacts to wetlands proposed, the applicant will be
required to receive authorization from Ecology prior to any construction activities.
WASTE 2 RESOURCES: Anya Caudill (360) 407-6084
We encourage Jefferson County to consider incorporating the principles of green building and low
impact development into the Zoning Code and Development agreements. Please refer to the
techniques referenced in the LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for
Neighborhood Development rating system. The LEED checklist can be an effective design guide for
environmentally responsible, sustainable development. The Low Impact Development Technical
Manual can be found at the Puget Sound Partnership website at:
htto://www.oso.wa.eov/downloads/LID/LID manual2005.Pdf.
WATER QUALITY: Roberta Woods (360) 407-6269
Any discharge of sediment -laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of
Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for
Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to enforcement action.
November 30, 2009
Page 2
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These
control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other
pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay
particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter
wetlands, streams and their buffers and water of the state or cause water quality degradation of
state waters.
During construction, all releases of oils, hydraulic fluids, fuels, other petroleum products, paints,
solvents, and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will
prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should take
precedence over other work on the site.
Soil in stockpiles should be stabilized or protected with sediment -trapping measures to prevent soil
loss. All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled for work, whether at final
grade or otherwise, shall not remain exposed and un -worked for more than two days, between
October 1 and April 30. Between May 1 and September 30, no soils shall remain exposed and un-
worked for more than seven (7) days.
Clearing limits and/or any easements or required buffers should be identified and marked in the
field, prior to the start of any clearing, grading, or construction. Some suggested methods are
staking and flagging or high visibility fencing.
A permanent vegetative cover should be established on denuded areas at final grade if they are not
otherwise permanently stabilized.
Properties adjacent to the site of a land disturbance should be protected from sediment deposition
through the use of buffers or other perimeter controls, such as filter fence or sediment basins.
Cut and/or fill slopes should be designed to minimize erosion. Methods such as slope roughening,
terraces, or pipe slope drains may be used.
All temporary erosion control systems should be designed to contain the runoff from the developed
two year, 24-hour design storm without eroding.
Provision should be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved
public roads. If sediment is deposited, it should be cleaned every day by shoveling or sweeping.
Water cleaning should only be done after the area has been shoveled out or swept.
This project may require a construction stormwater permit (also known as National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction). This permit is required for projects which meet both of
the following conditions:
a. one or more acres of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities; and
b. the site already has offsite discharge to waters of the state or storm drains or will have
offsite discharge during construction.
An application with instructions can be downloaded from Ecology's website at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/#Application. Construction site
operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to discharging stormwater.
WATER RESOURCES: Vicki Cline (360) 407-0278
The proponent is currently going through the cost reimbursement process for water right decisions.
November 30, 2009
Page 3
Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such, they may not
constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements
that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate
reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(SM: 09-6038)
cc: Anya Caudill, W21R
Vicki Cline, WR
Stephanie Jackson, WQ
Sarah Lukas, SEA
Roberta Woods, WQ
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLC c/o Pleasant Harbor Marina (Proponent/Owners)
MEMORANDUM
Jefferson County
Department of Public Works
623 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9160
Frank Gifford, Public Works Director
Monte Reinders, P. E., County Engineer
TO: David W. Johnson, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
FROM: James W. Pearson Project Manager
DATE: November 30, 2009
RE: ZON08-00056 Brinnon Master Planned Resort
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) scoping comments
The SEIS will supplement the Programmatic EIS adopted for the Comprehensive Plan approval
of the Master Planned Resort designation and assess impacts related to Jefferson County's
adoption of:
• Amendments to the Jefferson County Code Title 17 Master Planned Resorts and Title 18
Unified Development Code and
• A Brinnon Master Planned Resort Development Agreement.
This memo provides the Department's comments on the scoping notice for the referenced
proposal.
The Department has also reviewed a draft Development Agreement proposed by the developer
and comments by the Department of Community Development. This memo provides the
Department's preliminary comments on the draft Development Agreement.
A. Supplemental EIS Scoping
The Programmatic EIS (PEIS) assessed existing and projected roadway conditions on Highway
101 and County Roads, including Black Point County Road. It identified significant impacts to
the Highway 101 / Black Point Road intersection, the initial segment of Black Point Road from
Highway 101 to the marina entrance intersection, and the subsequent segment of Black Point
Road to the golf resort entrance at +/-Mile Post 0+70.
The PEIS included specific mitigation measures for the Highway 101 / Black Point Road
intersection and the initial segment of Black Point Road. These mitigations have been
incorporated into preliminary roadway improvement plans that were prepared by the developer's
engineering consultant and have been reviewed by the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) through its Plan For Approval process. These impacts and mitigations
do not require additional analysis in the SEIS
The PEIS noted that Black Point Road does not have an adequate structural section or roadway
width to accommodate the projected traffic. It states that prior to development of the golf course
the developer will "(f)ully fund and construct improvements for Black Point Road to meet
County standards from US Highway 101 to the project entrance."
Public Works Department Comment: The MPR Development Agreement should include
provisions to ensure that this mitigation measure is implemented.
B. Development Agreement
Public Works Department General Comment:
Development of the MPR will require significant clearing and grading and construction of public
and private roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater management
facilities. Ensuring that these improvements comply with the project plans and adopted County
standards and specifications will require plan reviews, construction inspections, materials
sampling and testing, and final project review. It will require that construction is conducted
under the supervision of a licensed project engineer and that prior to final approval the project
engineer certifies that the improvements comply with the project plans and the County's
standards and specifications.
In order to ensure this, the Development Agreement should include a section that provides for a
Memorandum of Agreement between the developer and the Jefferson County Public Works
Department. The MOA should specify development standards and procedures for plan review,
construction inspections, and materials sampling and testing. It should require supervision by the
project engineer. The MOA should also require that the developer will reimburse the Department
for expenses related to the project. The Development Agreement should require the MOA to be
agreed upon prior to initial site development.
Development Agreement Section 1.3.13 addresses "the provision of public services necessary
to the site [which] are subject to memorandums of understanding with public service agencies for
sewer, water, schools, police/security, fire/EMS and transit...." It refers to MOU N-4
Transportation.
Public Works Department Comment: This list should include roads and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. A Memorandum that addresses these facilities should be provided to the Department
for review and comment.
Development Agreement Section 3.13 Transportation refers solely to public transportation
services that would be provided by Jefferson Transit.
Public Works Department Comment: As noted above, transportation services and facilities
should be expanded to include roads and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Development Agreement Section 4.2.1 Prior EIS states that "...prior EISs reviewed potential
impacts and mitigation... on aprogrammatic level and were not project -specific EISs."
Public Works Department Comment: The intent and implications of this statement should be
clarified. The transportation impacts and mitigations identified in the Programmatic EIS were
related to the designation of the Master Planned Resort. These mitigations include improvements
to the Highway 101 / Black Point Road intersection, the initial segment of Black Point Road to
the marina entrance intersection, and the subsequent segment of Black Point Road to the golf
resort entrance at +/-Mile Post 0+70. The mitigations should be implemented in conjunction with
the initial site development and should not be subject to additional project -specific SEPA review.
