Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060VICKI MORRIS CONSULTING SERVICES SEPA/NEPA DOCUMENT AND PERMITASSISTANCE Re July 18,2012 David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Proposal for Services to Prepare Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear David: I have prepared this letter proposal and Attachments in response to the County's solicitation for consultant services to prepare the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). I am pleased to have the opportunity to be considered for these services with the understanding now clearly established that the EIS consultant will work under the County's direction (rather than under the direction of the applicant). I have responded below to the Request for Proposal (RFP) submittal requirements, and included relevant additional information for the Counfy's consideration. Anticipated Work Plan (see Attachment A) The County's RFP identifies the following sequence of tasks in the anticipated Work Plan for the Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS: budget/rates, review and coordination with County staff and the Peer Review Team on work completed to-date, production of the preliminary Draft SEIS, production of the publication Draft SEIS, attendance at one public hearing during the Planning Commission's Review and Recommendation process forthe MPR proposal, and production of the Final SEIS. I have added some detail to this Work Plan in Attachment A to my proposal: Proposed Work Plan and Task Description. My Cost Estimate for this Work Plan is described in Attachment B. It is important for the County and applicant to understand at the outset of retaining these services that it is impossible to propose with certainty all detailed tasks required to prepare this SEIS, or even the level of effort required to perform known tasks. Consultants who have previously worked on this project, including myself, will tell you without exception that there have been numerous underlying issues to be resolved during the course of the work (for example, discovery of a Binding Site Plan that governs the marina upland area and allows repair/replacement of structures and improvements not subject to environmental review under the MPR); and redirection due to revisions to elements of the proposed action (for example, revised alternative site plans, a revised energy proposal, and revised wastewater treatment process). My cost estimate is based on the assumption that the alternative site plans, narrative description of the proposal, and the technical reports are now reasonably "final" for use in preparing the SEIS. I won't know whether this is the case until I receive and review the 7732-7gfH AVENUE NORTHEAST ' SEATTLE, WA 98115-4426'PHONE: (206) 522-8057'FAX: QO6) 523-4648 'VMorrisCS@aol.com JUr t92W ,-=S IEVtrGtr c0utfly Jeffirson County Department of Community Development/Vicki Morris Re: Proposalfor Services to Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS July lB, 2012 most curent project documents (if selected). I am aware of at least half a dozen red-flag issues that I will review first so as to avoid delay in proceeding with SEIS preparation. Ability to Work Closely with Staff and the Peer Review Team Working closely with SEPA Lead Agency staff and technical consultants is an element of the work on every Environmental Impact Statement I have prepared. It is something I do (and enjoy) every day. You will note from my Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) included in Attachment C that I have 30 years of experience writing EISs, and have prepared more than 200 environmental compliance documents under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) guidelines. I have described two representative examples below. Additional projects are described in my SOQ. I previously provided to the County (in early 2009) a CD of the electronic files of the Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community Draft and Final EIS, as a relevant example of my work. This project was completed in 2008 in the City of Yelm. Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS. I previously worked on the Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS for 2 years (February 2009 through March 20i 1). During that time, I worked with current and former County staff on the project: yourself; Stacie Hoskins, Plaruring Manager; Al Scalf, Community Development Director; and David A)varez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. I felt that I had an excellent working relationship with each of you, and that we worked well together to identifu issues and agree on the approach for how these would be addressed through the technical reports and SEIS. I also worked with all members of the ESA- Adolfson Peer Review Team, and assisted the applicant's technical team members with responding to comments received from the Peer Review Team on their draft reports. North Totten Inlet Mussel Culture EIS.I was the primary author of an Environmental Impact Statement for expansion of a floating mussel aquaculture project in Totten Inlet, during which time I concurrently served as the coordinator of an Independent Technical Review Committee (ITRC) advisory to Thurston County. The ITRC was comprised of five experts in marine aquatic environment fields who reviewed and commented on reports prepared by the applicant's technical team to assure the County that the best scientific practices were used in data collection and analysis, and that objective conclusions were drawn for use in the Environmental Impact Statement. I also worked closely with the County's Senior Planner assigned to the project, and testified on behalf of the County during the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit hearing. References for North Totten Inlet Mussel Culture EIS: Robert Smith, Senior Planner, Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department:360.754.4023. Jack Rensel, Ph.D., ITRC Member, Rensel Associates Aquatic Science Consultants:360.435.3285. Ability to Complete an EIS that will Withstand Intense Scrutiny and Legal Challenges I approach SEPA work with a very high standard of care, organization, and completeness. Only one of the EIS's I have prepared since the mid-1970s was ever challenged (in 1978), and this challenge was dismissed as frivolous. 2 Jefferson County Department of Community Development[Vicki Morris Re: Proposalfor Services to Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS July 18, 2012 I have included in Attachment D to this proposal examples of work products I prepared for the Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS in 2011 that demonstrate this standard of care, organization and completeness:' lntroduction, Narrative Description of the Alternatives, and Construction Phasing/Sequencing Proposal (version 15, 2l0l I 17). Comparison of Aitematives to be Addressed in the Project Level SEIS (version19,2l0llll). I generally work alone as the primary author of large, complex, and controversial Environmental Impact Statements. My primary reason for doing so is to assure the continuity of knowledge regarding issues that need to be addressed in an integrated manner throughout the EIS and technical reports, not just under individual elements of the environment. It is very costly to keep a team of EIS writers up to speed on all issues in a manner that would accomplish this same outcome in the overall documentation. If the County would feel more comfortable with more depth to the SEIS team, I could include a colleague as a co- author. If this is of interest to the County, I recommend that we discuss it during the interview. I frequently work with land use attomeys brought to the project by the Lead Agency and/or by the applicant to cooperatively identify and implement a defensible and thorough approach to addressing al1 required contents of an Environmental Impact Statement. During the two years I previously worked on the Pleasant Harbor SEIS, I participated in meetings with the County's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (David Alvarez), the applicant's legal counsel (Sandy Mackie, Perkins Coie), the Peer Review Team's legal counsel (Tom Backer), and Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) staff to discuss such things as reasonable alternatives to be evaluated in this SEIS, affect of the County's Shoreline Master Program update on site planning, and unique requirements for addressing both FEIS Mitigating Conditions for Project Review and Board of County Commissioners conditions of approval in the project-level SEIS, in addition to the conventional format for impact analysis and the formulation of mitigation measures. I attend the annual Law Seminars International SEPA,/NEPA Continuing Legal Education course to maintain a current understanding of regulatory changes and case law that highlights issues most susceptible to challenge and why. This knowledge is helpful to avoid omissions and inadequacies in EISs that have not withstood legal challenges in Washington State. I Versions of my documents currently posted on the County's website were slightly updated by the Project Architect when the Alternative 2 site plan was revised. It should be noted that the Alternative 2 site plan or the narrative descriptions about this Alternative that appear on the County's website are no longer accurate since the decision was made to proceed with marina upland improvements under the provisions of an existing Binding Site Plan that covers this area. J Strengths My overall strengths in EIS preparation (in addition to those described in the subsections above) include 30 years' experience as project manager and primary author of Environmental Impact Statements, expanded Environmental Checklists and related documents, and l7 years of concurent experience assisting clients with the acquisition of environmental and land use permits. I have prepared more than 200 environmental compliance documents under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). My project experience is diverse and wide-ranging, having included master plarured developments; golf course/recreational development proposals; residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development; Jefferson County Department of Community Development/Vicki Morris Re: Proposalfor Services to Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS July 18, 2012 habitat restoration/enhancement projects; marine and freshwater net pen aquaculture; solid waste transport, recycling, and landfill disposal; water and sewer system upgrades; and programmatic actions: comprehensive land use plan updates, land use code amendments, and annexations. I served 6 years on the City of Seattle Planning Commission, including terms as chair of the Shorelines Committee and chair of the full Commission. I was a member of the faculty,Law Seminars Intemational (LS[), annual Growth Management Act (GMA) Conference during the formative years of GMA implementation (1993 and 1994), and of the Marine Shoreline Development LSI program in 2009. My qualifications, representative prqect experience, client references, and client comments are provided in my Statement of Qualifications, included here as Attachment C. My specific strengths as they relate to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort SEIS include: . I have established good working relationships with County staff, the applicant's representative (Don Coleman), the Project Engineer (Craig Peck), Project Architect (Natalie Proft-Carlson), and technical team members. o I have visited the site on more than one occasion. . I have copies and have reviewed all project documents prepared through February 201 1. . I participated in reviewing implications for the Master Planned Resort of revised setbacks, buffers, and development standards during the County's Shoreline Master Proglam update. o I have reviewed the Binding Site Plan that applies to the marina upland area and understand the provisions for repair and replacement of existing structures and improvements not subject to additional environmental review. . I understand and have information to describe the history of the application, including what has transpired since issuance of the programmatic FEIS. . I have reviewed and considered how to address unique requirements of this SEIS, specifically including: the thirty (30) Board of Cor:nty Commissioners conditions for approval (as set forth in Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08), and the programmatic FEIS Mitigating Conditions for Subsequent Project Review Qrlovember 2007). . I reviewed and provided input to draft Memorandums of Understanding as these were being prepared and negotiated by the applicant's representative (Don Coleman). . I have reviewed and commented on the draft Zoning Ordinance and Draft Development Agreement that will be elements of the proposal to be evaluated in the SEIS. o I prepared the narrative project description of the proposed action and altematives, the comparison of altematives table, and the description of the construction phasing proposal that are still in use, with minor modifications to describe the revised Altemative 2 site plan. r I prepared detailed monttrly status reports for a year regarding work products required for SEIS preparation and for the subsequent development approval process (see Attachment E). o I contributed significantly to information conveyed and distinctions made in the detailed information provided on altemative site plans and phasing plans. . I prepared an outline for the contents of the Draft SEIS, and an instructional memo to technical team members regarding final report requirements to provide complete information needed for the SEIS (see Attachment F). . I have an established set of comprehensive project files. 4 ! ! Jffirson County Department of Community Development/Vicki Morris Re: Proposal for Services to Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS July 18, 2012 This level of preparedness will enable efficient and expeditious resumption of work on the SEIS, and minimize project initiation costs. In conclusion, I would enjoy assisting Jefferson County with preparation of this complex Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I have given considerable thought to the issues, organization, and integration requirements of this document. I am well prepared to begin immediately and commit the majority of my time to this effort. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information for your consideration at this time. Sincerely, a//ofu frraruu-' VickiMorris ATTACHMENTS A Proposed Work Plan and Task Descriptions B Cost Estimate C Statement of QualificationsD Work Product Examples that Demonstrate a High Standard of Care, Organization, Completeness E Work Product Examples that Demonstrate Knowledge of the Project F Suggested SEIS Table of Contents 5 Proposed Work Plan and Task Description Attachment A t T I T T I T T I T T T I I T I I t I vrcxr-#nfiHffit,RvrcEs Pnoposrn Wonx Pr-aN lNn Tasx DrscRrprroN Suppururxral ExvTRoNMENTAL IMPACT SraTnuENT: Plplsaxr HaRnoR Masrrn PlaxxBo ftESoRT Technical Reports Understanding: The applicant's technical team completed draft discipline reports in 2008-2009 for project-level environmental review. Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) staff and the Peer Review Team commented on these reports in the fall of 2009. I worked with team members to clarifu the response to these comments, as well as to comments received during Scoping for the SEIS, and to identiff what (if any) corrections/revisions would be made or additional information would be included in the final technical reports. It is my understanding that the applicant's technical team "finalized" their 2008-2009 reports in 201 I by means of supplemental technical memos, to address the no action alternative and two site plan alternatives that had undergone several iterations of revision between 2009 and 201 1. In an instructional memo I sent to technical team members 2101/l l, I also asked that their final reports address five categories of mitigation (see Footnote 3 on page A-2). The following "final" reports have been (or soon will be) submiued to the Peer Review Team:' TECHNICAL REPORTS Notns* Cultural Resources Investigation Four reports and one technical memo. Energy Proposal Revised from an integrated system of solar power, geothermal technology and combined heat and power (CHP) derived from co-generation systems fueled by biodiesel, to purchasing "green" energy from Mason County PUD. Forestry Prepared in an unusual format from which it may be difficult to extract information needed for the SEIS, but consultant is very cooperative with answering questions. Geotechnical Golf Course Best Management Practices "Final" report created by Statesman Corporation in February 2012 (thoueh issued still indicating GeoEngineers as author). Grading & Drainage Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis May 2012 document completed by a firm in Calgary, AB. Groundwater Landscaping Plan Conceptual plans for representative locations. Lighting Study Not yet completed by Statesman Corporation in relation to my 6130ll0 comments. This report is needed to provide information for DSEIS Chapter 3, and to address compliance with BoCC Condition 63.2. Transportation Impact Analysis Wastewater Reclamation Plant Process Wastewater treatment process revised from MBR plant to a Nuhient Removal Activated Sludge Process with Clarifiers and Class A Filtration. ' If the "final" techlical reports have not yet been submitted to the Peer Review Team when the SEIS consultant is selected, and if I am the consultant selected, I would like to discuss this with Jefferson County DCD. A-l a a a Attachment A: Proposed Work Plan and Task Descriptions Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Vicki Morris Consulting Services, July 18, 2012 Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Pleasant Harbor) Revised by Don Coleman; coordinated with Jefferson County, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, the University of Washington, and local Tribes. Wetlands Wildlife Habitat * Where no notes are entered in the chart above, the draft repons I previously reviewed were of good quality for addressing existing site conditions. Approach: It will be important for the SEIS primary author to review the technical reports for completeness prior to using this information for preparing sections of DSEIS Chapter 3. The EIS primary author will likely be the only individual with the complete context for required information to address the unique requirements for environmental review of this proposed action based on several precedent conditions.3 Review technical memos generated by the applicant's consultant team that frnalize the discipline reports to be used to prepare the SEIS. Check to see whether changes to the description of the preferred alternative that occurred during May - July 2012 affect descriptions, the analysis of potential impacts, or the recommendation of mitigation measures in each of the technical reports. Identifu informational short-comings in "final" technical reports in relation to the format requested for the impact analysis and mitigation measures as set forth in