Development Agreement Section 5.1 Preliminary Facilities addresses facilities that must be
constructed in conjunction with the initial phase of development. Section 5. 1.1 Transportation
specifies that this includes "the entrance road at Black Point Road connecting to both the golf
course entrance and the marina entrance (including the improvements to link with the WDOE
[sic] ramp)."
Public Works Department Comment:
The list of preliminary transportation facilities does not include improvements to the Highway
101 / Black Point Road intersection or to the segment of Black Point Road from the marina
entrance intersection to the golf resort entrance at +/-Mile Post 0+70. These improvements
should be included in Section 5. 1.1 Transportation. The Development Agreement should specify
that, in conjunction with the application for the golf resort site development, the proponent will
provide an engineering analysis of the Black Point Road structural section and proposed
improvements to the roadway structural section and width. The improvements would be
constructed prior to final plat approval of the golf resort or, at the discretion of the County
Engineer, could be constructed later provided that the developer posts appropriate surety.
David W. Johnson
From: bob cat [bobcat98058@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 8:07 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Statesman water issues
Thank you for the opportunity to make comments on the scoping process now taking place.
Statesman has used different numbers in different planning documents for the amount of water
that will be needed for the proposed resort. However, none of the planning documents defines
the aquifer from which the water will be taken. It appears that no one has defined this
aquifer. There are already wells with existing water rights of 5000 gallons per day. Before
any water can be claimed by Statesman, there must be a scientific definition of the capacity
of the entire aquifer, minus existing water rights. then we can begin to define what water
Statesman might be able to use.
to define the aquifer, various tests need to be done for the next year. Wells at Black Point
need to be tested at different times of the year for their capacity and also, for salt water
intrusion. Detailed recommendations by Waterworks Consultants have been submitted to you
during this scoping process and are on the Brinnon Group website. I fully support those
testing recommendations.
Sincerely, Bob Newmon
David W. Johnson
From: Sue Bond [skbond797@embargmail.comj
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:32 PM
To: David W. Johnson; barbara moore lewis
Subject: commentsTo: David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner
To: David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner
dwiohnsonC@-co.*efferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping process now taking place.
Statesman has used different numbers in different planning documents for the amount of
water that will be needed for the proposed resort. However, none of the planning
documents defines the aquifer from which the water will be taken. It appears that no one
has defined this aquifer. There are already wells with existing water rights of 5000 gallons
per day. Before any water can be claimed by Statesman, there must be a scientific
definition of the capacity of the entire aquifer, minus existing water rights. Then we can
begin to define what water Statesman might be able to use.
To define the aquifer, various tests need to be done for the next year. Wells on Black
Point need to be tested at different times of the year for their capacity and, also, for salt
water intrusion. Detailed recommendations by Waterworks Consultants have been
submitted to you during this scoping process and are on the Brinnon Group website. I
support those testing recommendations.
Sincerely,
Sue Bond
Brinnon, Wa
1
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Point No Point Treaty Council Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
November 24th, 2009
David Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Brinnon MPR Scoping Comments
Dear David Johnson,
The Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes, and the Point no Point Treaty Council
appreciate this opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the
Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR).
However, the S'Klallam Tribes have not been involved in the planning process since we participated
in developing the 30 ordinances adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners in 2008.
We fully expected the project proponent would be required to work with us. It seems only one Tribe,
out of the four that have interest in the project, has been approached and included in the planning
activities. This is not acceptable. The MPR is located within the S'Klallam Usual and Accustomed
Area (U&A) and there will be impacts to our treaty resources as well as disturbances to potential
cultural resources. Not only are the surrounding waters and land historically important to the
S'Klallam Tribes, but the Hood Canal and the fertile beaches of the Duckabush River estuary remain
crucial to our tribal members for finfish and shellfish harvesting.
Currently we do not support any of the plan alternatives.
We strongly suggest the project proponent adhere to provisions of the new SMP, including shoreline
buffer protections, and wetland protections under the County's current (2008) critical area ordinance
(CAO). It is well known that the project location is near, and in some cases incorporates, important
habitat types. The protection of such critical areas should be a top priority. For example, the kettle
ponds and their riparian areas are unique ecological features necessary to support species diversity for
amphibians and birds, and serve as natural aquifer recharge and storage. These wetlands should not
be filled, lined and used as engineered re -circulating systems, but rather they could serve as amenities
to the project primarily for passive recreational purposes. The native riparian vegetated buffers
surrounding these kettle ponds should be protected in accordance with the current County CAO.
Native vegetated buffers should also be retained along the marine shoreline feeder bluffs along the
south shore of Black Point. These bluffs naturally erode over time and vegetated buffers and setbacks
must accommodate long-term rates of erosion to protect their function as sources of natural sediment
and small and large woody debris to the adjacent Duckabush estuary and beaches. While we are
aware of Statesmans' efforts to build a "green" project, the overall footprint of this development is
large for the small island -like area of Black Point. Pre-existing roads and disturbed areas from
previous activities should be utilized as opposed to creating new disturbances to native vegetation and
soils. In general, we also favor a plan that maintains larger and contiguous forested patches over a
plan that results in small fragments of forest patches.
The 30 ordinances adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners show that various
management and monitoring plans are to be developed, and scientific reports conducted as conditions
for this proposed development. In some instances, the ordinances state or allude to management plans
being created for cultural resources, wildlife, stormwater and mitigation. These actions are necessary
and reports should be released to the affected tribes, the public and other agencies for review. For
example, it is still unclear where the source of domestic water will come from for this proposed
development. The tribes must be involved in discussions of mitigation for project impacts. In
general, the tribes support mitigation focused on protection and restoration of watershed and habitat -
forming processes, and water quality and species protection and restoration. We do not consider
leaving buffers around bluffs and wetlands (which are already requirements of existing code) as
mitigation. As suggested in the ordinances, runoff projections and analysis on impacts to the Hood
Canal need to be developed, the latter focusing on shellfish, finfish, water quality and habitat impacts.
The ordinances call for a County -based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan for Pleasant
Harbor. The tribes must review the monitoring plans that are developed as a part of this project. A
component of this plan needs to include water quality monitoring of the surrounding beaches
including the Duckabush estuary.
Overall, the S'Klallam tribes and PNPTC feel there has been a lack of information provided to us on
technical reports as well as monitoring and management plans. The tribes often review all technical
documents related to large scale developments located in our U&A. It is our shared responsibility to
protect the Duckabush river corridor and estuary which are critical habitats for ESA summer Chum,
Chinook salmon, and Steelhead populations, as well as the surrounding vicinity which is home to an
important elk herd for the tribes and the State. We hope that in future planning efforts, all affected
tribes are invited to participate in resource management related issues.
Sincerely,
Paul McCollum, Natural Resources Director
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
c__��
Scott Chitwood, Natural Resources Director
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
,�O�
Randy Harder, Executive Director
Point no Point Treaty Council
2
Cc:
Byron Rot; Habitat Program Manager, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Steve Todd; Habitat Biologist, Point No Point Treaty Council
Rick Mraz; Wetland Specialist Southwest Region, Dept. of Ecology
Alison O'Sullivan; Biologist, Suquamish Tribe
Randy Lumper; Environmental Planner, Skokomish Tribe
Michael Blanton; Area Watershed Steward, WDFW
Margie Bigelow Schirato; Area Habitat Biologist, WDFW
David W. Johnson
From: derano [derano@worldfront.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:50 AM
To: dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Subject: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
To: David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner dwiohnson(@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping process now taking place.
It has been stated on PUD's website, that any well which taps into an aquifer that outcrops
in seawater is vulnerable to and /or a potential cause of seawater intrusion. Areas with a
history of high chloride values, above 100mg/l, are considered highly vulnerable and based on
previous studies Brinnon is one of the areas that has been so identified. Because so little
is known about the dimensions and properties of local aquifers, there are few areas or wells
which we can preclude as not being vulnerable to the potential of salt water intrusion.
Statesman has used different numbers in different planning documents for the amount of water
that will be needed for the proposed resort.
However, none of the planning documents defines the aquifer from which the water will be
taken. It appears that no one has defined this aquifer. There are already wells with existing
water rights of 5000 gallons per day. Before any water can be claimed by Statesman, there
must be a scientific definition of the capacity of the entire aquifer, minus existing water
rights. Then we can begin to define what water Statesman might be able to use.
Various in depth testing such as sub meter accurate surveying of wells, and numerical or
computer modeling, needs to be done to identify where salt water intrusion will occur. To
define the aquifer, various tests need to be done for the next year. Wells on Black Point
need to be tested at different times of the year for their capacity and, also, for salt water
intrusion. The problem of intrusion is not limited to the specific shore sites but can effect
wells several miles inland, in other words, greater Brinnon. The Gyben-Hertzberg Relations,
which Pud refers to, formulates that for every one foot drop in water level the transition
zone immediately beneath will rise 40 feet, therefore even very small changes in the water
level can cause significant intrusion of salt water. Detailed recommendations by Waterworks
Consultants have been submitted to you during this scoping process and are on the Brinnon
Group website. I support those testing recommendations.
Sincerely,
Olivia Alfano, Brinnon
1
David W. Johnson
From: Andrea Mitchell [andrea88@embargmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:26 AM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Fw: Comments on Statesman Water Quality Montioring Plan
Attachments: Brinnon stormwater 12-06-07.pdf; Draft MPR Water Quality Management Plan
Comments.doc; Brin - Final Objection to G2-30436.doc
David. I'm enclosing the information I previously sent in July so that it will be included as part of the scoping for the
"programmatic EIS" on the Brinnon MPR. Thanks.
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
----- Original Message -----
� �, " ..:. ...... ....... ... , ;nit i� �; i ISI �?. "•. 'i lei �i � �n �'4�;'°`
From: Andrea Mitchell 1' L,'
N r�ldddluila `. .Y (II��I�N����������Glbll.
To: David Johnson -LR Plan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:31 PM
Subject: Comments on Statesman Water Quality Montioring Plan
David,
I have enclosed a letter commenting on two Statesman documents. My letter is entitled "Draft MPR Water Quality
Management Plan Comments". The other two documents are supporting enclosures.
received the request for comment on the MPR documents from another source and am a bit confused because I'm on
the County MPR email distribution list. If I need to be entered on another list, please do so. I am interested in all email
from the County regarding the MPR.
Thank you for your work!
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
David Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
July 16, 2009
Re: Draft Water Supply and Ground Water Analysis
Brinnon MPR Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan
My comments are based on the following:
• It's my understanding that the Draft Water Supply & Ground Water Impact
Analysis is a document that was submitted to the Department of Ecology in
reference to the developer's water rights application. The water rights application
is under protest by the Brinnon Group. I incorporate by reference the attorney's
letter outlining technical issues and specifics regarding water availability,
problems with salt water incursion and stormwater infiltration, etc. This letter is
written by Gerald Steel and dated January 19, 2009.
The developer for the BP Master Planned Golf Resort has indicated to the public
in public meetings, media ads and presentations that it will build a "super green"
resort. The community has been promised that it will go above and beyond what
is understood as standard "green" construction practices to earn this status and
that the development will improve water quality in the area.
• Protection of water quality is equally important to supporters and those opposing
the MPR. Differences of opinion exist largely on the developer's ability or will to
implement a development of this size and design (golf course, marina, large
conference centers, condos, etc) without affecting water quality.
• Statewide, current stormwater control and treatment is failing to protect surface
and ground water from pollutants. This has been substantiated in a number of
ways locally and regionally. According to a recent National Academy of Science
report, urban areas cover approximately 3% of the US, yet it is estimated that their
runoff is the primary source of 32% of pollution to estuaries.
The Brinnon MPR is by definition an urban density development with the added
environmental burden of a golf course, potential above and underground
fuel/pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer storage tanks, sewer treatment facilities,
timeshare/condo development, and stormwater infiltration basins; all of which are
listed by the EPA as potential sources of significant contamination to ground and
surface water.
Sources of water pollution are difficult and expensive to prove. Frequently, the
burden of proof is that of taxpayers. If the testing in inconclusive, the damage
goes unmitigated, and if proof is obtained, there often is a lack of any adaptive
management plan or failure in implementation. The net result is a cumulative
increase in impact from development on the region's water quality and increased
financial burden on residents and taxpayers in the attempt to obtain compliance
from responsible parties.
• There is expert opinion that the developer's estimates of water usage are low. If
they are, it calls into question the ability of the water treatment, holding and
delivery systems to handle the additional volume. As, noted by Frank Meriwether
(Office of Drinking Water Regional Engineer, Department of Health) in his letter
dated April 19, 2007), adoption of a daily water use rate of 70 gallons per minute
per residence per day is extremely low. According to Llyn Doremus, current
hydrologist for the Nootsack Tribe and former hydrologist for GeoEngineers, the
water usage estimates are unrealistic. Water usage, " ....should be considered in
light of the fact that conservation measures at this low use rate depends upon
typically require an educated water -user population. This assumes a local
residency that would be subject to ongoing education efforts by the water utility
or in this case the resort owner. Instead, these are primarily temporary use
occupancy units, and the water users do not typically have a vested interest in
continued water availability for the vicinity, nor the exposure to the education
necessary to understand why water conservation is important. Finally, many of
these are luxury units, which by definition encourages extravagant consumption,
of water as well as other amenities."
The draft plan introduces the development as, "not expected to increase pollutants into
the harbor or Hood Canal." I have included the Dr. Horner's comments on the Brinnon
MPR FEIS dated December 6, 2007, regarding the proposed stormwater control and
treatment and adopt them by reference. The basis for the current draft water quality plan
is in part, the FEIS. Dr. Horner is well qualified on the subject and outlines shortcomings
in the FEIS stormwater information.
The photos below are from a recent storm in the Fish & Wildlife area next to the
proposed resort. The water is coming, in part, from one of the streams that flow across
the resort area. This was not a 100 -year nor even a 50 year storm and one can assume that
it was developed within the parameters of all current regulation.
The photo to the left shows water flowing
down the Fish & Wildlife public access road
toward the harbor.