my 2l0llll Memorandum to team members (a copy of which is provided in Attachment E to this proposal); request this additional information from technical team members. Review technical reports prepared by the applicant (e.g., Golf Course Best Management Practices), and by out-of-state consultants retained by the applicant (e.g., the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis) for completeness in relation to Washington State requirements; provide an opinion to Jefferson County DCD for consideration. ?ea f \z4--\r i g"p Assist with sorting out Peer Review Team comments on the "final" technical reports to determine what additional work (if any) needs to be done to address these comments. When technical report information is complete for use in preparing the SEIS, summarize this information in appropriate sections of the Draft SEIS. SEIS Preparation PRELIMINARYDRAFT SEIS Understanding: It is customary to prepare a preliminary draft of an Environmental Impact Statement for review by the Lead Agency, as the EIS is by law the Lead Agency's document (WAC 197-11-420U1).lt is also customary for the preliminary Draft EIS to be reviewed by the applicant and/or the applicant's representative(s). In the case of the Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS, it is understood that the preliminary Draft 3 Monthly status reports I prepared for the project between March 2010 and February 20ll identified the following structure for the impact analysis and mitigation measures to be described in the SEIS: distinguish the Potential Impacts of the alternatives both during construction and in the developed condition of the project; and provide Mitigation Measures in five categories: compliance with FEIS Chapter 5 Mitigating Conditions, compliance with Board of County Commissioners conditions, mitigation required by applicable regulations, other mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, and other mitigation recommendations (at the discretion of each technical consultant). a a A-2 Attachment A: Proposed Work Plan and Task Descriptions Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Vicki Morris Consulting Services, Juty 18, 2012 4- /' SEIS will also be reviewed by the Peer Review Team. The preliminary Draft SEIS will be an internal review document only, not for public distribution. Up to 10 hard copies of the preliminary Draft SEIS will be provided for internalreview, or electronic files, if requested. It is a unique requirement of this SEIS that proposed actions to be considered in the SEIS include not only project-level environmental review of construction, development and operation of the Master Planned Resort, but also the programmatic actions of adopting a subarea-specific zoning map, zoning ordinance (land use code), and development standards set forth in a draft Development Agreement for the MPR subarea. Fufther, this SEIS must demonstrate how elements of the proposal, proposed mitigation measures, Memorandums of Understanding, and possibly other commitments by the applicant will address the programmatic FEIS Mitigating Conditions for Subsequent Project Review (November 2007), and the thirty (30) Board of County Commissioners conditions of approval (January 2008). Approach: Technical reports typically provide about 40% to 50%o of the information required to write a Draft EIS. As the SEIS primary author, I would be responsible for summarizing the technical reports to present information about elements on the environment in Chapter 3, and for writing all other contents of the SEIS (see suggested Table of Contents in Attachment F to my proposal). As the SEIS primary author, I would coordinate sections of SEIS Chapter 3 summarized from technical reports with each author of these reports to assure that their meaning is not changed by the more abbreviated presentation of their information. I would check to confirm that for every potential significant adverse impact identified, there is a corresponding recommended mitigation measure. I would coordinate SEIS graphics preparation with the Project Architect, Project Engineer, and possibly with technical team members if figures from their reports are to be used in the Draft SEIS. My suggested outline for the content of the Draft SEIS (provided in Attachment F) includes a structure for addressing the unique requirements of this SEIS (described above). It will be important for this approach to be clear, well-organized, and complete in describing these requirements, and in providing the analysis for each under the Chapter 3 elements of the environment. The Chapter 3 impact analysis and description of mitigation measures will be considerably more complex that in a more conventional Draft EIS. A preliminary Draft EIS typically requires about 50% to 7 5%;o of the overall effort to prepare the Draft and Final EIS. For this reason, it requires the longest timeline in the schedule. As a quality control and accuracy measure, I prefer to wait to write the Summary (Chapter l) until after receiving comments on the preliminary Draft SEIS, in order to avoid having to locate more than one place where revisions are to be made on the same subject. Dnanr SEIS Understandirg: Following receipt of internal review comments on the preliminary Draft SEIS, these changes will be incorporated into the document and a pre-publication Draft SEIS will be prepared for final review and acceptance by the Jefferson County (DCD staff and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney) prior to public distribution of the document. When the document has been accepted by the County, the SEIS author will print the requested number of hard copies and produce the required number of CDs of electronic files for Draft SEIS distribution. The County will be responsible for providing all required information to create the Distribution List, for public notices and mailings, and for posting the electronic files on the DCD website. A-3 Attachment A: Proposed Work Plan and Task Descriptions Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Vicki Morris Consulting Services, July 18, 2012 Approach: I will review and consolidate comments received on the preliminary Draft SEIS, and coordinate with Jefferson County DCD any questions I have about which comments take precedence over others at locations where there may be conflicting suggestions. If it is apparent that a meeting would be the most effective way for the County to convey its comments on the preliminary Draft SEIS, I will travel to Port Townsend for this meeting. Up to l0 hard copies of the pre-publication Draft SEIS will be provided for final internal review, or electronic files, if requested. The County may choose the method for conveying its comments to me on the pre-publication Draft SEIS. Following the County's authorization to proceed, I will finalize files for double-sided printing and for high-speed CD reproduction. I will arrange for these services, and for delivery of documents and CDs to Jefferson County DCD a few days in advance of the published date of issue in the document. It is not possible to accurately estimate these costs at the time of this proposal preparation, as the number of pages and number of CDs will not be known until this stage of SEIS preparation. Dnnpr SEIS COUtr,tENT PERIOD / PusLIc MnnrrNC Understanding: The Draft SEIS will be circulated by Jefferson County DCD, likely for a 45-day comment period (WAC 197-ll-455161t71). During this time, Tribes, agencies with jurisdiction, organizations, interested individuals, and adjacent properry owners will be invited to review and comment on the proposed action and on the content of the Draft SEIS. The County may choose to mail a Notice of Availability advising where copies of the Draft SEIS are available for review, or mail a CD of the electronic files of the document to everyone on the Distribution List. Draft EIS distribution rules are set forth in WAC 197-11-455. The County's RFP for the Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS indicates a request for the SEIS consultant's attendance at a public hearing of the Planning Commission's review and recommendation regarding the SEIS. It is unclear whether this is the same or a different Planning Commission hearing than the one identified in the Brinnon MPR SEIS process chart that follows completion of the Final SEIS. Approach: I am available to attend one or both Planning Commission public hearings to respond to questions about the Draft SEIS. PRELIMINARY FINAL SEIS Understanding: A preliminary Final EIS is often prepared as a companion document to the Draft EIS, for which the major chapters include only the Summary, Comments and Response to Comments, and an Errata section for noting minor corrections to the Draft EIS (WAC 197-11-560[5]). In cases where substantial revisions to the Draft EIS are required, the Final EIS may include the entire contents of the Draft EIS updated as necessary, and an additional chapter on Comments and Response to Comments. Similar to the methodology for preparing the Draft SEIS, a preliminary draft of the Final SEIS will be prepared for internal review by the County, applicant and/or applicant's representatives, and Peer Review Team. The preliminary Final SEIS may consist of the draft response to comments and Errata section only, depending on whether the County would also like to receive all other contents of the Final SEIS at this time, or review these in the pre-publication version of the Final SEIS. A-4 Attachment A: Proposed Work Plan and Task Descriptions Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Vicki Morris Consulting Services, July 18, 2012 Approach: I recommend a meeting that includes Jefferson County DCD stafi potentially the County's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the applicant's representative, potentially the applicant's legal counsel, and myself after we have received and reviewed the letters of comment. The purpose for the meeting will be to discuss approach and responsibilities for responding to the comments. I will take the lead responsibility for drafting the County's response to comments, with input as needed from others - all for review and acceptance by the County. It is impossible to know at the time this proposal is being prepared whether the Pleasant Harbor MPR Final SEIS will be prepared as a companion document to the Draft, or as a free-standing and complete SEIS that includes the content of both the Draft and Final. This cannot be known until comments are received at the conclusion of the public comment period. lt is also not possible to accurately estimate the level of effort required to respond to comments until the number and complexity of comments can be reviewed. For these reasons, I propose a phased approach to my cost estimate (Attachment B). I have included a ballpark cost estimate based on preparing the Final SEIS as a companion document to the Draft SEIS; however, this is neither a confirmed decision nor a fixed price. Up to 10 hard copies of the preliminary Final SEIS will be provided for internal review, or electronic files, if requested. FlNaI SEIS Understandireg: Following receipt of internal review comments on the preliminary Final SEIS, these changes will be incorporated into the document and a pre-publication Final SEIS will be prepared for final review and acceptance by the Jefferson County (DCD staff and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney) prior to public distribution of the document. When the document has been accepted by the County, I will affange for printing the requested number of hard copies and for producing the required number of CDs of electronic files for Final SEIS distribution. The County will be responsible for mailing the Final SEIS or Notice of Availability. Final SEIS distribution rules are set forth in WAC 197-l l-460. The County will be responsible for providing me with any corrections or additions to the Draft SEIS Distribution List to create the Final SEIS Distribution List, for public notices and mailings, and for posting the electronic files on the DCD website. The Final SEIS Distribution List shall include everyone on the Draft SEIS Distribution List plus persons who commented on the Draft SEIS but were not on that Distribution List. The County may send a Notice of Availability of the Final SEIS, except to persons who request a copy of the Final SEIS (WAC 197-1l460|llt2l). Where the County receives notice of an incorrect mailing address during the Draft SEIS Notice of Availability, these addresses can be deleted from the Final SEIS Distribution List. Approach: I will review and consolidate comments received on the preliminary Final SEIS, and coordinate with Jefferson County DCD regarding any locations where there may be conflicting suggestions. If it is determined that a meeting would be the most effective way for the County to convey its comments to me on the preliminary Final SEIS, I will travel to Port Townsend for this meeting. Up to 10 hard copies of the pre-publication Final SEIS will be provided for final internal review, or electronic files, if requested. The County may choose the best means for conveying its comments to me on the pre- publication Final SEIS. Following the County's authorization to proceed, I will finalize files for double- sided printing and for high-speed CD reproduction. I will arrange for these services, and for delivery of documents and CDs to Jefferson County DCD a few days in advance of the published date of issue of the document. There will be a7-day waiting period after issuance of the Final SEIS before the County can A-5 ! Attachment A: Proposed l4/ork Plan and Task Descriptions Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Vicki Morris Consulting Services, July 18, 2012 take action on the proposal. Submiual of the Final SEIS will conclude my services on the project, unless the County or applicant request my participation in preparing documents for the Development Agreement or permitting process. SEIS Project Management The County's RFP does not request a schedule or project management approach. I would be happy to discuss this further with you during the interview, if you like. I am very experienced with EIS project management - it has been a requirement of every EIS I have written over the course of 30 years. SEIS preparation will be a fluid and interactive process. It does not lend itself well to conventional project scheduling (such as the Microsoft Office Project system). When I have been asked to provide input to such schedules in the past, it takes considerable time away from document preparation and adds significantly to the cost of services for no net benefit in the long run. I anticipate changes and reprioritization of tasks, always keeping in mind the end goal of preparing a complete and thoroughly integrated document. We can identifu a target date, and I will keep the County informed of progress toward that goal. I would be happy to participate in monthly or weekly conference calls, as needed, to keep the County informed of progress, and to resolve any questions or other matters of coordination. SEIS project management will occur during all phases of the work. A-6 Attachment B Cost Estimate T I I t T T t T T t I t t T I I I T t ATTACHMENT B VrcKr Monnrs CoNsulrmc SrRvrcBs Cosr Esrrivrarra pon Srnvrcrs ro PRrpnRo Suppt pMENTAL EtwIRoNtvtENTAL Iirlpacr Stlrnnarur: PITISaIT HnnnOn MASTER PLANNED RESORT Hourly rate for Vicki Morris $125.00/hr/ Direct expenses (minor, such as postage, in-house copies, misc.)Cost + 10% Direct expenses (major, such as final publication expenses)Cost + 5% Billing Terms: Time and expenses with detaiied monthly accounting. Billing Frequency: Monthly. Invoices will be submitted on the 25th for paynent by the lOth of the following month. o It is impossible to propose with certainty all detailed tasks required to prepare the Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS, or even the level of effort required to perform known tasks, due to the evolution of information and circumstances that will occur during the performance of the work. For this reason, I propose that the cost estimate be revisited at the end ofeach phase for subsequent phases. ' Th" level of effort estimate for Final SEIS preparation is based on responding to a moderate number and complexity of comments, and on preparing the Final SEIS as a companion document to the Draft SEIS in accordance with WAC 197-11-560(5). The level of effort required and a determination regarding the type of document to be prepared will not be known until comments on the Draft SEIS are received and reviewed.u My total cost estimate is further clarified by the list of notes that follows on page B-2. ' As a cost-saving measure in consideration for difficult economic times, I have held my hourly rate to what it was in 2005. WORK PLAN TASKS MANHoUR ESTIMATE Phase 1: Project Initiation 40 Phase 2: Preliminary Draft SEIS Preparation L-3 h^ohJa"{-500 Phase 3: Draft SEIS for Publication and Public Meeting 100 Phase 4: Preliminary Final SEIS Preparations 260 Phase 5: Final SEIS for Publication Total Hours = 100 1 hr Hourly Rate:$ 125 Total VMCS Labor Cost Estimate :$ 125,000 Reimbursable Expenses: Mileage estimate: 1 0 trips, I i 0 miles each @, $0.55/mile (or current Federal rate)$ 600 Communications, Postage/Couriers, Copies, Misc (cost + l0%)s 4,400 Draft SEIS and Final SEIS printing costs and high-speed CD reproduction to be determined at the time of publicatioq will be billed to applicant (cost + 5%) not included Total Reimbursable Expenses Estimate :$ s,000 Total Cost Estimate $ 130,0006 B-1 T T I NorES To \,MCS Scopp oF WoRK nNn Cosr Esrriulrn FoR PLEASANT HaR,Bon MPR SEIS Jefferson County is the SEPA Lead Agency for preparation of the SEIS that is the subject of the Agreement. The SEPA Rules (WAC 1.97-ll-420) state that the Lead Agency is responsible for preparing or directing preparation of the EIS, and shall make the deternrination that the EIS complies with the SEPA Rules and local procedures; i.e., that the EIS is adequate for publication. 2. Any changes to the alternative site plans, narrative descriptions of the alternatives, comparative information tables, or the content of other elements of the proposal to be evaluated in the SEIS (e.g., principal site features or any of the technical reports), will likely result in additional time and expense to revise SEIS work products. 3. This cost estimate does not include printing expense or high-speed CD reproduction of SEIS files for distribution to the public, agencies, organizations, or Tribes because it is not possible to estimate these costs at the time of proposal preparation. VMCS can arange for these services to be performed locally, to be billed to the owner as an out-of-scope expense. 4. This cost estimate includes time to coordinate graphic illustrations prepared by others for use in the SEIS. It does not include subconsultant services for graphics preparation or cover artwork. 5. This cost estimate does not include any subconsultants or co-authors to assist with writing the SEiS If a co-author were to be added, it would increase the total cost estimate. 