The photos on the next page are of the silt
barrier failing with the resort marina in the
background and the scotch broom vegetation
2
on the shore. The parking lot is within a few feet of Pleasant Harbor.
As stated on page 3, the MPR is not expected to increase pollution to Pleasant Harbor or
Hood Canal. It is stated that stormwater will be treated for nitrogen. Nitrogen is one
element that is problematic in stormwater but not the only issue. Stormwater should be
treated for all elements considered pollutants.
On page 3, last bullet point, "If water quality are identified and attributed to the project,
the resort will be required to notify Jefferson County..." This statement should be
tightened up with deadlines for County notification and what standards will be applied
for attribution. "Exploring" BMPs as mitigation does not guarantee improvement of the
situation or the elimination of the pollution.
The goal as stated in the plan is for the MPR is to add no pollutants. By definition,
minimizing and mitigating do not reach that standard. On page 4, second bullet, the
statement should read, "Include an adaptive management plan to eliminate......."
The developer has promised the community zero discharge of stormwater from the resort
including the maritime village. To implement this promise, there should be no stormwater
outlet to the harbor. All stormwater should be collected and treated in the main treatment
facility.
The FEIS states full "treatment" of stormwater from the Maritime Village. The extent of
treatment is not outlined. The draft plan states it will be meet surface water standards set
by WAC 173-201a, but does not state which level included in that code it will use. The
Maritime Village is expected to have 22% impervious surfaces, a high level of
commercial use and a high density of residential use represented by condos. The standard
for all stormwater released into the harbor should be held to the highest level of surface
water standards. While it is understood that some stormwater will originate from the
highway just above the Maritime Village and is not ultimately the resort's responsibility,
it should be noted that the resort is expected to double traffic in the area. Given those
estimates, at least 50% of the highway stormwater runoff pollutants are attributable to the
resort. In addition, the high use in the Maritime Village, it's proximity to the shore, and
lack of pervious surfaces between the condos and the shoreline offer a potential for a high
level of stormwater pollution. The specific goal should be zero pollution to the harbor.
On page 5, water -sampling locations should include a marine sampling point on the south
side of the point, near the developer's holdings and the Duckabush River estuary.
Baseline and continued well water sampling should also be included from residential
wells on each side of the resort to ensure that pollutants and salt water are not entering
the aquifer that these wells draw from.
Baseline and continued testing of water should be by period and also by event,
specifically after precipitation, or in the case of snow, shortly after snow melt. Below is a
statement from the Department of Ecology regarding water quality following rain:
Increased pathogen and fecal bacteria levels in marine waters can come from both shore and
inland sources. Inland sources can consist of stormwater runoff, sewer overflows, failing septic
systems and animal waste from livestock, pets and wildlife. Shore sources can be swimmers,
boats, marine mammals, birds and other wildlife.
In general, the Ecology's BEACH Program recommends avoiding contact with marine waters 48
hours following rainfall, according to Jessica Bennett of BEACH.
The Brinnon MPR was sold to residents as being super green and as actually improving
water quality in the Black Point area. This is an impressive goal and we are fortunate to
have a developer who values the environment and it's protection. The implementation of
procedures that support these goals is regulated but relies heavily on the will of the
developer and the County. Unfortunately, in many actual cases, implementation and
stated goals have parted ways somewhere between the FEIS and the actual development
and operation of the facilities, one of the primary reasons residents object to the project.
I have shown a case in which BMP's have not protected water quality and will provide
more examples upon request. The statement that no water quality changes are expected to
occur because BMP's will be implemented is hopeful but does not necessarily protect
water quality. The statement, "Together the county and the Brinnon MPR will work to
find a mutually beneficial solution (to pollution attributable to the MPR)....," does not
necessarily protect water quality.
I have included expert testimony that stormwater procedures and goals presented in the
FEIS will likely not meet the high standards presented by the developer to the community
to obtain approval for the development.
I would like to see strong, specific language that will show how the County and the
Brinnon MPR eliminate any pollution originating from the MPR or it's activities. This
has been implicitly guaranteed in assertions that the resort will not pollute.
Hand in hand with the above, tax payers have been told that they will not see their taxes
increase for oversight, water testing, and elimination of pollutants associated with the
resort. Specific language should be included that the developer/owner of the MPR be
11
responsible for all costs of testing and the associated development of solutions to
eliminate any sources of pollution.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
Included with this letter is a PDF of a signed copy of Dr. Horner's letter to the Jefferson
County dated 12/6/07.
5
GERALD STEEL, PE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
7303 YOUNG ROAD NW
OLYMPIA, WA 98502
Tel/fax (360) 867-1166
January 19, 2009
Department of Ecology
Cashiering Section
PO Box 47611
Lacey WA 98509-7611
Re: Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition Objections to Approval of Water Right
Permit Application No. G2-30436
Dear Ecology Staff:
On behalf of Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition (collectively `Brinnon"), I submit
this Protest pursuant to the Notice of Application to Appropriate Public Waters published on
December 24, 2008 for Water Right Permit Application No. G2-30436. Please find enclosed a
check for $50. This Protest is based on the following concerns.
Please Require A Complete Application And New Notice
The Applicant Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort ("Resort") seeks permission for
withdrawal at 300 gallons per minute from three points of withdrawal. The location of the
proposed wells is not specified in the application as required by RCW 90.44.060 and there is
no map of the points of withdrawal. This prejudices Brinnon, because it cannot be determined
with the necessary accuracy to identify adverse impacts, what the magnitude of those impacts
is without knowledge of the location of where the withdrawal points (impacts) will occur. The
Department of Ecology ("Department") should require a complete application to be filed and
Notice to be republished with adequate information made available for review.
The water right application includes by reference the "Water Resource Management Plan"
(Mgmt Plan) prepared by 2020 Engineering and dated March 22, 2007. The water uses
described in the Mgmt Plan are thereby incorporated into the water right application, and the
consequent impacts of those uses must be considered in the evaluation of the water right
application.
Current and Projected Water Use
Before this water right application can be analyzed, approved, denied, or conditioned, the
Resort must decide what development it proposes and which optional supply and reuse water
plan it is committed to use. The Resort has proposed a number of optional plans for water
supply and development levels. In some places in the documents, water is being supplied to
Cell D by this project and in other places there is no water for Cell D.
For example, the Mgmt Plan states that the project is on 250 acres, will have 940 residential
units, 34,500 square -feet of commercial, and an 18 -hole golf course on page 1. Elsewhere in
the Mgmt Plan on pages 10 and 26, it states the project will have 890 residential units.
The Mgmt Plan on pages 1 and 26 asserts that 28 AF/yr will be allocated for commercial uses
of 34,500 sq. ft of developed area. In contrast, the DEIS specifies a 60,000 sq. ft. resort center,
a 200 seat community center, a 3000 sq. ft. restaurant, a 33,161 sq. ft. management center, a
community chapel, and 16,000 sq ft. commercial at the marina. In further contrast, Appendix 5
of the DEIS, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort — Water Supply and Groundwater Impact
Analysis, by Subsurface Group LLC ("2007 Hydro") on page 13 states there will be 79,000 sq.
ft. of commercial developed area that will use 28 AF/yr. The actual commercial use and its
water needs must be more carefully defined before any water right permits are issued.