6. Jefferson County shall be responsible for all costs and services related to the distribution of documents and public notices, and shall provide the Distribution List to be published in the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS. 7. The cost estimate and schedule for preparing the SEIS may be affected by factors unknown at the time of proposal preparation, including but not limited to requirements that may arise to respond directions given by Jefferson County DCD; requirements to respond to a larger number and/or more complex comments (compared to comments received during SEIS Scoping); and/or decisions on the part ofthe applicant that redirect the description ofthe proposal. 8. Services performed shall be billed monthly on a time and expenses basis. Monttrly invoices will include a detailed descnption of tasks performed and expenses incurred, including unanticipated out- of-scope services. If it becomes apparent that the total cost estimate in any phase will be exceeded by more than l5Yo, the scope of additional services or remaining work to be performed will be described, estimated, discussed, and submitted for written authorization by Jefferson County DCD. 9. Additional work (including a higher level of effort than anticipated) can be authorized through amendment(s) to the original scope of work and cost estimate. 10. Failure to pay monthly invoices in accordance with the terms of the executed contract shali result in the suspension ofservices until the account is brought current and assurance ofpayment is restored. I 1. Temporary postponement or significant intemrption to the flow of the work may result in disproportionate delays and/or additional expense to reactivate the project. B-2 ! Statement of Qualifications Attachment C I T t t T t T I t I I T I T T I t I T VICKI MORRIS CONSULTING SERVICES SEPA/NEPA DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND PERMITASSISTANCE Resume of Vicki Morris Summary of Qualifications Ms. Morris has 30 years' experience as project manager and primary author of Environmental Impact Statements, expanded Environmental Checklists and related documents, and 17 years of concurrent experience assisting clients with the acquisition of environmental and land use permits. She has prepared more than 200 environmental compliance documents under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Projects have included residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational development proposals; master planned communities, golf courses, marinas, utility extensions and upgrades; solid waste recycling, transfer, and landfill disposal; habitat restoration/enhancement projects; and programmatic actions: master planned developments, comprehensive land use plan updates, land use code amendments, and annexations. Ms. Moris concurrently served 6 years on the City of Seaffle Planning Commission during the Royer administration. She served.as Shorelines Committee chair and chair of the full Commission, and led numerous public meetings for capital improvement projects. Ms. Morris was a member of the faculty, Law Seminars Intemational (LS!, annual Growth Management Act (GMA) Conference, Seattle, during the formative years of GMA implementation (1993 and 1994), and was on the panel of speakers for the Marine Shoreline Development LSI program in February 2009. Employment History and Representative Projects Vicki Morris Consuking Services, Seattle, WA. July 1991 - present. Sole proprietor, woman-owned business (WBE), specializing in Environmental lmpact Statement preparation and permit assistance. Ms. Morris has expertise in a full range of projects from relatively simple and straight-forward to large, complex and potentially controversial. Her work requires coordination with decision makers, thorough analysis, organizing and sequencing team tasks, setting and achieving project milestones, and inclusion of affected parties. Representative projects: Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community, Yelm, WA City of Cle EIum Regional Sewer System Improvements, Cle Elum, WA City of Cle Elum Water Supply System Improvements, Cle Elum, WA Shilshole Bay Marina Dock Replacement/Moorage Expansion SEIS, Port of Seattle, WA Terminal 107 Public Shoreline Access Project, Port of Seattle, WA North Totten lnlet Mussel Culture, Thurston County, WA Little Creek Golf Course, Squaxin Island Tribe, Mason County, WA Indian Summer Golf Course and ResidentialDevelopment, Thurston County, WA Kahler Glen Golf Course and Condominiums, Chelan County, WA Bastyr University Campus Master Plan for Expansion, Kenmore, WA Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center, Bellevue, WA Seaboard Lumber Site Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Seattle Parks Department WA Sandy Point Sewer System Upgtades, LummiReservation, Whatcom County, WA Northwest Water System Improvements Project, Lummi Reservation, Whatcom County, WA 1 Vicki Monis Consulting Services 7732-18TH AVENUE NORTHEAST'SEATTLE, WA 987154426'PHONE: (206) 522-8057'FAX: (206) 5234648'yMorisCS@aol.com Parametrix,.Izc., Bellevue, WA. August 1989 - June 1991: Division Manager, Administrative and Support Services, Technical Publications Group. March 1983 - August 1989: SeniorMarketing Coordinator. Westgate South Shopping Center, Tacoma, WA The Park in Puyallup: North Puyallup Annexation, Zoning and Development Craig A. Peck & Associates, Seattle, WA. December 1975 - August 1982. Project manager, responsible for performing all services required to prepare Environmental Impact Statements, environmental assessments and checklists produced by the frm. Representative project experience included: CC&F I-9O/Bellevue Business Park, Bellevue, WA East Ridge Office Park, Bellevue, WA The Meadows RetaiVOffice Complex,Issaquah, WA Redmond Community Development Guide, Redmond, WA City of Bellerue Downtown Land Use Code Amendments, Bellelue, WA Parametrix, Inc., Environmental Services Division, Seattle, WA. November 1974 - November 1975. Biological investigator, responsible for technical research and writing of water quality studies and Environmental Impact Statsrnents. Other Professional Engagements Ctty of Seattle Planning Commission, Seattle, WA. 1983-1989. Appointed to the volunteer planning commission by Mayor Charles Royer. As Shorelines Committee Chair, Vice Chair and Chair of the Commission, had leadership responsibilities for analysis, recommendations and public involvement on the following maj or proj ects : Seattle Shoreline Master Program Update Central Harbortont Redevelopment Downtown Land Use Code Amendments South Lake Union Land Use and Transportation Alternatives Neighborhood Planning Program S eattle Center Redevelopment Education Bachelor of Arts in Education (B.A. Ed.), Biological Sciences Central Washington State College, Ellensburg, WA. 1973. Vicki Morris Consulting Serttices 7/1 8/t 2 2 Vicki Morris & Associates, Seattle, WA. September 1982 - March 1983. Sole proprietor, woman-owned business ('WtsE), specializing in Environmental Impact Statement preparation. Clients included major commercial developers like The Rainier Fund, lnc., and Valley Avenue Property Owners. Representative projects: VICKI MORRIS CONSULTING SERVICES SEPA/NEPA DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND PERMITASSISTANCE Firm Background and Experience Vicki Monis Consulting Services (WBE) has offered environmental compliance and permit assistance to public and private clients since 1991. Ms. Morris'individual experience spans 38 years in the environmental consulting field, beginning at the time the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first enacted. As project manager and primary author of numerous project-level and programmatic Environmental Impact Statements, Ms. Morris has extensive experience with client and agency coordination to define proposed actions, formulate meaningful alternatives and mitigation measures; select technical specialists and coordinate their work products to address all interrelated environmental issues; and overall writing, editing and document production responsibility. Land use planning is a component of the majority of projects conducted by the firm. Particularly since enactment of the Washington State GroMh Management Act (GMA), interpretation and compatibility with comprehensive plan goals, objectives, policies and development guidelines is a significant requirement in project planning. Ms. Morris has worked with the GMA comprehensive land use plans and critical area regulations of numerous western Washington municipalities, and maintains current knowledge of proposed revisions to the State Environmental Policy Act to update, streamline and integrate SEPA procedures, the GroMh Management Act, and the Shoreline Management Act. She attends the annual SEPAA{EPA continuing legal education course hosted by Law Seminars International in Seattle to maintain current knowledge of regulatory changes, changes in interpretation, and case law regarding EIS adequacy issues. All projects performed by the firm have been personally performed by Vicki Morris. Thus, the continuity and integration of knowledge and experience brought to each project resides in the same individual with 38 years of specifically-relevant experience. Ms. Morris has led numerous public meetings, and participated in many forms of stakeholder involvement. Examples range from large formal hearings, to EIS Scoping meetings, and informal workshops with stations on specific topics. Narrative descriptions of representative project experience provided with this Statement of Qualifications reflect the diversity of project types and significant issues for which Ms. Morris has been responsible for writing Environmental Impact Statements ancl assisting with project permitting requirements. The ability to write EISs on unique proposals is a function of experience with the process and intent of SEPA, and the capability to work with the technical team to generate required information. Ms. Morris frequently recommends and selects technical specialists with whom she has long-standing working relationships, or works with technical team members already retained by the applicant. Vicki Morris Consulting Services 7/1 8/1 2 3 7732-18TH A\TENUE NORTHEAST'SEATTLE,'0YA 98115-4426'PHONE: (206) 522-8057'FAX: Q06) 523-4648'vMordsCS@aol.com Representative Projects for Which Vicki Morris has Prepared Environmental Compliance Documents Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community EIS 2006-2008 Ms. Morris was retained by the applicant and approved by the City of Yelm to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Conceptual Master Site Plan of Thurston Highlands. The 1,240-acre site is within the City limits, zoned for development of a master planned community. In order to comply with urban residential densities required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), approximately 5,000 homes are proposed in a mix of housing types and densities, along with approximately 825,000 square feet (sf) of commercial development; approximately 135,000 sf of office space; approximately 400 acres of permanent open space; a Regional Sports Complex; school sites and and fire station. A major arterial extension is proposed through the site to connect SR-510 and SR-507. The project will more than triple the size of the existing community during the projected l0- to 30-year build-out. This magpitude of growth requires both short- and long-range plannrng for upgrades to all public services and utilities: water supply and distribution; wastewater collection, treatment and disposal (with emphasis on infiltration of reclaimed water from advanced treatment systems); stormwater collection, treatment, and infiltration facilities; electrical power and communications; transportation system and transit facilities. Ms. Morris participated in weekly management group meetings during the course of preparing the Draft EIS. Participants included City of Yelm Community Development Department staff; consultants to the City; the applicant; and representatives ofpublic service providers for the purpose offacilitating planning and the provision of infrastructure to serve thjs growth. She was responsible for coordinating the work of the EIS technical team to generate information needed for environmental review of this large-scale, long-term project, and served as primary author of the EIS. The City of Yelm asked Ms. Morris to continue on the project to assist them in 201212013 with preparing the Development Agreement. Vicki Morris Consulting Serttices 7/18/12 4 City of Cle Elum Regional Sewer Project and Hanson Ponds Restoration/Habitat Enhancement Project 2001-2007 The City of Cle Elum required an Environmental Impact Statement and permit applications to construct a regional wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system to serve projected growth within the City and its Urban Growth Area (UGA), the Town of South CIe EIum, City of Roslyn, Town of Ronald, and the Suncadia Resort west of Roslyn and Ronald. The resort and development proposed within the City's UGA were a driving force for the regional sewer system project. Suncadia - approximately 6,225 acres in size, was proposed to include approximately 3,485 residential units, 300 hotel rooms, multiple golf courses, and a number of other recreational facilities; and related development of 1,100 acres within the adjacent City of Cle Elum Bullfrog UGA west of downtown. Development features proposed within the UGA include approximately 1,334 residential units, a business park, and various recreational facilities and public services. Primary components of the regional sewer project included: upgrade the City of Cle Elum wastewater treatment plant to function as a sequencing batch reactor (SBR); relocate and reconstruct the City of Cle Elum wastewater treatment plant outfall; construct two new interceptors - the MPR/UGA lnterceptor and Roslyn Interceptor - and replace the Cle Elum interceptor from the point of confluence of the two new interceptors; implement sludge management practices. Ms. Morris was responsible for preparing permit applications and all agency coordination required to obtain approvals to construct a relocated outfall for wastewater treatment plant discharge to the Yakima fuver. She contributed to the Environmental Impact Statement for the project, to assure that the environmental review process would be well-coordinated with permitting requiranents. Concurrent with the City's interest in relocating the wastewater treatment plant outfall, the Yakama Nation expressed an interest in acquiring development rights from the City to restore Yakima River side-channel habitat in the Hanson Ponds adjacent to the outfall location. The ponds were used by the City for a recreational put-and- take fishery. Ms. Morris was responsible for all coordination with a representative designated by the Yakama Nation, and prepared permit applications in a manner that identified the City and Yakama Nation as co-applicants. A Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certifrcation, Hydraulic Project Approval, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and several other project approvals were obtained in time to successfully construct the project during the narrow October-December 2003 in-water work window. Ms. Morris was responsible for coordination between the design engineer, construction contractor, permitting agencies, and the City while the project was being built, and had on-going responsibilities for post-construction monitoring and compliance. Cle Elum Regional lltater System Improvements 2000-2008 The City of Cle Elum required environmental review documents and permit applications to construct water supply system improvements that included a new municipal water treatment plant; relocated water supply diversion structures on the Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers; new pump stations and raw and treated water transmission mains between the water supply diversions, treatment plant, and the point of connection to the existing distribution system. The expanded system would serve projected growth within the City of Cle Eium and its Urban Growth Area, the Town of South Cle Elum, and the Suncadia resort. The Town of South Cle Elum sought and obtained water right changes that allowed them to withdraw their municipal water supply from surface water sotrrces using City of Cle Elum diversion structures, conveyance and treatment systems. As a subconsultant to the engineering design firm, Ms. Morris prepared the expanded SEPA Checklist for all components of the project, was a substantial contributor to the NEPA Environmental Report prepared for the Federal funding agency (USDA-Rural Development), and assisted with the preparation of permit applications. The most significant environmental issues dealt with in the environmental review documents and permit applications were the in-water work elements of the project: rock drops at each relocated water supply diversion structure to direct the flow of the river past the intake during low flow periods; a concrete utility trench box constructed across the bed of the Yakima River to convey raw and treated water transmission mains and other utilities; construction timing to avoid sensitive life cycles of fish; water quality and wetland mitigation measures to comply with Federal, State and local permits. AII permits were obtained in time to successfully construct the water treatment plant and Yakima River system components on-schedule in 2000-2002. Shilshole Bay Marina Dock Replacement/Moorage Expansion 1997-2001 Ms. Morris was selected by the Port of Seattie to prepare a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for a moorage expansion proposal originally considered in 1981-82. Concurrent with examining moorage expansion and reconfiguration alternatives, the 2000 SEIS addressed the 30-year facility maintenance proposal to replace all docks to renew the useful life of the marina and to preserve the capital investment in the facility. Ms. Morris and the EIS Team engaged in an extensive alternatives analysis working with the engineering design team to address berthJength diversity alternatives for the main marina, north-end sailing center alternatives, and construction schedule alternatives to serve projected future demand for moorage while minimizing overwater coverage and other prospective impacts. Alternatives for north-end improvements were segregated from the main marina due to the unique requirements of the sailing center. Technical analyses were prepared by subconsultant team members specializing in fisheries and marine vegetation, traffic and parking, noise and air quality, and utility system upgrades. Ms. Morris participated in public meetings and responded to comments received on the Draft EIS. Ms. Morris returned to the Shilshole Bay Marina project in 2003 to prepare a comprehensive SEPA Addendum on design of the selected altemative, for use in the Federal, State, and local permit processes. Vicki Morris Consulting Services 7/18/12 ) ! ! Terminal 107 Public Shoreline Access Improvements 1995-1997 Ms. Morris served as Project Manager for environmental review and public involvement in master planning for the Port of Seattle's largest public shoreline access project on the Duwamish Waterway. This project is the "centerpiece" of the Comprehensive Public Access Planfor the Duwamish Waterway - an agreement between the City of Seattle and the Port for public shoreline access improvements cofilmensurate with marine terminal improvements that require vacation of public street rights-of-way. The property encompasses a known archaeological midden. Tribal representatives, West Seattle residents, and recreational users of the Duwamish Waterway were primary participants in the public involvement program, which required resolution of conflicting priorities for use and development of the site. Master planning also included integrating site amenities with planned improvements on adjacent properties: Kellogg Island habitat restoration, the Seattle Park Improvement Fund (SPIF) Seaboard Lumber site aquatic habitat restoration, and the Greater Harbor 2000 Alki/Harbor Avenue/Duwamish Corridor Plan. Ms. Morris coordinated the work of the technical team and prepared three expanded SEPA Checklists: 1) for interim site improvements to open the property to public access while master planning was underway; 2) for subsurface investigations performed by archaeologists in an area south of the known midden site; and 3) for the master plan site improvement proposal. Duwamish Site Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Pro.ject 2006-2007 The Duwamish site habitat restoration/enhancement project is compensatory mitigation for alleged wetland impacts to waters of the U.S. that occurred during 2004-2005 construction of the City of Seattle Joint Training Facility on Myers Way S. in the City of Seattle. The Duwamish site is approximalely 2.7 acres located adjacent to Turning Basin No. 3, at approximately rivermile 5.5. This site had unrealized habitat potential due to its invasive and weedy plant community; poor connectivity between aquatic and terrestrial settings; steep, armored riverbanks; and direct-discharging urban stormwater. The City of Seattle Fleets & Facilities Department (FFD) proposed to bring the Duwamish site to a more fully- functional state for the benefit of aquatic and terrestrial species, in a location that will provide a clear ecological benefit in the Hamm Creek basin. The off-site, out-of-kind mitigation design incorporates estuarine wetland and upland wildlife habitat restoration through construction of a small cove on the west shore of the Duwamish River, pocket plantings and the installation of large woody debris (LWD), aquatic habitat buffer restoration, and potential opportunities for water quality enhancement. The habitat restoration/enhancement proposal provides an opportunity to restore important estuarine wetlands and intertidal habitat critical for supporting out-migrating juvenile salmon. Ms. Morris prepared the expanded SEPA Environmental Checklist for the project, and all local, state, and federal permit applications. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. prepared the Mitigation P1an, Biological Evaluation, Geotechnical Evaluation, and all project design documents. North Totten Inlet Mussel Culture EIS 2001-Present Ms. Morris was selected by Taylor Shellfish and approved by Thurston County to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a 58-raft mussel culture proposal in North Totten Inlet. The mussel raft structure would cover an area approximately 1.38 acres in size withinan 11.25-acre aquatic land lease area. Individual rafts would be approximately 30ft x 34ft in dimension. The proposed new mussel raft structure would be located approximately 700 feet offshore, northwest of 85th Avenue, in unincorporated Thurston County. An altemative to the proposal would reduce the number of rafts to 50, separated into 10 groups of f,rve approximately 30ft x 40ft in dimension, with increased separation between rows to allow for periodic relocation of rafts within the bedlands lease area. Significant environmental issues addressed in the EIS were specified by the Thurston County Hearing Examiner, with further clarification and oversight from an lndependent Technical Review Committee (ITRC) retained by Thurston County. Technicai issues include: potential cumulative impacts to the water column and phytoplankton resource as the result of the addition of this mussel raft to an inlet that already supports several other shellfish aquaculture operations; potential Vicki Morris Consulting Services 7/t 8/1 2 6 ! ! impacts to boffom-dwelling (benthic) organisms; potential impacts of escapement and propagation of mussels of the variety to be cultured on the raft; potential impacts to the prey organisms of threatened and endangered species and resident frnfish; potential navigational hazards; and shoreline properry owner objections. Ms. Morris was responsible for ITRC coordination, and served as the primary author of the Environmental Impact Statement. Seaboard Lumber Site Aquatic Habitat Restoration 1998 The City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation sought to restore intertidal and upland habitat on a 5.7-acre site in the lower Duwamish River, historically the site of the Seaboard Lumber operation. Project implementation required removal of soils containing residual contamination from the lumber mill operation, and capping in-place and covering with clean sediments for habitat creation. The aquatic habitat restoration proposal included excavating an intertidal basin; constructing shoreline protection; and introducing aquatic, intertidal and upland habitat improvements. Upland features of the project include an asphalt-paved parking lot for 13 cars, an informational kiosk, and compacted crushed rock pathways leading to viewpoints. Habitat restoration improvements were funded by the Elliott BaylDuwamish Restoration Program - a consortium of governmental agencies and Tribes responsible for implementing a Consent Decree that settled a l99l lawsuit filed by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) against the City of Seattle and Metro for alleged damage to natural resources in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish fuver from the operation of storm and sanitary sewer systems that discharge to these waters. The completed project was dedicated as Herring's House Park in Spring 2001. Ms. Morris prepared the NEPA Environmental Assessment, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA), and written justification for exemption from a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center 2005-2006 The Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center (MSEEC) was a joint project of the City of Beller.ue Parks & Community Services Department and the Pacific Science Center, to provide a facility appropriate in size and character for their environmental education center programs. Expansion of the existing MSEEC use on the 1 1 8th Avenue SE site consisted of building a cluster of nine structures nestled on the wooded hillside of the site, connected by boardwalks. Building design, material selection, and infrastructure elements were selected with the objective of using the project as an example of environmental stewardship. Frontage improvements consisted of reconfiguring the existing driveway to the south parking lot; constructing a second driveway to create one-way drive-through access through the south parking lot; constructing two new driveways for one-way access to the north parking lot; and constructing a boardwalk along the west side of 118th Avenue SE to maintain the pedestrian link of the Laketo-Lake Trail past the site. Ms. Morris was responsible for preparing an expanded SEPA Checklist, a NEPA Environmental Assessment (prepared in the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development format), and permit applications for the MSEEC project. Bastyr University Campus Master Plan EIS 2002-2004 Bastyr University and the City of Kenmore proposed to adopt and implement a Campus Master Plan for expansion of this instirute of naturopathic medicine on the 5l-acre site of the former St. Thomas Seminary in Kenmore. The five-phase development proposal will support the University's vision for gowth over the next 25 years. The City will adopt the Campus Master Plan as an amendment to their City-wide Comprehensive Plan, to guide development on the campus as a subarea of the City. Development regulations for campus expansion will be set forth in a Planned Action Ordinance and/or Development Agreement. Ms. Morris was retained as the primary author of the EIS that examined three alternative scenarios for campus expansion, the No-Action Alternative, and the University's phasing proposal. The most significant issues were stormwater management, secondary access to the campus Vicki Moruis Consulting Services 7/1 8/1 2 7 (surrounded on three sides by St. Edward State Park), parking demand, offsite traffic impacts to Juanita Drive NE, and the construction proposal. Given that this was the University's first experience with environmental review under SEPA, they were unfamiliar with how to write detailed narrative descriptions of the proposed action and alternatives. Ms. Morris developed these descriptions and illustrations working with Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman (MIG), lnc., the University's master plan consultant. As the primary author of the EIS, Ms. Morris was also responsible for responding to public and agency comments received during scoping, and during the Draft EIS comment period. Little Creek Golf Course NEPA Environmental Review Document 2005-2006 With a long-range vision to create a diverse and stable base of different enterprises that provide economic self-sufficiency and comprehensive employment oppoffunities, the Squaxin Island Tribe proposed to construct an 18-hole championship golf course as a component of the existing Little Creek Resort. The golf course was perceived as the primary amenity that would transition the existing hotel/casino complex to a destination resort. The Tribe retained a Professional Golfers' Association (PGA) course designer to develop the course layout, and an environmental review team to help identifu means to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for potential adverse impacts associated with golf course development of the site. Ms. Morris was the environmental review team project manager, and primary author of the environmental review document. Significant issues included: water resources, access, and infrastructure. Project planning included bringing a 150,000 gpd MBR treatment plant onJine in time to generate reuse water for golf course irrigation. As golf course development was being completed, the course was named Salish Cliffs Golf Club. Housing District Pump Station, Force Main and Reuse Line NEPA EA 2006-2007 The Squaxin Island Tribe upgraded its wastewater treatment system with installation of a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system in March 2007 . The new treatment plant was installed in the Tribe's Kamilche Valley commercial area, approximately 0.75-mile west and downgradient from the Tribal housing and governmental services district. In anticipation of connecting all Tribal lands to a regional wastewater treatment system, 6-inch sewer force mail and 4-inch reuse water lines had been constructed in 2004 in the Old Olympic Highway right-of-way (during a Mason County road improvement project), to within 3,400 lineal feet of the housing district. The Housing District Pump Station, Force Main and Reuse Line project completed the distribution system to convey effluent from the SBR plant to the MBR, and potentially to retum reuse water to the housing district for beneficial uses in the future. The Tribe sought grant funding from both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.D.A.-Rural Development. Ms. Morris prepared a NEPA Environmental Assessment for the project, in a format that consolidated the requirements of both federal agencies. Indian Summer Golf Course and Residential Development 1992-1993 Ms. Morris was the EIS project manager and primary author of the Thurston County EIS that addressed a preliminary plat of 230 lots for single-family homes, and nine parcels for future residential development to include townhouses, condominiums or apartments. A total of about 480 dwelling units were planned surrounding the lS-hole PGA golf course known as lndian Summer. Significant issues addressed by the EIS team included wetland water quality and habitat value; wildlife corridors; stormwater quality; potential impact of yard and turf maintenance on groundwater quality, including lntegrated Pest Management (IPM) measures; traffic; student population; sewer extension; onsite recreational opportunities; an historically significant homestead site; compatibility with a neighboring private airfield; the potential health effects of the electromagnetic field (EMF) associated with a BPA transmission corridor through the southern portion of the site; and Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) compliance. Yicki Morris Consulting Services 7/t8/1 2 8 Kahler GIen Golf Course & Condominiums 1993-1994 Ms. Morris was retained by the owner/developer and approved by Chelan County to prepare an EIS addressing development of a 200-acre parcel adjoining an existing 4O-acre Phase I development near the south end of Lake Wenatchee. New development included an additional 9-hole golf course, up to 92 lots for single-family homes, up to 40 condominium units, a hotel and restaurant. Environmentally sensitive areas included steep slopes and riparian habitat adjacent to Nason Creek to be preserved in a conservancy easement for the protection of wetlands, wildlife habitat, and floodway. Significant issues dealt with in the EIS included: compatibility of proposed uses with the low intensity recreational character of the area; encroachment of clearing, development and commercial uses on a Conservancy shoreline; wetlands and rare plants; maintaining a 100-ft wide riparian corridor in a conservancy easement; mitigation within the golf course for loss of wildlife habitat; protection of fish habitat and instream flow; water supply/water balance for domestic use and irrigation; groundwater continuity with Nason Creek or Lake Wenatchee; water quality associated with golf course runoff and impervious surfaces; interim and permanent stormwater control - no point discharge; slope stability for residential and road constructionl trip generation; and air quality concerns associated with wood-burning fireplaces. Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan NEPA EIS 2003-2004 Under contract to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission OIWIFC), Ms. Morris provided technical editing and NEPA content oversight for complex and extensive NEPA environmental review documents prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, to address the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan - a fisheries harvest management proposal developed jointly by the Washinglon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes. Ms. Morris provided these services for the 1,000-page NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the 2004 harvest season, and for the 1,200-page NEPA EIS prepared for the 2005-2009 harvest seasons. City of Kent S. 228th Street Extension 1999-2001 The City of Kent required an Environmental Impact Statement for their Public Works Department proposal to complete the west leg of the South 224tUSouth 228th Street corridor from its existing terminus (84th Avenue South) to SR-516 (Kent-Des Moines Road) to provide additional east-west traffic capacity across the Green River valley. The project involved a Green River bridge crossing, with significant Endangered Species Act (ESA) and wetland impact considerations. Three alternative alignments were considered for the route up the West Hill, an area mapped as Class I/High Hazard for landslides and erosion potential. The EIS required a policy anaiysis of compliance with the City's Shoreline Master Program and unique and fragile areas policies. Ms. Morris served as SEPA Specialist and Senior Technical Advisor to the City's project manager for EIS content and technical report preparation. The consultant team included specialists in transportation planning and desigp, bridge design, traffic impact analysis, noise and air quality impact analysis, aquatic biology, terrestrial biology, wetlands, geology and slope stability. Sandy Point Sewer System Upgrades 2008 The Sandy Point wastewater treatment plant and pump stations are 25 years old and in a deteriorating condition. In order to improve system reliability, increase capacity for growth, and address health hazards associated with failing septic systems, the Lummi Tribal Sewer and Water District proposes to construct a new Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) treatment plant, rebuild seven existing pump stations and construct one new pump station, and extend the gravity sewage collection system a distance of approximately 14,130 linear feet. Ms. Morris prepared the NEPA Environmental Report for the project, in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Services guidelines. Vicki Morris Consulting Seryices 7/1 8/1 2 9 Grant Beck, Community Development Director City of Yelm Yelrn, WA 98032 360.4s8.8408 Matt Morton, Community Development Director City of Cle Elum Cle Elunr, WA98922 509.674.2262 Billy Plauch6, Legal Counsel Gordon Derr Seattle, WA 98104 206.382.9s40 Brad Tong, P.E., Project Manager Shiels Obletz Johnsen Seattle, WA 98104 206.838.3700 Darlene Robertson, Director of Harbor Services Port of Seattle Seattle, WA 98117 206.787.3229 Craig Peclg P.E., Project Engineer Craig A. Peck & Associates Tacoma, WA 98446 253.840.5482 Steve DiJulio, Legal Counsel Foster Pepper & Shefelman Seattle, WA 98101 206.447.8971 Dan Neelands, Construction Manager Squaxin Island Tribe Community Development Shelton, WA 98584 360.432.3975 Bill McCourt, District Manager Lummi Tribal Sewer & WaterDistrict Bellingham, WA98226 (now retired: bmccourt@msn. com) Vicki Morris Consulting Services Client References Re: Thurston Highlands Master Planned Community EIS Re: City of Cle Elum Water System Improvements and Regional Sewer System Improvements Expanded SEPA Checklist and Permit Assistance Re: City of Cle Elum Regional Sewer System Improvements; and North Totten Inlet Mussel Culture EIS Re: City of Seattle Joint Training Facility and Duwamish Site Habitat Restoration Project Expanded SEPA Checklist and Permit Assistance Re: Shilshole Bay Marina Dock Replacement/ Moorage Expansion SEIS Re: Kahler Glen Golf Course and Condominiums, Indian Summer Golf Course and Residential Development EISs Re: City of Kent S. 228th Street Extension EIS Environmental Impact Statement Re: Bastyr Universily Campus Master Plan EIS Re: Little Creek Golf Course NEPA E nvir o nmenta I Revi ew D ocument Re: Sandy Point Sewer System Upgrades NEPA Environmental Report Vicki Morris Consulting Services 7/1 8/t 2 10 J. Tayloe Washburn, Legal Counsel Foster Pepper & Shefelman Seatrle, wA 98101 206.447.8948 Vicki Morris Vicki Morris Consulting Services Client Comments re: the Services of I I T I T t T T I I I t I t I T I I I Subj: Date: From: To: CC: HiVicki- Re: Rufus Woods Lake Pacific Aquaculture Site #3 NEPA EA 