According to the Mgmt Plan on page 2, the Black Point peninsula is approximately 710 acres
on Hood Canal and there are 107 permanent residents in 57 full time dwelling units, and 101
seasonal dwelling units on 246 platted lots. If we assume that each permanent dwelling unit
uses 175 gallons per day (ADD from DEIS at page 3-32) and each seasonal dwelling unit uses
one fourth of that amount, the water usage for these dwelling units is estimated to be just over
16 Acre -Feet ("Al"') per year. It is our understand that the existing water right for Pleasant
Harbor Beach Tracts (Sam Boling Water System) ("Pleasant Tides Water System") is for 145
AF/yr with claimed use of 38 AF/yr and may have inchoate rights for 107 AF/yr depending on
Court decisions (this should be determined by Ecology). The difference between the estimated
use of 16 AF/yr and the claimed use of 38 AF/yr should be resolved.
The Mgmt Plan states the Resort is seeking 45 AF/yr. of unused water rights from Pleasant
Tides. The Application states the Resort is seeking 12 AF/yr. of unused water rights from
Pleasant Tides. Ecology should include an analysis of Pleasant Tides unused water rights as
part of the water rights application evaluation. The water rights summary in the record shows
that Ecology requested Pleasant Tides to establish its water use by August, 2008 (for G2 -
27964P). Water not put to beneficial use should be relinquished to the State.
Relinquishment of Unused Rights
To accurately assess water availability, the existing claimed, permitted and certificated uses
must be considered, and those not in use abandoned and relinquished. Without a determination
of relinquishment by Ecology, any Resort water right application would have to be conditioned
on the higher priority right of existing water systems being kept whole, regardless of the
quantity of the water demand by the Resort.
There was an American Campground RV Campground on the peninsula that has been
abandoned, which has an approved water right (in G2-20465) for 55 gallons per minute and 25
AF/yr. Brinnon requests that the Department consider the portion of that water right to be
relinquished to the State under RCW 90.14.180 considering the past five years of water use for
the American Campground. This same evaluation should be made for the Black Point Water
Company (G2-21134, G2-23623) which I understand is an abandoned project and the Pleasant
Tides well(s) (G2 -27964P) which is underutilized as described above.
The Mgmt Plan on page 22 claims that the property has existing ground water rights of 28
AF/yr. Apparently the Resort is claiming existing water rights from the RV Campground (25
AF/yr. and 55 gallons per minute - G2-20465) and the existing marina (3 AF/yr and 60 gallons
per minute - G2-24359) These water rights have not been transferred to the Resort use where
they would serve different uses in a different area. Brinnon objects to such a transfer without
the full analysis discussed in this Objection.
Is There Water Available?
Before Ecology can determine if water is available, it must determine the senior water rights on
the peninsula from the wells on the peninsula whether or not water rights certificates are on
file. This has not been adequately done. Next, it must require the Resort to define its water
system and proposed development sufficient to determine how much water it intends to put to
a beneficial use from which sources. Only after there is a clear analysis of the proposed ground
and surface water systems, can it be determined how much water is needed and then whether it
is available.
An accurate plan for where water will come from and how it will be used should be included as
part of the water rights application evaluation. The Application requests 131 AF/yr to be used
for building supply and another 108 AF/yr for irrigation for a total groundwater request of 239
AF/yr. This is inconsistent with the DEIS, with 2007 Hydro, and with the Mgmt Plan. In all of
the documents in the record, the potable building supply comes from wells or clean rainwater.
Reclaimed water and treated stormwater are used for irrigation.
The Mgmt Plan calculates 65 AF/yr needed for potable demand and 108 AF/yr non -potable for
irrigation, primarily on the golf course. This plan provides two options for providing potable
water: clean rainwater or wells. This plan calls for reclaiming the potable water and adding
treated stormwater to get the water necessary for landscaping. This plan collects extra
stormwater and infiltrates the extra water into the ground.
There are a number of conflicting estimates in the record for the potable water requirement of
the Resort. The DEIS states at page 3-15 that the maximum annual water utilization is 137 AF
(but this number is not supported in the analysis). The DEIS states at page 3-18 that the
maximum annual water utilization is 121 AF, directing the reader to 2007 Hydro where at page
13 it states that the potable water demand is 121 AF/yr, which is twice that estimated in the
Mgmt Plan provided with the Application. There should be analysis of comparable
developments with existing vacation homes in similar weather to determine likely residential
building water consumption for the mix of units proposed. The current estimates that vary
between 70 and 175 gpm per unit are not based on reliable data. The project assumes 2
persons per unit but two, three, and four bedroom units will likely have more than 2 persons
per unit. The analysis must consider that people on vacation are likely to use water more
extravagantly. There also needs to be a water supply analysis for the boats in the marina.
2007 Hydro states that the water supply will be from existing groundwater rights, rainfall
harvesting, and wastewater reclamation. 2007 Hydro at 1. Figure 11 in 2007 Hydro shows
how clean rainfall collection on built roofs and 28 AF/yr of well water used with water storage
is sufficient to meet the short term and long term needs of the Resort. As a consequence, there
is no justification for ground water rights of more than 28 AF/yr
However, 2007 Hydro at page 14 also states that need for any well water may be eliminated if
rights are acquired for rainwater harvesting. If this is the proposed scenario, no permanent
ground water permit should be needed.
More complicated is the actual availability of groundwater in the aquifer below the peninsula.
The information provided in the Subsurface Group reports ("Draft Geotechnical Report" by
Perrone Consulting Inc (7-21-06); 2007 Hydro, and "Soils and Geology" (8-10-07)) is not
sufficient to determine that there is actually water available. There is a lot of confusion in their
description of the geology and the groundwater aquifer configuration. They note that the
system is complicated, and that they invited Derek Booth and Kathy Troost (recognized experts
on Puget Sound Glacial stratigraphy) to the site to assist in the interpretation of the site
geology. However, nothing of Booth and Troost's interpretation is actually included in the
reports. The Geotechnical Report is missing the three boring logs in appendix A for the
borings from which any subsurface interpretation should be made. Without them, it is difficult
to assess the accuracy of the interpretations presented. Additionally, the B 1, B2 and B3 boring
numbers and locations are mixed up on Figures 1, 8 and 9, and page 7. This confusion elicits
MANY questions about the reliability of the information presented with respect to groundwater
availability. The April 25, 2008 Phase 1 Report ("Phase I") by Pacific Groundwater Group
states in Section 3 "Additional Analysis Required for Water Rights Processing" that the
following studies are needed in order to accurately assess this water right application:
1. Document Water Budget to Determine Water Right Request: A project water budget
was completed by the Subsurface Group (2007). PGG's preliminary review of this
water budget suggests that more detail is required to document all the associated
terms and assumptions. The water budget should estimate the net impact from both
rainfall harvest and groundwater withdrawals, and should include terms for: change
in evapotranspiration due to construction of buildings, impervious surfaces and
storage ponds; total rainfall harvested; water use and re -use; and "direct
infiltration " recharge to the production aquifer. The water budget should be
performed for "average ", "wet " and "dry " years to estimate how apportionment of
water supply between groundwater and rainwater harvest might change with
climatic variation.