11271201210:35:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time Stoddard.Jame)r@epamail.eoa.qov vmorriscs@aol.com JBiel ka@oacseafood.com CCT had no comments on the November draft EA. That said, I did not make any revisions to the document and will use that version for public comment. Thanks again for everything. The analysis in the EA is of a caliber that it will likely serve as a bench mark moving fonruard for future aquaculture projects (of which we have been getting quite a few lately, although mostly in ldaho). Jamey L. Stoddard Office of Water and Watersheds, NPDES Permits Unit USEPA, Region X 1200 6th Ave., Suite 900, OWW-130 Seattle, WA 98101 T. (206) 553 61 10 F. (206) 553 o'165 stoddard.jamey@epa. gov Page 1 of 1 Subj Date: RE: Petrovitsky Park Final DNS (signed) 91812011 9:57:24 P-M. Pacific Daylight Time zwei@comcast.net VMonisCS@aol.com ckovac@dowlhkm.com Vicki, I would work with Chris K. on what is and is not being done. I have seen a flurry of emails and I know there have been a couple of meetings that I have not been at so I am unsure who is actually doing what and what still.needs to be done. Chris? lf your part of the project is indeed complete, I wantto thank you for your efforts, and will ensure prompt payment for your seryices. lf still needed, glad you're on my team. Regardless, for any future work, you're on my speed dial and on the preferred list for anyone looking for a person of your caliber, Wayne Jensen Kent Youth Soccer Association From: To: (-(.: Tuesday, September 13,2011 AOL: VMorrisCS Page 1 of 1 t T I I Subj: RE: Gity Heights Date: 1111512010 8:32:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time From: dblanchard@sapohireskies.net To: VMorrisCS@aol.com ThanksVicki- lappreciateall thehardworkandprofessionalismyoubroughttotheprojectandlam sure we will be touching base soon. Monday, November 15,2010 AOL: VMorrisCS Page I of I Subj RE: Joint Training Facility and Duwamish Mitigation Site 8/13/2007 11:48;04 PM Pacific Dayiight TimeDate: Froml To: CC: bradt@sojsea.conl VMorrisCS@.aol.com bcarsou@GordonDeg. com Vicki, Thanks to your detailed and focused work and perseveftrnce, and tha:rks to key people who worked through the many stategies and issues navigating those waters with you, we've made it. Thanks for hanging in there witl us; it was quite the challenge. A-ll the best, and thanks much for all of your assistance. I reaily do appreciate it. Great, great work. Brad. Bradley D Tong, PE SIIIELS OBLETZ JOHNSEN 700 Fifth Avenue Suite 2475 Seattle, Washington 98 104 T 206-233-'784t F 206-386- 1 83 I t I From: VMorrisCS@aol.com fmailto:VMorrisCS@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 73,2007 3:20 PM To: bradt@sojsea.com Cc: bcarson@GordonDerr.com Subject: Joint Training Facility and Duwamish Mitigation Site Brad and Brent: The City of Tukwila will have their Public Works permit and Shoreline Exemption for the Duwamish site habitat restoration/enhancement project ready for Ethan to pick up tomorrow afternoon (8114107). This should complete the permit acquisition requirements for the Joint Training Facility project. I hope all goes smoothly with construction (and with your office move, Brad!). It was a pleasure working with both of you. Thank you for the opportunity. Vicki Morris Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. Tuesday, August 14,2007 America Online: VMonisCS Date: From To: CC: Subj FW: City of Cle ElumlYakama Nation Rock Drop, Outfall, Hanson Ponds Site Visit 712212005 12:44:20 PM Pacific Standard Time BPLAUCH BDBUCKGORDON.COM VMqIIisCS@aqldom iellis@eburolaw.com, GreqqH@cityofcleelum.com, eanderson@eburqlaw.com, rmp@hcmp.com Vicki: While David doesn't mention you by name in his e-mail, I want you to know that we all know that you are the driving force that brought everyone and everything together on this project. David is correct that it is a great success, and there is simply no way it would have come together without your thorough organization and consistent push. Billy ---Original Message----- From: David_T_Morgan@fws.gov Sent: Friday, July 22,2005 11:42 AM To: VMorrisCS@aol.com Cc: ykfphabitat@elltel.net; diane.driscoll@noaa.gov; renfrbr@dfw.wa.gov; joseph.w.brock@usace.army.mil; ykfphabitat@elltel.net; Doug@bogstomper.com; jellis@eburglaw.com; GresqH@citvofcleelum.com; cra1461@ecy.wa.gov; Billy Plauch6 Subject City of Cle Elumffakama Nation Rock Drop, Outfall, Hanson Ponds Site Visit I wanted to pass along my compliments to Scott and everyone else who helped make this project happen. Some might have been dissuaded from trying this sort of thing due to permitting challenges, design complexity, size of the river, etc. These can be real concerns, but they are not insurmountable if the right people and dedication are involved, as in this instance. This project clearly improves off-channeljuvenile rearing habitat, which is one of the limiting factors inhibiting salmonids in the upper Yakima River. By doing things to help improve habitat so that salmon, steelhead, and bull trout can bounce back to the point that they no longer need special protection, this project moves us a bit closer to that goal. So whether you're a fish-guy like me or not, I hope projects like this one are recognized as furthering multiple interests, and not just good for fish. David T. Morgan Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service CentralWA Field Office 215 Melody La, Suite 119 Wenatchee, WA 98801 voice: 509-665-3508 x24 fax: -3509 or -3523 I T Page I of 1 Subj: Date: From: To: R-E: Bi-weekly sewer caUs 7/12/2005 1:00:43 PM Pacific Standard Time BPLAUCHE@BUCKGORDON, C OM VMorrisCS@aol.com Thanks, Vicki. As I indicated at tie teatnent plant dedication, I have also enjoyed working with you on this project - you have an amazing ability to coordinate numerous and complex permitting activities and keep the process marching forward. That we had the outrall in two years before the plant was completed is a testament to what you bring to these projects. I look forward to our continuing work on this project and the Taylor raft expansion. And I am keeping my eyes open for the next project to involve you in! Biily Tuesday, July 12,2005 America Online: VMorrisCS Page I of 1 Subj: Date: From: To: FW: Shilshole Lunch Party L0/912003 11:43:55 AM Paci{ic Standard Time robertson. d@ppXfiggfupgg vmorriscs(@aol.com Although belated, I was sorry that you could not be at the recop.itition luncheou. However, I cau't thank you enough for all of your hard work, attention to detail, perfectionism, keeping us on task, and your invaluable input and contributions. It was a pleasure working with you and I hope we will be able to work together again at some future time. You are one of the rare people I have had the pleasure of working with and have an exceptionai work ethic aud a great working style. I iearned a lot from you. Thank you again for all that you have contributed to the team and the Shilshole Project Vicki. Regards, Darlene I I Friday, October i0,2003 America Online: VMorrisCS I T T t I t t I I I T I I I T T T t t Attachment D Work Product Examples that Demonstrate High Standard of Care, Organization and Completeness Representative Work Example Pleasant Harbor MPR Project Narrative Attachment D.l I I T T I T t I I I t t T T t I T t I Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Introduction, Narrative Description of the Alternatives and Construction Phasing/Sequencing Proposal SIrn LOCITION AND PrrySICaI CHRRICTTRISTICS The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) is proposed on approximately 257 acres of the 710- acre Black Point Peninsula along the western side of the Hood Canal. The peninsula is surrounded on the north, south, and east by the waters of Hood Canal. Pleasant Harbor is formed by the west shore of Black Point and the east shore of the mainland. The harbor is connected to Hood Canal by a narrow entrance channel at the north end. The site is about 40 miles north of Shelton and 3 miles south of Briruron in Jefferson County, Washington, in Sections 15 and 22 of Township 25 North, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian (see Figure _ [Location VIap]). Existing land use on the Black Point Peninsula is predominantly low-density residential. The Peninsula was previously logged, and single-family homes have been constructed on the west and east sides. The northern end of the peninsula is undeveloped. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owns approximately 30 acres of forest land on the northern portion of the peninsula. Improvements on WDFW land include a public boat launch and picnic area with access from Black Point Road. A period of glaciation occurred in the Puget Sound Lowland approximately 30,000 to 15,000 years ago. It is likely that the glacial ice advanced and withdrew several times over the project area during the glacial period, depending on climatic conditions. Thus, geologic material beneath the site consists of sand and gravel outwash with some glacial till exposures. Depressions and hummocks formed in glacial outwash material deposited on and around stagnant glacial ice as the underlying ice melted. Numerous potholes identified on the property are "kettles" formed as sand and gravel was deposited around stagnant ice blocks that subsequently melted. Several of the kettles have silty soils in the bottom overlying sand and gravel. Three wetlands have been identified on the proposed Master Planned Resort site: one in the largest kettle, a second in a local depression southeast of the largest kettle, and a third that extends off-site along the east property line. The topography of the site ranges from mean sea level to about 320 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the peninsula, and from mean sea level to about 100 feet above msl in the Pleasant Harbor marina area (approximately 150 feet msl at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101). Slopes on the peninsuia range from less than2 percent in the western portion to more than 100 percent in the area of steep coastal bluffs along the south boundary. The high point on the peninsula (at existing grades) occurs in the southeast portion of the proposed MPR site, east of Kettle C. All areas of the site were formerly logged by others prior to 1970. Historical aerial photographs reproduced in the Forestry Report prepared for the Pleasant Harbor MPR show that the area now occupied by the Pleasant Harbor Marina was once used as a log dump and log rafting area. The existing narrow loop road on the slope and along the waterfront in this area of the site was created by others to serve that use. Vegetation presently found on the property consists primarily of an overstory of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesti) with occurrences of red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Pacific 2/01/l L'vl51 madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Broadleaf shrubs and other plants found in the understory include: red- flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), vine maple (Acer circinatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum). The area that includes the site is within the East Olympic and Hood Canal River basins, and within the Skokomish-Dowewallips Water Resource Inventory Area (WRLA l6). Intermittent streams flow through the Maritime Village and marina upland area of the site north of Black Point Road (runoff from U.S. Highway 101 and the hillside above) and discharge into Pleasant Harbor. There are no existing stream courses on the Black Point Peninsula portion of the property. Existing utilities in both areas of the site include electrical power, propane gas, potable water from wells, wastewater treatment and disposal in on-site sewage disposal systems, telephone, and solid waste collection and transport. PRINCIPAL FEATURES oF THE EXISTING M,q.RINA/MARITIME VIII-IcB The Marina/Maritime Village portion of the proposed MPR site encompasses approximately 36.3 acres extending northeasterly along the east side of U.S. Highway 101 from the Black Point Road intersection to the north end of the Pleasant Harbor Marina. The existing marina was developed in the late 1960s. Vehicular access is provided from U.S. Highway 101 at the north end of the site. The marina is also accessible by private boat or float plane. Existing improvements within the Marina/Maritime Village area of the proposed MPR include: . A real estate office adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 . A driveway to the Bed-and-Breakfast Harbor House owned by others (access from U.S. Highway 101 . The Pleasant Harbor House owned by Statesman Corporation o A grocery store/convenience store/deli and office at the marina o Restrooms, showers and laundry o Swimming pool with change roonr r An asphalt-paved and gravel one-way loop road and parking areas adjacent to the shoreline and up the slope above the grocery store/convenience store/deli . Septic tanks, sewage pumps, fuel tanks, wells and pumps, and water storage tanks o [ 286-slip marina. PRINCTpIT- FEATURES OF THE AREA PnOpoSBo FoR GoLF Counsp/GolF RESoRT DrvsLopN,InNr The area of the MPR site proposed for Golf Course/Golf Resort development (approximat ely 220 .4 acres) was previously developed by others in the 1950s as a campground. The 500-unit Thousand Trails commercial campground has paved and graveled roads and parking areas, tent camp sites, recreational vehicle (RV) pad sites, picnic areas with shelter buildings, an activity center and swimming pool, restroom buildings with septic tanks and drainfields, wells for water supply, gravel borrow areas, an entry guard house, and fenced equipment storage areas. The campground was in use until late 2007. A Conditional Use permit was obtained in 2010 to allow continued use of the campground and RV sites if Statesman were to choose to reactivate this use. Some minor grading occurred on the site to create level campsites and roadways. Gravel borrow pits were excavated east of the large kettle near the center of the site and in the fenced storage area near the campground entrance. 2 2/01/1 I : vl5 fNote: Each consultant should add to the existing conditions description to include fbatures reievant to their analysis.l Both the Pleasant Harbor Marina and the Black Point Peninsula have access from U.S. Highway 101. The peninsula is also served by Black Point Road (see Figure ). Brurr.IITSTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE MISTpR PIINNTo RTSORT DcSICNaTIoN Statesman Corporation applied to Jefferson County for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2006 for a Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation in the Brinnon subarea. This application was processed with the County's 2007 docket of annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared on the programmatic land use action. Land use alternatives for MPR development (including no action) were evaluated in that EIS. The Final EIS was published November 27 ,2007 . The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved by Ordinance No. 02- 0128-08 amendments to the Comprehensive PIan and a Comprehensive Plan map change to designate the area Master Planned Resort. The BoCC decision affirmed in Ordinance No. 02-0128-08 that the site is better suited for a MPR than for commercial timber harvest or agricultural production; the MPR plan is and will be consistent with all Growth Management Act (GMA)-derived development regulations pertaining to critical areas and pertaining to all on-site and off-site infrastructure; service impacts will be mitigated through a Development Agreement; mitigation requirements shall be adhered to through a site- specific Zoning Code, Development Agreement, and permit applications. The Ordinance states that the MPR is to be a self-contained and fully-integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations. An lS-hole golf course and up to 890 residential units were approved with the MPR designation. No more than 10 percent of total residentiai units are to be permanently occupied, and short- term residential units must at all times be not less than 65 percent of total residential units. The Master Planned Resort designation was approved for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point property owned by Statesman east of U.S. Highway 101r, subject to 30 conditions imposed by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 02-0128-08. The BoCC conditions were imposed through the County's legislative authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as well as the Board's general police power as a legislative body for the purpose of mitigating potential significant adverse impacts to the environment, adjacent land use, the existing transportation system, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and public services. BoCC conditions imposed to mitigate potential adverse impacts related to _ are discussed in this technical report. fNote: Each technical report author to fill in the blantri above. Review 1l20l09 "Table of Contents and BoCC Conditions" distributed at Team meeting last summer fbr this information; scanned version provided with July 2010 distribution of alternative site plans and project infonnation.] Suppr-BUTNTAL EIS Rnqunoo Prior to entering into a Development Agreement with Statesman Corporation, and prior to adopting a site- specific Zoning Ordinance for the MPR site, Jefferson County requires preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEiS). The SEIS will provide project-level environmental review to supplement prograrnmatic environmental review completed with the November 27,2007 FEIS. MPR land use alternatives were evaluated in the programmatic EIS; therefore, the SEIS evaluates altemative site The MPR designation also encompasses a Bed-and-Breakfast House owned by others. J 2/01/11: vl5 ! plans for developing a Master Planned Resort on the site, each of which would include the features previously approved in principle by the BoCC: an l8-hole golf course and up to 890 residential units (predominantly for shortterm visitor use). [Note: Each technical reporl author should add a separate paragraph at this point to describe teclinical report(s) they previously prepared tbr the same element of the environment, in support of the November 2007 programmatic EIS. This paragpaph should explain how/whether the content of their 2010 expounds on tlre 2006-2001 document, which may have provided baseline information, for example.] DTSCRTpTION OF THE MPR PnOpOSAL AND ALrrRNRrrvBS The site plan alternatives being evaluated in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort SEIS include the proposal illustrated and evaluated in the FEIS (Altemative 1); a revised site plan developed during 2008- 2009 to make more efficient use of the site, to minimize environmental impacts, and to address BoCC conditions of approval (Alternative 2); and the current (2011) site plan revised from the Alternative 2 version, predominantly in response to the Jefferson County locally-approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update (December 2010) that increases the Shoreline buffer in the Marina/Maritime Village area from 30 feet to 150 feet. More descriptive information about each alternative is provided below and in a Comparison of Altematives table. Features Common to Any Action Alternative Each of the site pian alternatives includes an 1S-hole golf course, 890 residential units, and commercial development for resort-related services within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The location, configuration, type and number of residential units and commercial space differ somewhat between the alternatives, as do the amenities to be provided within the development. Structures within the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina would be renovated or replaced, depending on the alternative selected. Under any alternative, improvements would be made to Black Point Road, and to the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101. A 12-ft wide (with turn-outs) Marina Access Drive would be improved parallel to the east side of U.S. Highway 101 between Black Point Road and the existing marina. In order to keep Resort traffic internai to the site to the maximum extent practicable, the Marina Access Drive would be used by visitors to travel between the main entrance parking lot and the marina. This drive would accommodate two-way shuttle vehicle service and emergency vehicle access between Black Point Road and the marina. Access to the Golf Course/Golf Resort from Black Point Road would be controlled by a gate with a guard house. Parking for slip owners and Resort visitors would be created at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, with shuttle service from the parking area to the marina using the Marina Access Drive. The existing real estate office at this intersection would be eliminated. Provisions would be made for this use within the commercial space of the Maritime Village. Other types of commercial uses anticipated within the Marina Village include a possible restaurant, dive shop, sightseeing cruises, gifts, and an upgxaded grocery store/convenience store and deli. The proposed architectural concept for the buildings within the Marina/Maritime Village is a Cape Cod waterfront style incorporating some stone and cedar accents. Buildings in the Golf Resort, integrated around the golf course, are proposed in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled roof elements. 