2. Further Hydrogeologic Characterization: PGG's initial analysis (above) notes the
need for a groundwater level map using available data from wells on Black Point
Peninsula and developing a better understanding of whether observed groundwater
4
responses to rainfall events may represent a hydraulic connection to the Duckabush
River or its tributaries. The apparent contrast between dampened hydraulic
responses to tidal fluctuations and accentuated responses to rainfall events should
also be resolved. Better documentation of the connections between the glacial
aquifer system beneath the peninsula and marine water bodies would also be
helpful. As PHMGR's consultant performs various technical analyses, other areas
requiring further hydrogeologic characterization may become apparent.
3. Document the Availability of the Groundwater Resource: Processing the
groundwater right requires proof that the water is available for withdrawal. This is
typically performed by constructing and testing supply wells or test wells. However,
if enough is known about the aquifer system, hydrogeologic characterization can be
used to establish available groundwater supply. Unless the Subsurface Group report
is updated with more information, installation and testing of wells would likely be
required.
4. Document Lack oLLmpairment from Groundwater Resource Development: Existing
water rights in the project vicinity should be catalogued. The conceptual model of
the hydrogeologic system should be used along with appropriate analytical or
numerical methods to document that existing water rights will not be impaired due
to interference drawdown.
S. Saltwater Intrusion Analysis: Availability of groundwater resources for PHMGR
requires that groundwater pumping will not cause saltwater intrusion into the
proposed production wells. In addition, the impairment analysis (above) should also
address whether the proposed pumping would cause saltwater intrusion in existing
groundwater rights.
6. Develop Plan for Monitoring and Documentation: If Ecology issues a water right, it
will likely require that monitoring be performed to document the amounts of water
harvested from various impervious surfaces, pumped from groundwater, and
recharged back to groundwater via direct injection. Monitoring for saltwater
intrusion and aquifer drawdown may also be required. PHMGR's consultant may
wish to propose such a monitoring plan.
Groundwater availability is contingent on the capacity to infiltrate water captured through their
system (as described in the Mgmt Plan and 2007 Hydro) into the aquifer. This supposes that
there is a high infiltration capacity in the vicinity of the infiltration galleries (which has not
been demonstrated). In fact, the infiltration rate will have to compensate for all of the natural
infiltration to the aquifer that would normally occur over the impervious developed areas and
pond areas in addition to the infiltration from their wastewater systems. It will require a rate of
infiltration hundreds of times greater than the natural infiltration rate of the native sediments to
handle the infiltration capacity needed to get 192 acre feet of water (49 AF/yr generated from
runoff from impervious surfaces + 83 roof runoff + 121 wastewater from groundwater + 47 net
5
direct pond precipitation minus 108 for irrigation) infiltrated into the ground over the relatively
small area of the infiltration galleries annually.
Is The Application For Beneficial Use Of Water?
Water use for residential, commercial and recreational purposes is recognized as a beneficial
use under Washington water law.
Will Granting the Application Adversely Affect Existing Rights?
Without a comprehensive list of the existing water rights claims, certificates and applications
this question cannot be accurately addressed. It appears that the PGG Phase 1 analysis of
existing applications and rights is incomplete because their list (presented on Table 1) does not
have all water rights on or near the peninsula. The water rights that have been compiled by
Amy Neilson as illustrated on the second page of the packet of materials titled "Well locations
and Owners" provides the numbers of many water rights documents that should be considered
in the PGG assessment of impacts to existing water rights. There must be an analysis that
identifies all existing rights before it can be determined if the existing rights are adversely
impacted.
However, Brinnon is very concerned about salt water intrusion impacts to existing water rights.
Consider, for example, the test reported in Phase 1 that the American Campground Well
completed in the glacial aquifer system was tested at 307 gpm with 43 feet of drawdown.
Phase 1 at 4. Figure 8 in 2007 Hydro shows that this well had a measured groundwater
elevation of about 12 feet above sea level on June 21, 2006. This suggests that pumping at 307
gpm would have taken the freshwater elevation down 43 feet to an elevation of 31 feet below
sea level. 2007 Hydro states:
A reduction of head below sea level could cause sea water intrusion, which is a
poor practice for maintaining an aquifer (as it takes many years to recover from
the effects of sea water intrusion), and would also violate State and County
policies.
2007 Hydro at 10. Other references state that sea water intrusion impacts once established can
be permanent. Attachment 4 at page 5.
We note that an additional pump test was conducted for the Black Point Water Company (as
reported in the Water Right certificate (G -21134P), which also showed a drawdown of 30 feet
over a 4 -hour period. It is likely that allowed pumping of the Pleasant Tides well(s) could
cause salt water intrusion and any further pumping in that area by others would further impair
the existing water rights by unacceptably increasing salt water intrusion. To the degree
possible in water management in the peninsula area, there should be no further water
drawdown that takes the groundwater surface below about 5 feet above sea level to minimize
salt water intrusion.
M
The location of any wells used for the project must be evaluated with consideration of the
maximum permitted pumping rates allowed for wells in hydraulic connectivity to determine if
combined pumping would have an adverse impact on groundwater elevation in September such
that sea water intrusion might occur.
WAC 173-150-030(8)(d) requires pumping facilities to be properly sized to the ability of the
aquifer to produce water and this must be done in full consideration of the existing pumping
rights associated with senior water rights.
WAC 173-150-050 requires an application to be rejected if the proposed appropriation would
impair any existing water rights.
While water quality impacts arising from the use of water are not typically considered in
processing water rights applications, here the re -use of water on the golf course could create a
plume of groundwater with nitrogen exceeding drinking water standards of 10 ppm. This
polluted groundwater from the project could impair existing water rights if the plume reached
other wells.
Will Granting The Application Be Detrimental To The Public Interest?
The consequences to the local aquifer from seawater intrusion and to Hood Canal from
groundwater discharge emitting from the Resort that would result if water were used as
described in this water right application must be considered in assessing the Public Interest. A
water right certificate that allows the 239 AF/yr of groundwater with a 300 gallon per minute
pumping rate as requested in the Application is sure to cause salt water intrusion and impair
senior water rights on the peninsula; mandating that this request be denied. Further, water
withdrawals from the aquifer that in a series of years of low rainfall could pollute the public's
aquifer by salt water intrusion must be taken into account in assessing potential impacts to this
sole source aquifer and the public interest.