4 2/01/1 1: v15 Under any site plan alternative, the main building at the Golf Resort would be the Golf Terrace and Conference Center/Spa. At four stories in height (approximately 48 feet) and located at approximately elevation 250 feet mean sea ievel (msl), this would be the tallest building within the development. A 3- story Maintenance Building with Staff Quarters to be provided near the gated entry to the development is also a consistent feature of proposed development under any action alternative. The maintenance portion of this building would provide ground-level golf cart and mower storage and servicing and maintenance supplies for the grounds and golf course. Residential units (52) in the upper two stories would provide housing for employees. Employee parking would be provided in a surface lot associated with the Maintenance Building/Staff Quarters. The Master Planned Resort would be mostly self-sufficient with regard to utilities. An on-site wastewater treatment plant is proposed, capable of producing Class A reclaimed water for beneficial reuse within the development. Statesman Corporation received approval of water rights from the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15, 2010 to serve the site. One or more wells and a water storage tank will be cornpleted on the property. Stormwater management systems for the control and treatment of runoff during construction and in the corrpleted condition of the development would be provided on the site in accordance with the Washington Department of Ecology 2005 Stormwater Management Manual /br Western Washington. Under any alternative site plan, golf course fairways would be located in areas of permeable soils to allow for infiltration of stormwater runoff to recharge the local groundwater aquifer. The first nine golf course fairways would be developed along the eastern side of the peninsula. The second nine fairways would be developed along the south and west sides of the property. Portions of the area to be used for Golf Course development would be left undeveloped (or restored) for the retention of wetlands and buffers, and for storage of golf course irrigation water (Class A reclaimed water from the wastewater treatment plant process, and site runoff directed to Kettle B). Existing local depressions throughout the site would be used to collect and retain runoff for infiltration. The proposal includes preserving a riparian buffer along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve the 200-ft wide Shoreline Environment and a steep slope setback (up to an additional 35 feet wide in places) in a conservation easement to be administered by one or more local Tribes. Alternative I Altemative 1 for development of the Master Planned Resort is the site plan described, illustrated, and evaluated inthe Final Environmental Impact Statement IFEIS]/or the Proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort (November 27,2007). This Alternative is distinguished by intensive redevelopment in the Marina/Maritime Village area and a large number of relatively small residential structures in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site. See the Alternative I figures: Overall Site, Marina Village and Golf Course/Resort (January 3 1, 201 1). fNote: Each consultant may want to assign and refer to Figure numbers for the alternative site plans, in- sequence within their report.] The Alternative 1 development proposal for the Marina,rMaritime Village area includes l5l residential units and 16,000 sf of commercial space within 14 buildings adjacent to the shoreline, to replace upland improvements associated with the existing marina. Existing buildings at the waterfront and the two existing residences south of the marina (the Pleasant Harbor House owned by Statesman Corporation, and the Bed-and-Breakfast House owned by others) would be demolished and replaced with new multiple- 2/01/1 I : vI55 unit residential buildings. The new Marina Village would consist of four 4-story buildings that would contain retail and interior parking on the main floor with 48 Marina Villa apartments, 40 Marina Townhomes and additional parking in the three stories above. All residential units and commercial spaces would be built into the hillside, overlooking the marina. The main access to the Marina/Maritime Village would be a new Marina Access Drive constructed in a northeasterly direction from the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 10i. The existing marina access road between the shoreline and the grocery store/convenience store/deli would be improved to create a 15-ft wide promenade between new buildings and the waterfront for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access. A new one-way road system would be built for northbound access from Black Point Road down through the Marina Village then (a two-way road) up to U.S. Highway 101 using the existing roadway at the north end of the site. A new swimming pool and amenity building for slip owners would be located north of the Marina Village to replace the existing pool and change rooms south of the grocery store/convenience store/deli and office. The Alternative 1 proposal for the shoreline area south of the existing Pleasant Harbor House includes 33 residential units in Marina Stepped and Stacked Townhome buildings, and 30 Marina Rowhouses. The Marina Rowhouses would be two stories in height in six buildings of 4 or 6 units each. The Marina Stepped/Stacked buildings would consist of four 4-story residential structures built down into the hillside. These buildings would be accessed by a separate roadway system flanked with parking lots. The Alternative 1 proposal for the Golf CourseiGolf Resort area of the site includes 739 units within 124 buildings, the lS-hole golf course, and a Turn Building housed with the wastewater treatment plant near the southeast corner of the site. The 4-story Golf Terrace and Conference/Spa Center would contain 128 residential units and 36,000 sf of commercial space. Uses planned for the commercial space include a restaurant, spa, conference and meeting rooms, and a pro shop on the lower level adjacent to Fairway #1. Surface parking lots would be provided for both tenants of the residential units and golf course visitors. The Black Point Townhomes would contain 462 units in 111 two-story buildings parallel to the proposed internal roadway system. These buildings would have an underground parkade that would provide two parking stalls per residential unit. The Alternative 1 Black Point Villas would contain 97 residential units in eleven 1- and 2-story buildings with an underground parkade. The length of the Alternative 1 internal road system from Black Point Road through the Golf Resort would be approximately 13,125lineal feet (10. Alternative 2 The Alternative 2 site plan was modified to respond to the 30 BoCC conditions imposed on the MPR development by Ordinance No. 02-0128-08, and to improve constructability by refining the grading plan. The number of buildings (and thus residential units) within the Marina/\zlaritime Village area was reduced compared to Altemative 1. A corresponding number of residential units were transferred to the Golf Course/Golf Resort side by introducing three additional 4-story buildings. ln addition, the gated entrance to the Golf Course/Golf Resort area was relocated to the northeast side of the peninsula property off Black Point Road, and the wastewater treatment plant was relocated to the northwest corner of the Golf Course/Golf Resort area. Under Alternative 2, Black Point Road would be improved from U.S. Highway 101 to the proposed site entrance at the northeast corner of the Golf Course/Golf Resort. See Alternative 2 figures: Overall Site, Marina Village and Golf Course/Resort (January 31, 2011). The number of Maritime Village buildings is reduced in Alternative 2 (compared to Alternative 1) to one 4-story building and one 3-story building. The 4-story building would contain 49 residential units with 17,000 sf of commercial space on the main floor and parking on the lower three floors. The 3-story building would contain six 2-story units on the second and third floors with a restaurant and yacht club on the main floor. An improved waterfront promenade would provide pedestrian and emergency vehicle 6 2/01/11:v15 access, similar to Altemative 1. The existing swimming pool and change room building would remain as- is. The proposed one-way access drive from Black Point Road to the marina would be the same as Alternative 1. The Pleasant Harbor House would be retained, but the Bed-and-Breakfast Harbor House would be acquired and removed. ln its place and extending further south, six buildings Sea View Chalets (one story with basements) would be constructed (26 residential units) in place of the Manna Stepped/Stacked and Rowhouse buildings of Altemative l. Access to the Sea View Chalets would be from the Marina Access Drive (same as Alternative 1). Parking for these units would be provided in driveways. The Alternative 2 main access to the Golf Course/Golf Resort area would be at the northeast corner of the site from Black Point Road. The Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters would be located near this entrance. With the addition of three new Golf Terrace buildings in Alternative 2, the total number of individual buildings would be less in Altemative 2 than Altemative 1. The new 4-story Golf Terrace buildings would contain 338 residential units with underground and surface parking lots. The Golf Terrace 1 building would be larger in size compared to Alternative 1, and would contain 154 residential units, 36,000 sf of commercial space, and underground parking. Parking within the structure would result in a reduced requirement for the size of surface parking lots. Amenities within the Alternative 2 Golf Terrace 1 building would include a restaurant and lounge, conference and meeting rooms, chapel, billiards and game room, spa and exercise center, and the golf course pro shop. The Black Point Villa unit-type in Alternative 1 would be replaced by Sea View Villas in Alternative 2 (72 residential units compared with 97 villas in Alternative 1). The Black Point Townhome unit-type in Altemative i would be replaced by Golf Vistas in Alternative 2, with a reduction in the number of this unit type from 462 units in Alternative I to 192 units in Alternative 2. The 49 remaining buildings in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area would provide a total of 808 residential units and front on the internal road system. The internal road system in Alternative 2 (approximately 10,600 iineal feet) would be reduced in length compared to Alternative 1. Golf course fairway configurations are adjusted only slightly from Alternative 1, and a tennis court would be added adjacent to the Golf Terrace 2 building. Innovative measures for conservation of electrical power and golf course/landscaping management were introduced by Statesman Corporation in the Alternative 2 development concept. Geothermal units were proposed attached to heat pumps, and EarthRenew organic matter fetilizer became a significant element of the proposal for soil amendment and nutrient input to the golf course and landscaped areas in lieu of synthetic fertilizers. Alternative 3 The Alternative 3 site plan was modified in response to the Jefferson County locally-approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update (December 2010), that requires a 150-ft shoreline buffer in the marina upland area compared to the 30-ft setback in the adopted Shoreline Master Program (1989; revised 1993, 1996, and 1998) at the time the Alternative 1 conceptual site plan was prepared. The substantial shoreline buffer (i.e., an area where no new structures would be allowed) significantly modified the Marina Center/Itlaritime Village development concept for the Master Planned Resort. See the Alternative 3 figures: Overall Site, Maritime Village and Golf Course/Resort (January 31,2011). Redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints in the Marina Center (marina upland) area. Therefore, residential and commercial development contemplated in the Alternative I and 2 site plans for this area is relocated in the Altemative 3 site plan to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101. A new Marina Lofts building at the intersection would include 36 residential units on the east (rear) side of the building with two stories (12,500 sf) of commercial space at the front (west side, facing U.S. Highway 2/01/11: v157 101). Parking would be provided in surface parking lots at this intersection for visitors, residents and marina slip owners. An increase in surface parking would be created on the north side of Black Point Road by a more southerly realignment of the Black Point Road./U.S. Highway 10 intersection in Aiternative 3. Sea View Chalets would be eliminated from the site plan on the north side of Black Point Road in Altemative 3. A new residential+ype structure is proposed in this area of the Alternative 3 site plan to accommodate group gatherings. Two of these buildings are proposed: Reunion House and Harbor View House. They would provide a common area and kitchen facilities for rental residents staying in 12 individual rooms. The Marina Access Drive would be upgraded to provide access to these two buildings. The Bed-and-Breakfast Harbor House owned by others would remain, with a corresponding minor reduction in the overall developable land area within the MPR compared to Altemative 1 or 2. The Pleasant Harbor House owned by Statesman Corporation may be renovated with no change to the footprint of the structure. The existing swimming pool and change room building for marina slip owners would be retained with minor modifications, or reconstructed. Existing buildings in the marina upland area would be reconstructed within their existing footprints to house the marina office, a bistro/lounge, showers, washrooms, and self-service laundry. The existing roadway system and parking areas at the waterfront would be widened and improved to provide better curve radii. This would improve safety and ease of access for large vehicles like garbage collection trucks and emergency vehicles, and provide better corurectivity for boaters between short-term parking and the head of docks for transport between their vehicles and their boats. The one-way access (Marina Access Drive) from Black Point Road to the waterfront proposed with Altemative 1 or 2 would be used in Alternative 3 for two-way shuttle service and emergency vehicle access between the Maritime Village improvements at the Black Point Road/U.S. Highway 101 intersection and the marina. The total number of residential units within the Maritime Village area of the MPR would be reduced to 60 new units in three new buildings, and the existing Pleasant Harbor House, and the Bed-and-Breakfast House (owned by others). Residential units would be increased by 20 in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area, transferred from reduced development in the Marina/Maritime Viilage area of the site. A new unit tlpe is also proposed with Alternative 3, changing the ratio of the two smaller building types. Eight residential units wouid be relocated to the Golf Terrace 3 building, and 12 residential units would be integrated into the Golf Vistas and Sea View Villas. The Sea View Villas would be l-story walk-out units in Alternative 3, narrower than the Sea View Villas of Alternative 2 and with an underground parkade. There would be 828 residential units within 49 buildings in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area in Alternative 3. Golf Course fairways would be the same as Alternative 2. An additional tennis court would be provided next to the Golf Terrace 3 and 4 buildings and a swimming pool would be added next to Golf Terrace 3 building. Other Alternative 3 recreational amenities proposed adjacent to the Golf Terrace 1 building include a Bocce Ball court, pool and deck area. The Alternative 3 on-site electrical power generation proposal would utilize an integrated system of geothermal (geo-exchange) technology and combined heat and powff (CHP) derived from co-generation systems fueled by biodiesel. Solar power options are also being explored. The landscaping proposal includes revegetating disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs from areas of the site that will be cleared. Consideration will be given to the use of native vegetation as well as ornamental shrubs, perennials and annuals in select locations at the Marina Center, Maritime Village, Terrace Buildings, and along meandering pathways. Landscape restoration in the Marina Center (marina upland) area of the site is planned to create a parkJike setting with amenities for seating and sun-rain protection. The proposal includes creating a temporary native plant nursery south of the wastewater treatment plant site in the area of Fairways 15, 16 and 17, as these fairways will be developed during Stage II construction. A sprinkler irrigation system using Class A reclaimed water generated by the 2/01/11:v15B a treatment process will be installed to temporarily maintain plants kept in this area for relocation during phased development of the site. No ACTI0N ALTERNATIVE If the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort did not proceed, it is presumed (based on the Comprehensive Plan MPR designation for the property and absence of site-specific zoning), that the site would not be further developed at this time. The owner would continue to operate the 286-be(h marina and could perform maintenance, repair and replacement on existing improvements until a Master Planned Resort could be successfully implemented, either by the present owner or by others. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under an existing Conditional Use permit. PUaSpn DPvuOpu ENT PROPOSAL Statesman Corporation proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort over the course of approximately 10 years, or in response to market demand. STAGE I: Phase 1 Begin clearing drainage basins that produce no runoff that leaves the site (Basins 4,5,'7,13, and 14) and that will provide excavated material for construction aggregates material processing or for mass fill of Kettles B and C. The entire Kettle B area will be cleared. Large areas where deep excavation is proposed lie to the south, west, and north of the kettle. Kettle B will receive approximately 1,000,000 cy of fill before it can be finish-graded and lined with synthetic liners to stafi receiving site runoff and Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. Liners could be installed during the wet season, though dry season installation is preferred. Channels and culverts to be constructed will convey surface water runoff overflows to infiltration areas within golf course fairways. Place erosion control measures and perhaps redirect runoff into the large kettle (Kettle B) prior to clearing and rough-grading to create the construction aggregates material processing site/plant(s). The relatively flat, centrally-located site proposed for materials processing is at the base of one of several 40+ foot cut areas. This will be the source of construction materials and filI material for early portions of the project. As excavation progresses and runoff is directed northward, Drainage Basin 13 will be expanded to the south which will allow for additional clearing. If clearing is limited to the south edge of the Drainage Basin 13, work could progress into the wet season. Existing roads on the site could be used to transport materials. Build the construction aggregates material processing plant and begin operations Construct the 260,000 gallon underground water storage facility and water piping to the existing well. Rough grade the resort road from the water storage facility to Black Point Road. lnstall water main and sewer piping from the water storage facility to Black Point Road in the resort road alignment. Install erosion control measures along the base of the wastewater treatment plant site prior to clearing. Place fill material behind a retaining wall to create the site for construction of the wastewater treatment plant. Construct the treatment plant. Construct the co-generation unit to power the treatment plant. a a a a 9 2/01/l l: t,l5 a a a a a a a Clear area south of treatment plant site to create a temporary native plant nursery for trees and shrubs removed during site development that will be relocated within the project area. STAGE I: Phase 2 Develop the second on-site well. Connect the well to the domestic water distribution system as soon as practicable after rough grading the areas through which this piping must pass. Place erosion control measures at the edge of the buffer along the east property line of the Maritime Village area of the site prior to clearing. Grade the building, parking, and entry roads to prepare this area for construction. lnstall erosion control measures along the existing (unpaved) marina access drive that parallels U.S Highway 101. a a Widen and reconstruct the Marina Access Drive between Black Point Road and the marina. Install erosion control measures, implement traffic controls, and relocate utilities in preparation for constructing improvements to the Black Point Road./U.S. Highway 101 intersection relocation and expansion. Reconstruct and realign Black Point Road and expand U.S. Highway 101. Underground utility services must cross Black Point Road. The WDFW boat launch access road intersection with Black Point Road will be reconfigured and reconstructed concurrent with the Black Point Road/U.S. Highway 101 intersection reconstruction. Install the sewage collection system, water distribution/temporary fire protection system, reuse water systems, electrical power transmission, and communications facilities to serve the wastewater treatment plant, the marina area, and Maritime Village Building. Construct Maritime Village building, Harbor View House, Reunion House, roads, utilities, and parking lots. Widen existing roadways to 20 feet for two-way and 12 feet for one-way travel, and provide turn- arounds. Construct a new section of road between the existing marina access road and upper parking area to increase the curve radius for larger vehicles (including firefighting equipment. Clear and excavate the small "hill" from U.S. Highway 101 on the north side of the marina access road to improve sight distance and visibility for entering vehicles. o Relocate the fuel storage tanks and equipment closer to U.S. Highway l0l, near the unused pool. STAGE I: Phase 3 o Relocate existing marina office, convenience store, deli, and self-service laundry to the new Maritime Village building. . RemodeUreconstruct the Marina Center (marina upland) commercial uses. . RemodeUreconstruct existing swimming pool and change building at the marina. l0 2/01/11: v15 a a Install sewage pumps and forcemains to convey sewage from the marina and marina upland facilities to the wastewater treatment plant. Abandon the existing septic tank drainfield that now serves the marina buildings and moored vessels. STAGE II: Phase I Construct the wetland in the bottom of the south kettle (Kettle C). This kettle is to be converted to a created wetiand with an enhanced buffer. The bottom of the basin will be filled approximately 30 feet to create a relatively level wetland. Fill materials will be selected from on-site materials that have low permeability, such as those that may be found in the existing wetland to be filled in the large kettle (Kettle B). Buffer enhancement may take the form of clearing invasive plant species and replacement with native plant material harvested from the site or purchased from local nurseries. Temporary irrigation may be required for the wetland and the buffer plantings to improve the survival rate during the first growing season. The existing closed drainage basin and the drainage basin created in the developed condition around Kettle C will provide and maintain hydrology for the created wetland. When wetland creation in Kettle C is complete, construct a fence around the buffer edge to prevent construction activities and resort visitors from entering and potentially damaging the wetland and buffer vegetation. Place erosion control measures along the east property line buffer of the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site near Black Point Road to prepare this area for construction of the Golf Terrace 1 access road. Excavated materials from the Maintenance Building/Staff Quarters area and from Fairways 3 and 4 could be used to construct this road embankment. Install the storm drainage system within the road to direct runoff to stormwater treatment and detention facilities. Complete the Golf Terrace I building pad and associated parking areas. This construction may not require significant additional erosion control measures since the runoff can be directed to the enclosed drainage basin to the south. Install the sewage collection system, water distribution system, fire protection system (a function of the fairway/landscape irrigation system), reuse water systems, power transmission, and communications facilities to serve the Golf Terrace 1 building, and the Maintenance Building/Staff Quarters. Install erosion control measures and clear sufficient area during the dry season to rough-grade Fairways 11 and 1,2 and construct the embankment for Fairway 10, including two lined detention ponds. This embankment will create building sites for the Sea View Villas, and significant portions of Fairways 7 and 8. This grading will form Drainage Basins 8 and 9. Large areas of excavation lie to the east and west of Fairway 10 and the building site to the north. These detention ponds will be lined with synthetic liners to prevent saturation of the embankment. Pumps will be permanently installed adjacent to these ponds to move collected runoff northward into the irrigation pond (Kettle B). These pumps will be powered by cogeneration units. Construction of the embankment, ponds, pumps, forcemains, and soil stabilization must be completed during the dry season. It might be necessary to delay completion of Fairways 7, 8, 9, 10 and part of Fairway 11 until the dry season in the following year. a a a a a a Install erosion control and wetland buffer area protection along the west side of Wetland D (along the east property line of the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site) before work begins on Fairways 2, 4,5, and 6. Since this drainage basin (Basin 10) discharges to Wetland D and then offsite, it may t1 2/01/11: vl5 a require that clearing and grading in this area occur in the dry season. Very large subsurface infiltration galleries are plarured beneath these fairways. Excavation depths of 20 feet will be common within these fairways to finished grade. Cuts to 30 feet will be required in some areas. Excavations of more than 10 feet below finished grades will be required for installation of the infiltration piping and select backfill. These fairways will require stabilization before the wet season begins. Fairway i, and the area north of Fairways 72,13,14,15,16,17, and 18 could be worked during wet weather. The area north of Fairway 14 may require additional erosion control measures near the wastewater treatment plant site in order to work during wet weather conditions. The preferred method of fairway construction will proceed in the order of clearing and grubbing, rough grading, drainage installation, irrigation installation, fine grading, and seeding progressing along the fairways using specialized types of equipment. This will allow a minimum of clearing and grubbing to occur and will reduce the amount of time the ground is not being actively worked. The fairways in many cases can be seeded and stabilized before the wet season arrives. Rough-grade roads, driveways, and building pads for improvements that will be made in Stage Ii Phase 2 and Stage II Phase 3 as part of adjacent fairway construction. lnstallation of underground wet and dry utilities can be delayed until the Stage II Phase 2 and Phase 3 building construction occurs. Sanitary sewer service will require pumping raw sewage from the south-central portion of the site. A pump station will be required near the south end of the pond (Kettle B). STAGE I[: Phase 2 Instail erosion/sedimentation control measures around building construction sites to protect completed portions of the golf course (if any). Buildings to be constructed in Stage II include Golf Terrace 2 west of Fairway 16; Golf Terrace 3 east of Fairway 14; Golf Vistas south of Fairway l5 and west of Fairway 18; Sea View Villas west of Fairway 18; and the Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters north of Fairway 3. Extend roads and utility services to the Stage II Phase 2 building sites. Construct two sanitary sewer pump stations: one at the south end of Kettle B to serve building construction to the northwest (Sea View Villas and Golf Vistas), and one adjacent to the Maintenance Building/ Staff Quarters. Construct the sanitary sewer pump station and co-generation unit at the Maintenance Building/Staff Quarters. Reconstruct Black Point Road from the end of Stage I Phase 2 intersection improvements east of U.S. Highway i 01 to the resort east entrance in the northeast corner of the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site. lnstall erosion/sedimentation control measures, as required. STAGE II: Phase 3 a Install erosiorVsedimentation control measures around building construction sites for the Golf Terrace 4 building north of Fairway 12; Sea View Villas adjacent to Kettle C, north of Fairways 10, 11, and 1 2, west of Fairway 7 , ard south of Fairway 4; and Golf Vistas east of Kettle C. Extend roads and utility services to the Stage II Phase 3 building sites a a a a a a t2 2/01/1 I : vl5 a . Construct the sanitary sewer pump station at the southeast corner of the site to serve the Sea View Villas west of Fairway 7, norlh of Fairway 10, and north of Fairway I 1. 13 2/01/1 I : vl5 Representative Work Example : Pleasant Harbor MPR Comparison of Alternatives Chart Attachment D.2 T t I T T I T T T T T T I T T T T T T IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITII Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Comparison of Alternatives to be Addressed in the Project-Level SEISI I Note that the tto Action Altemariv€ will .lso be adahessed: curred MPR Comprehensive Plan designation with no site-specific zofling and no new development- CarDpgroud use could resume. I Pleosatu Hdrbor MPR Conparisoh ofAlternativ?s: 2/01/1 I ' v 19 Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (2010-201 l) Length ofProject Roads Proposed: Greatest overall length ofproject roads proposed from Black Point Road through the Golf Resort: 13,125 lf. Length ofProject Roads Proposed: Reduced lineal feet ofproject roads compared to the FEIS Alternative: approximately 10,600 lf total. Length of Project Roads Proposed: Overall length of project roads from Black Point Road through the Golf Resort same as Alternative 2: approximately 10,370lf. Multi-Story Buildings: Golr Rssont: One 4-story building, one 3-story building. MARINA VILLacr: Four 4-story buildings at the waterfiont, four 4-story buildings on the hillside. Multi-Story Buildings : GoLF RESoRT: Four 4-story buildings, one 3-story building. MARINA VnLacg: One 4-story building, one 3- story building, both at the waterfront. Multi-Story Buildings: GoLF RESoRT: Four 4-story buildings, one 3-story building - same as Alternative 2. MARITIME VnLecr,: One 3-story building near the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101. Two 3-story residential buildings with rear walk-out level: Reunion House and Harbor View House. Building Heights and Square Footage: Golr RssoRr Golf Terrace: One building,4 stories (47 ft 9 inches in height; 232,000 sf). Black Point Townhomes: 111 buildings, 2 stories (31 feet 9 inches in height; 748,000 sf). Black Point Villas: I I buildings, I to 2 stories (22 to 32 ft height; 158,000 sf). Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: One building, 3 stories (39 ft height; 99,500 sf). MARTNAVILLAGE Marina Townhomes: within four buildings, 4 stories (46 ft height; 303,000 sf). Marina Villa Apartments: within the four Marina Townhome buildings (4 stories, 46 ft height; part of Marina Townhomes). Building Heights and Square Footage GoLF RESoRT Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 4 stories (47 ft 9 inches in height;716,000 sf1. Golf Vistas: 35 buildings, 2 stories (31 ft 9 inches in height; 3 1 1,000 sf), Sea View Villas: Nine buildings, I story (28 ft 5 inches in height; 134,000 sf). Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: One building, 3 stories (39 ft height; 87,000 sf). MARTNA VILLAGE Marina Lofts: One building, 4 stories (46 ft heieht); and one building 3 stories (31 ft.6 inches in height; 162,500 sfl. Sea View Chalets: Six buildings, 1 story Q5 ft7 inches in height; 44,000 s0. Building Heights and Square Footage: GoLF RESORT Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 4 stories (47 ft.9 inches in height; 724,000 sf). Golf Vistas: Thirteen buildings, 2 stories (31 ft 9 inches in height; 126,000 sf;. Sea View Villas: Thirry-one buildings, I story (28 ft 5 inches in height; 366,000 sf). Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: One building, 3 stories (39 ft; 87,000 sf;, same as Alternative 2. MARITIME VILLAGE Marina Lofts: One building, 3 stories (39 ft height; 72,000 sf). Reunion House and Harbor View House: Two buildings, 3 stories (39 ft height; 6,000 sf). Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (2010-201 l) Marina Stacked/Stepped Units: Four buildings, 4 stories (46 ft height; 40,000 sf). Marina Rowhouses: Six buildings, 2 stories (32 ft height; 58,000 sf). Existing Pleasant Harbor House: One building, I story with daylight basement and loft. Marina Center (marina upland area): Three existing buildings 1 and 2-story (32 ft height; 3,500 sf) - repair and replace (no residential units). Existing Pleasant Harbor House: One building, I story (same as Alternative 2). Existing Bed-and-Breakfast House: One buildino to remain (counted as one residential unit). Number of Buildingsr and Unit Mix: GoLF RESoRT: 124 buildings,739 residential units MARINAVILLAGE: l4 buildings, 151 residential units Total New Buildings: 138 Number of Buildings and Unit Mix: GoLF RESoRT: 50 buildings, 808 residential units MARINA VILLAGE: 9 buildings, 82 residential units Total New Buildings: 59 Reduced the building count by adding more units into four Terrace buildings in the Golf Resort area, retained the existing residence: Pleasant Harbor House. Number of Buildings and Unit Mix: GoLF RESoRt: Forfy-nine buildings, 828 residential units MARITME VILLAGE: Three new buildings, 60 new residential units. Total New Buildings: 52 ExrsrrNc BUTLDTNGS INCLUDED iN MPR 890-UNrr Couxr: Pleasant Harbor House (l) Bed-and-Breakfast House ( I ) Eliminated any new waterfront buildings due to the emerging Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program 150-ft shoreline buffer. Propose to repair and replace existing buildings at the waterfront. Redistributed residential units to the Golf Resort, introduced a smaller Villa unit to the Golf Resort, thereby reducing the impervious area. Short-Term Stay vs. Long-Term Stay Units: Short-Term Tourist Residential Units3: 693 (83%) Long-Term Tourist Residential Units: 145 (17%) The objective of BoCC Condition 63.aa was to limit full{ime residency in the Marina Village Short-Term Stay vs. Long-Term Stay Units; Short-Term Tourist Residential Units3: 573 (68%) Lon g-Term Tourist Re si dent ia I U nits: 2 6 5 (32o/,) Marina Village units were reduced by nearly half in Alternative 2. Owned units in any alternative can be Short-Term Stay vs. Long-Term Stay Units: Short-Term Tourist Residential Units3: 560 (67%) Long-Term Tourist Residential Units: 278 (33%) Marina Village residential units were eliminated from the waterfront (marina upland) area all '? Buildings included in the count for €ach altemative include only significant residential and/or cornmercial structures. Buildings that house inAastructure and support services (such as the *astewater reatnent plar , co-generdtion plant enclosur€s, and restrooms) are not included in lhe count,r BoCC Condition 63.aa requires that housing units in the Maritime Village be timited to redtals and time sharesi or, at the very leasl that the ratio of 65% rental and time sharc units to 35olo permaoent rcsidences be maintained in each section ofthe resort (Madna/Maritime Village side, and GolfResort site) to foster the economy. See file: PH-ResidentialunitcalculationByAltemative-Jan3l-l l-!2 for breakdown by section. Staffhousing (52 unils) is not included m this calculation. 