There must be an evaluation of nitrogen and chemical loading on the essentially sole source
aquifer from the golf course and other development before a water right permit is given that
would permit the development to proceed. Nitrogen -loading is a serious problem for the Hood
Canal, causing dangerously low dissolved oxygen (Mgmt Plan at 4-5) and most of the flow
from the sole source aquifer is into Hood Canal. Others with similar problems have put strong
limits on nitrogen -loading from new development. See Attachment 1 hereto. While 10 ppm is
the allowed nitrogen content for human consumption, 0.38 ppm has been established as the
limit for salt water to protect the marine environment See Attachment 1. There should be
required to be an analysis to determine the expected nitrogen level in the groundwater in the
peninsula after the peninsula is built out to its maximum density and intensity currently
allowed (considering input to the ground water from rain and from all development). At
buildout, the maximum nitrogen level in the ground water should not exceed 0.38 ppm in order
to not be contributing to a salt water nitrogen level that exceeds 0.38 ppm. A golf course like
that at Martha's Vineyard (see Attachment 1) sends water into the ground water with nitrogen
at 10 ppm. If this is too high to achieve the 0.38 ppm standard at full development, then the
7
golf course should be required to have a flexible membrane under the golf course to catch the
water and treatment must be required before it is infiltrated into the ground. Discharge of
stormwater and wastewater to the Canal is considered unacceptable. Mgmt Plan at 5. This
must include the nitrogen from the project that enters the Canal in groundwater flow.
As previously noted, a peninsula -wide water budget should be created that includes time series
analyses of water levels in all wells on the Black Point Peninsula. An example of a
Hydrogeologic Assessment done in the Sequim-Dungeness area is provided (portions only) in
Attachment 2 hereto. This analysis plus the analysis in Attachment 3 hereto together define
the minimum level of Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water Analysis that should be
required for this project. Attachment 3 analyzes an 8.2 sq. mile (5,248 acre) Island that gets
an annual rainfall of about 25 inches per year and has total groundwater withdrawal of about 65
AF/yr (half of the withdrawal proposed for the instant 710 acre peninsula). There are
substantial saltwater intrusion problems on this Island. An example of an analysis for the same
Island of wells failing from saltwater intrusion is provided in Attachment 4 hereto. The quality
of analysis done in the attached studies is the minimum quality that must be required for the
instant ground water right application.
The results of the analysis of locations and amounts of groundwater withdrawal and water
reintroduction into the ground to evaluate impacts on the groundwater quality and water table
must be considered in evaluating this water rights application.
In summary there needs to be significantly more data collection and analysis. Based on that
information, the Resort should submit an updated proposal for its water system to better
determine its likely water needs before any permits are considered. The impacts of new
withdrawals added to full allowed withdrawals for existing water rights must be evaluated to
evaluate likelihood of salt water intrusion problems. A determination of what existing water
rights must be relinquished should be made before any new permit decisions are made. With
the uncertainties in the available information, the lack of preventative or mitigation measures
to deal with water quality degradation, the impacts to senior water rights holders, including
from seawater intrusion, make it evident to Brinnon that this application cannot be approved.
Please keep me informed of any decisions made, any notices, and the beginning of any appeal
periods for any water permits granted to the Resort.
Respectfully,
Gerald Steel P.E.
Attorney for the Brinnon Group and
Brinnon MPR Opposition
RICHARD R. HORNER, PH.D.
230 NW SST" STREET TELEPHONE: (206) 782-7400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 E-MAIL: rrhorner(amsn.com
December 6, 2007
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
To Whom It May Concern:
I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute to review the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR)
proposal regarding the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the project on the water quality of
Hood Canal and the groundwater in the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications
to perform this review.
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
I have 30 years of experience in the urban stormwater management field and 11 additional years of
engineering practice. During this period I have performed research, taught, and offered consulting
services on all aspects of the subject, including investigating the sources of pollutants and other causes
of aquatic ecological damage, impacts on organisms in waters receiving urban stormwater drainage,
and the full range of methods of avoiding or reducing these impacts. I received a Ph.D. in Civil and
Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1978, following two Mechanical
Engineering degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Although my degrees are all in engineering,
I have had substantial course work and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry. For 12
years beginning in 19811 was a full-time research professor in the University of Washington's
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. I now serve half time in that position and spend
the remainder of my time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. Serving as a principal or
co -principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has produced three books,
approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, over 20 reviewed papers in conference
proceedings, and approximately 100 scientific or technical reports. My consulting clients include
federal, state, and local government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that
work for these entities. My full curriculum vitae are attached.
FINDINGS
General Findings
As stated by section 3.3.7 of the Brinnon MPR Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the
basis of the stormwater management program is the Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE] 2005), together with the Low Impact
To Whom It May Concern
December 6, 2007
Page 2
Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT] 2005).
The proponent goes on to state that the stormwater management plan will be designed to meet the
project's requirement for zero discharge of water to the Hood Canal from the golf course resort area
and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the harbor. I now give
my general impressions of this basic plan, to be followed with more detailed observations on each
point.
It is first necessary to recognize that application of the "OE stormwater manual in no way
guarantees reaching a goal of zero discharge. That manual does not feature management practices
having strong capability to achieve zero discharge. The PSAT low impact development (LID) manual
shows how to design drainage features that could reach zero discharge. However, that manual has
none of the prescriptive requirements of the WDOE manual and is just a "how to" guide to employ
once the components of the stormwater management system are selected. Hence, it does not appear at
all that the zero -discharge goal for the golf course resort has any force behind it.
Even if the resort can be held to zero discharge, the FEIS presents insufficient information, even for
the level of a rezoning application, for a reviewer, and the public at large, to judge well the prospects
for achieving the goal. While I recognize that more detail will be presented at a later stage of project
development, the public needs some more information beyond that given in the FEIS to have any
confidence that the project will function as advertised and to countenance a major rezone.
The marina portion of the project will not be held to the zero -discharge standard. While the FEIS
states that its discharge will receive "full treatment," it gives no information at all on what that
treatment might be and what is meant by "full." As with the plan for the resort, the public must be
given a more complete basis upon which to evaluate the quality of the plan at this point in project
development.
Outside of the immediate project area, the FEIS does not assess the water quality impacts of
anticipated traffic additions associated with the development. The Transportation Impact Study
indicates increases on a number of local roads and highways of hundreds of cars a day on average.
Automobiles emit or mobilize numerous pollutants that enter water bodies and degrade aquatic
ecosystems. The FEIS is inadequate as long as it does not give the public a means by which to
understand the full environmental impact before being willing to see rural zoning changed to
accommodate this project.
Further Observations
Zero Discharge from Resort
Achieving zero discharge depends on effective implementation of the types of site design and
stormwater management practices presented in the PSAT LID manual. Fundamentally, these practices
come down to infiltrating rainfall into the ground or harvesting water from roofs and other surfaces for
a use such as landscape irrigation or "gray water" system supply (e.g., toilet flushing). The FEIS states
that both of these methods will be used but not the role each would play. The intention is to store
runoff in existing "kettles," use it to meet "water demands" , and direct the excess into the ground (by
To Whom It May Concern
December 6, 2007
Page 3
what means is not revealed). Even though I did not have much information to go on, I feel safe in
assuming that the project will have to make substantial use of infiltration to reach zero discharge.
Successful water quality protection by infiltration depends of having soils that will percolate water
rapidly enough to drain surface holding areas in time to prevent various problems that can occur with
excessive ponding times (generally, within 72 hours), but not so fast that contaminants will reach
groundwater and pollute it. The natural soils do not necessarily have to possess desirable soil pore
storage space and hydraulic conductivities themselves, but can be amended (usually, with organic
compost) to function well. However, clays cannot be sufficiently amended to provide enough pore
storage and hydraulic conductivity to percolate rapidly enough; and, conversely, coarse sands and
gravels cannot be amended to slow percolation enough to ensure groundwater protection.
The authors of Chapter 3 of the FEIS made no reference to the site soil and hydrogeologic data in
Appendix 4 and did not use it to assess in even the most rudimentary way what it means for the
prospective success of their plan. The data are very sparse, with the soils information consisting of
only the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil survey results. Soil survey data are generally not site-
specific enough for conclusive determinations of infiltration potential, which often varies considerable
in quite small distances. The reported data show very gravelly loamy sand predominating, which if
actually the case would tend to encourage the belief that water could be infiltrated successfully but
could penetrate too rapidly. Nevertheless, an informed judgment requires more site-specific data.
The public cannot be expected to accept a major rezone in their county until they are told enough to
gauge potential success. Insufficient soil storage and hydraulic conductivity will render zero discharge
an illusion. Overly rapid percolation will threaten groundwater, a potable supply source in a rural area,
and reach streams on the site and other nearby surface waters as seepage. There is heightened concern
about groundwater quality when a golf course is involved. Golf courses are large consumers of
fertilizer and pesticide chemicals, as well as irrigation water. The common water pollutant least
capable of interdiction in soils is nitrate -nitrogen, which is introduced to the surface in large quantities
with fertilization, from where it can be carried along with percolating irrigation or rain water to the
water table. Nitrate is the agent causing methemoglobinemia, generally in infants, when consumed
with drinking water. Pesticides reaching drinking supplies are obviously also a major health concern.
Treatment of Marina Discharge
The term "full treatment" as promised for the marina is simply meaningless. Different treatment
systems have varying efficiencies in treating different pollutants. In addition to terrestrial runoff from
upland areas, marinas are sources of all the pollutants associated with engines and petroleum products,
cleaning agents, and household chemicals, used right on the water. Their potential for release and in
what quantities depend on marina activities, particularly how much maintenance is performed, but they
are always a factor. Also, it can be expected that a resort of this size will lead to greatly increased use
of the existing marina, which would itself increase pollutant loading. Some treatment systems can do
an excellent job in capturing these various pollutants, others are poor overall, and some are mixed
depending on the pollutant in question. The project proponents must state how they would handle and
treat marina discharge before the public can consider their plan.
To Whom It May Concern
December 6, 2007
Page 4
Potential Traffic Impacts
Table 11 of the Transportation Impact Study shows the "Statesman" alternative to increase traffic by 6
to 89 percent on the various roads and highways in the project vicinity, with a 41 percent rise at one
point on highway U.S. 101 (near Woodpecker Road). However, the origin of these figures is unclear
and probably in error. My calculations do not agree when comparing the cited "Statesman" alternative
traffic volumes with either the "Without Project" or "No Action" columns. For example, I got
increases of 875 and 225 percent comparing "Statesman" Black Point Road traffic with "Without
Project"' and "No Action," respectively. I found the "Statesman" increase on U.S. 101 near
Woodpecker to be 69 or 51 percent with the same respective comparisons. I was likewise unable to
reproduce Table I I's percentages for the `Brinnon" and "Hybrid" alternatives. It would be
inappropriate, in my opinion, to go forward on this major action with such anomalies in key
information supplied in its support.
Motor vehicles are responsible for water body contamination from many sources. Brake pad and tire
wear introduce copper and zinc, respectively, both highly toxic to aquatic life. Wear of engine parts
contributes these and other toxic metals, like lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. Petroleum
products leak from engines, transmissions, and braking systems. Sediments drop onto roads from
chassis and undercarriages. These pollutants wash immediately into receiving waters during rainy
periods but also stay on and around roads for later wash off when rains come. It is reasonable to
assume that the roads around the resort and marina complex would experience the most elevated traffic
in the summer months. Even though there is not much rain then, the remnants would be in
concentrated form in the first flush of fall rains. Concentration of toxic materials, such as the various
metals in road runoff, is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life. The FEIS is an incomplete and
thoroughly inadequate document in not addressing these potential impacts at all.
SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the Brinnon MPR proponent
can provide convincing evidence that: (1) zero discharge from the golf course resort can be achieved;
(2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment;
(3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or result in below -ground delivery of pollutants to
surface receiving waters, with particular attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4)
marina discharge will be treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that
source to the greatest extent possible; and (5) increased traffic will not degrade the water quality of
Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well being of their resident and
anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence must be made available to the public for another review
of the proposal before its official consideration.
I would be please to discuss my comments with you and invite you to contact me if you wish.
Sincerely,
Richard R. Horner
November 17, 2009
David Wayne Johnson
Project Lead Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Brinnon Master Planned Resort, Scoping for SEIS
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping for the SEIS for the Brinnon Master
Planned Resort's zoning code amendments, development agreement and project level environmental
review.
Over the past several months, we have worked with the proponent, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf
Resort, and their representatives at Peck Associates and TENW to make certain that the project
addresses transit needs. To date we have not received any formal communications regarding
acceptance of our requests.
The following will give you an idea of the discussions that have taken place regarding transit and the
Pleasant Harbor project in Jefferson County. What we are seeking is adequate turning area and a
transit stop that will serve transit riders into the future as the Pleasant Harbor project becomes a
reality and possibly even grows. Specifically, in a meeting with Ian Mcfall & Garth Mann, we
requested that the Pleasant Harbor development ensure that Jefferson Transit continue to have a
transit stop and bus turn around at the intersection of Black Point Rd and Hwy 101. We suggested
that it be a transit area similar to the island used at the Poulsbo transfer center on Highway 305 or at
Jefferson Transit's Park and Ride in Port Townsend. We said the amenities on the island need to
include a bus shelter — accessible to wheelchairs. We also explained that two driveways, in addition
to the island layout, make ingress/egress safer.
In emails with Craig Peck we provided more detail as requested. For example, the inside `island' in
Port Townsend is 155 feet long by 50 feet wide. The bus road (reinforced concrete) around the island
is 35 feet wide (I did not provide them with the Poulsbo transfer dimensions). While we are not
asking for a park and ride — we provided the information as a design guideline.
Jefferson Transit 1615 W. Sims Way, Port Townsend, WA 98368, 360-385-4777
www.JeffersonTransit.com
We also said there needs to be a parking area for up to 4 buses to accommodate Jefferson Transit,
Mason Transit, tour bus and shuttle service for the resort and I or dial -a -ride vehicles. The plan
should be for vehicles up to 40 feet in length and vehicle lanes need to be at least 35 feet wide for
buses to pass side by side, any turns need to provide for a 55 -foot turning radius.
To date we have not received any formal communications regarding our requests. We respectfully
request that transit requirements become part of the conditions of approval for this project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 385-3020, ext. 107.
Sincerely,
ave Turissim
General Manager
Jefferson Transit 1615 W. Sims Way, Port Townsend, WA 98368, 360-385-4777
NN ww.JeffersonTransit.com