2 Plearant Harbor MPR Comparison of Alknativ.s: 2/0 1/ I I - v ) 9 IIII-'IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIII Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (20f 0-201 1) adjacent to the waterfront (i.e., in the marina upland area). rented for short-term visits.together in Altemative 3, and a fewer number of residential units are proposed in a Maritime Village nonh of the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101. Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Marina Village: Marina Villa Apartments - 48 units Marina Townhomes - 40 units Marina Stepped/Stacked Units - 33 units located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Marina Rowhouses - 30 units located up the hillside away ftom the waterfiont. Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Marina Village: Marina Lofts - 55 units Sea View Chalets - 26 units located up the hillside away frorn the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House- I unit located away fiom the waterfront. Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Maritime Village: Marina Lofts - 36 units located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Reunion House and Harborview House - 24 units in two buildings located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House - same as Alternative 2. Retain Existing Bed-and-Breakfast House (owned by others). Com mercial Development Proposed GOLF RESORT: 36,000 SF MARINA VILLAGE: I6,000 SF Total Commercial Development: 52,000 SF Commercial Development Proposed Golp Resonr: 36,000 SF MARINA VILLAGE: I7,OOO SF Total Commercial Development: 53,000 SF Commercial Development Proposed GoLF RESORT: 36,000 SF MARITIME VILLAGE: 12,500 SF EXISTING MARINA UPLAND AREA: 3,500 SF Total Comrnercial Development: 52,000 SF Proximity of Proposed Marina Village Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM: Varies between 45 and 90 feet. Proximity of Proposed Marina Village Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM: Structural setback 55 feet. Proximity of Proposed Marina Center (marina upland area) Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM: Modified earlier alternatives to relocate all proposed residential units outside the 15O-ft Shoreline buffer proposed in the County's emerging Shoreline Master Program update. Existing structures at the waterfront to be repaired and replaced will be no closer to the OHWM than they are at present. Number of New Buildings Proposed within Existing Marina Upland Area: Four multi-story buildings (4-story) to replace existing marina uplandstructures; multi-story parking interior to the buildings, connected by vehicular access (driveway bridges) between structures; also a circular parking lot at the north end of the Marina Village complex. Number of New Buildings Proposed within Existing Marina Upland Area: Two multi-story buildings (one 4-story building, one 3-story building) to replace existing marina upland structures, three stories of internal parking within the 4-story building, with additional existing parking to the north end of the complex. Number of New Buildings Proposed within the Existing Marina Center (marina upland area): No new buildings proposed in this area, just repair and replacement of existing buildings. Also repair and widening of existing roadways and reconfiguring parking areas. Pleasant Harbor House: To be demolished in Alternative 1; replaced by Marina Rowhouses. Pleasant Harbor House: A lawful permitted structure to remain in Alternative 2. Possible renovations; no change in footprint. Pleasant Harbor House: A lawful permitted structure to remain in Alternative 3. Possible renovations; no change in footprint. J Pleasant Harbor MPR Comparison of Alternatives: 2/01/1 I - vl9 Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (2010-201 f) Bed and Breakfast Harbor House: To be purchased and demolished in Alternative 1; replaced by Marina Stepped/Stacked Townhomes. Bed and Breakfast Harbor House: To be purchased and demolished in Alternative 2; replaced by Sea View Chalets. Bed-and-Breakfast House: Owned by others, structure and existing use to be retained in Alternative 3. Marina Village Access tolfrom U.S. Highway l0l: Would remain at existing location; no grading proposed to remove steepness; widening likely. Also a one-way northbound Marina Access Drive (16-ft wide) from Black Point Road to serve guests, shoppers, and emergency vehicles access between the Resort main entrance and the existing marina upland area. Marina Village Access to/from U.S. Highway 101: Same as Alternative I . Marina Access to/from U.S. Highway l0l: Use the existing roadway access widened to 20-ft minimum with new section of road to improve turn radius for larger vehicles (e.9., garbage trucks and emergency vehicles). Widen other one-way roads to 12-ft rninimum to meet Fire District requirements. Dead ends to be provided with turn-arounds. Reconfigure short-term parking areas associated with existing development at the waterfront. Construct the Marina Access Drive (12-ft wide with turn-outs), same as Altemative I or 2; however, in this alternative the Marina Access Drive would be used for two-way shuttle service and emergency vehicle access. Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Control gate located at the northwest corner of the site near U.S Highway l0l. Would only use approximately 250 lineal feet of Black Point Road. Improvements to Black Point Road to the northeast corner of the Golf Course/Golf Resort site required by Jefferson County Public Works, and proposed in the FEIS. Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Resort main entrance control gate relocated to the northeast corner of the site with primary access from Black Point Road improvements same as with Alternative l. Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Similar to Alternative 2, except that Black Point Road/U.S. Highway 101 intersection realigned further south. Provisions for Transit Service: No specific provisions made in the Altemative I site plan for transit stop or transit parking. Provisions for Transit Service: Additional surface parking created at the Black Point Roadfu.S. Highway 101 intersection, and verbal agreement to provide a bus stop at this location. Parking to be used by marina slip owners, resort visitors, and transit riders. (No specific number of parking spaces to be designated for transit riders.) Provisions for Transit Service: Surface parking at the Black Point RoadAJ.S. Highway l0l intersection significantly revised compared to Alternative 2, due to relocation of the Marina Loft residential units and approximately 12,500 sf of commercial development from the waterfront area to the intersection. Parking to be used by marina slip owners, resort visitors, and transit riders. Bus stop and bus loop drive proposed for transit access to U.S. Highway 101. Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Northwest corner of the resort near the main entrance (adjacent to U.S. Highway 101); 52 residential units proposed in the upper 2 stories of this structure. Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Relocated this building along with the resort main entrance to the northeast corner ofthe site (adjacent to Black Point Road). Same staff housing proposal as Alternative l. Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Same as Altemative 2. 4 Pleasant Harbor MPRComparison of Alternatives: 2/01/l I - vl9 IIII-IIIIIITIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (2010-201 1) Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Rainwater collection in one of the on-site kettles; treatment and distribution within the resort. Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Elirninated the proposal to collect rain water for domestic supply; now 100% groundwater supply from on-site wells: one existing, one proposed. Second well location proposed in the southeast corner ofthe site, west of Fairway 9. Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Groundwater supply from on-site wells. Two options for second well location: west of Fairway 2 or west of Fairway 7 (rather than west of Fairway 9) as a result of water right negotiations. Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP): Mernbrane Bioreactor (MBR) plant proposed, to be located in the southeast corner of the Golf Resort (lower elevation of the Turn Building). Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP): Mernbrane Bioreactor (MBR) plant proposed, to be located in the norlhwest corner of the Golf Resort. Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP): Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Process with Clarifiers and Class A Filtration proposed to produce Class A reclaimed water. WRP to be located on the same site as shown on Alternative 2. Effluent use during initial phases of development will include sprinkler irrigation in the native plant nursery and subsurface drainfields in the west area of the site until Kettle B is converted to a retention pond. Energy Proposal: Elechical supply from Mason County PUD. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply from Mason County PUD. BoCC Condition 63.bb requires PUD verification ofability to provide adequate electrical power to serve the MPR. It was learned in January 2010 that the Dukabush Substation has inadequate capacity to serve the projected demands ofthe resort. Statesman began investigating alternative technologies to provide on-site power generation. This element of the proposal was not yet clearly defined in Alternative 2. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site biodiesel co-generation, geothermal, and solar power sources proposed. [Thorough description of the energy generation proposal requested from Statesman; outline of information requirements provided 5127/10 and on subsequent occasions. Don Coleman now working on this.] Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Alternative sites identified on the property; none confirmed. Possible golf course ponds/wetlands to be created were indicated on the Alternative I site plan. Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Create a replacement wetland in the bottom of the smaller of the two kettles (Kettle C), and retain this kettle feature within the development (consistent with BoCC Condition 63h). Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Same as Alternative 2. Amenities: Golf Terrace building to house a restaurant, spa, conference and meeting rooms Marina buildings to provide ground-floor retail/commercial opportunities. Amenities: Golf Terrace 1 building to house a restaurant, lounge, spa, conference and meeting rooms, chapel and billiards room. MarinaVillage buildings to provide ground-floor restaurants, a dive shop, yacht club and retail opportunities. Amenitiesa: Golf Terrace 1 building would be the same as Alternative 2. The Maritirne Village building near the Black Point Road/U.S. Highway 101 intersection would provide approximately 12,500 sf of retailicommercial space, including a restaurant and the relocated deli, 5 See comprehensive PH-ListOfAmenities-Janl 5-l I document. Pleasant Harbor MPR Comparison of Alternatives: 2/01/l I - v19 4 Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (2010-201 1) grocery, convenience store from the marina upland area. Reconstructed buildings at the waterfront would house approximately 3,500 sf of commercial use as they do at present, to include the marina office, and a bistro/lounge. Recreational Amenities (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): New swimming pool in the Marina/Maritime Village area, and walking paths throughout. Recreational Amenities (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): Existing swimming pool in the Marina/Maritime Village area for use by slip owners; one tennis court in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area, and walking paths throughout. Recreational Amenitiesa (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): Renovated swimming pool in the marina upland area for use by slip owners; two new swimming pools on the golf resort side, three hot tubs, three tennis courts, a Bocce ball court, billiard and game rooms, a common-use fire pit, and amphitheater. Walking paths throughout. Golf course Turn Building eliminated in Alternative 3. lmpervious Area: Golf Resort I l7o, Marina Yillage 27oh Impervious Area: Reduced impervious surface due to decreased road length, reduced surface parking associated with the Terrace I building (now more under the building), and reduced total roofarea of residential units: Golf Resort 13%0, Marina Yillage l7oh. Impervious Area: Reduced the area to be cleared (more units in fewer buildings): Golf Resort 13%; Maritime Village and Marina Center: 13%o. Eliminated residential units proposed within the existing marina upland area, thereby substantially reducing the amount of clearing and grading proposed within the Shoreline environment. Pervious Area (including areas to remain natural): Golf Resort: 610/o + 28oh natural: 89% Marina Village: l0% + 63% natural :73% Pervious Area (including areas to remain natural) Golf Resort: 77%o + 10%o natural : 87% Marina Village: 55oh + 28o/o natural: 83% Pervious Area (including areas to remain natural) Golf Resort: 66Yo + 21oh natural: 87% Maritime Village and Marina Center: 59% + 28yo natural = 87%. The percentage of natural area was increased on the golf course with greater emphasis on preserving existing trees by steepening the slopes offairway edges (roughs). Perimeter Buffers: None, with the exception of the south boundary of the Golf Course/Resort area of the site. At this location, a 200-ft natural area buffer was proposed, corresponding to the 200-ft Shoreline Environment landward from the OHWM. Options for preserving this buffer included a permanent Conservation Easement, or dedication to a Land Trust. Elsewhere on the site, roads and development are shown very close to property boundaries. Perimeter Buffers: Development moved toward the interior of the site to leave perimeter buffers ranging from approximately 20 feet, to approximately 235 feet along the south boundary of the Golf Course/Resort area of the site. Perimeter Buffers: Golf Resort - same as Alternative 2. Maritime Village (at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101) - see the PH-Intro- ComparisonOfAlternatives-PhasingNarrative-Ju13 I - I l-v14 file for overview oflandscaping proposal. Existing Marina Upland Area (at the waterfront) - Will comply with emerging Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program requirements. See additional description in the file identified above. 6 Pleasant Harbor MPR Comparison of Alternatives: 2/01/l I - vl9 I III--IIIIIIIIIIIII IITIIIIIIIIIIIIITII Alternative I (2007)Alternative 2 (2008-2009)Alternative 3 (2010-201 l) Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Development Standards (not a complete listing). Applicable version adopted March 7, 1989 (with minor revisions made in 1993, 1996, and 1998). Site within the Suburban Environment. 3O-ft setback required from OHWM; no buffer requirement. Existing buildings at the marina are approximately 30 feet landward from the OHWM. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SNIP) Development Standards (not a complete listing). Version followed: Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP: June 3, 2009. Site within the High-lntensity Environment. Site plan was revised in response to 50-ft buffer from OHWM proposed by the Planning Commission, plus an additional 5-ft building setback. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Development Standards (not a complete listing). Version followed; Board of Counly Commissioners Locally-Approved SMP: December 2010. Site within the High-Intensity Environment. 150-ft buffer from OHWM plus an additional lO-ft building setback. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO): Technical consultants for whom the CAO is applicable, please address applicable regulations in your technical report(s). Note:There has been no applicable change in the County's CAO between development of the Alternative I site plan and Alternative 3. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO): Technical consultants for whom the CAO is applicable, please address in your report(s) any difference in impact or mitigation required for the Alternative 2 site plan. Biologist to veri$r stream classifications/stream typing and submit to Jefferson County for review/acceptance. Stream classifications determine buffer widths. Site plan would implement buffer averaging provisions. Buildine setback from stream buffer: 5 feet. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO): Technical consultants for whom the CAO is applicable, please address in your report(s) any difference in impact or mitigation required for the Alternative 3 site plan. Note: A Legislative change in 20 10 now requires the County to impose their CAO regulations within the 200-ft Shoreline environment in the rnarina upland area and along the south boundary of the Golf Course/Golf Resort properfy. 7 Pleasant Harbor MPRComparison of Alternatives: 2/01/l I - vl9 T I t T T I T T t I T T I T T T T T T Attachment E Work Product Examples that Demonstrate Knowledge of the Project Representative Work Example : Pleasant Harbor MPR Monthly Status Report Attachment E.1 T t t I T I I I T I T t I T T T T T I IIIIIIIIIII'II'II-I Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Supplemental EIS (SEIS) Priority Work ltems Status Report February 28,2011 1. Master Plan Project Layout Showing all Planned lmprovements a. Conceptual Alternative Site Plans to be Evaluated in the SEIS [Natalie with input from Garth and Graig] b. Phasing Plans for Phased lmplementation of the MPR [Natalie] Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfafus Report: 2/28/11 I Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Complete for the purpose of environmental review. Craig and Vicki worked with Jen A/cKen (GMH Architects) during January to finalize the three sets of alternative site plans to be evaluated in the SEIS. These were forwarded to David Wayne Johnson (Jefferson County Department of Community Developmenl) 1121111 for review and acceptance prior to being distributed to the technical team for their use in finalizing their reports. Nofe: Vicki has not been advised that any progress has been made on the delineation of lots (through Boundary Line Adjustments or other means) to facilitate phased development of the Master Planned Resort. Distributed to Technical Team and County. The conceptual alternative site plans, a narrative description and comparative matrix of the alternatives were distribuled 2101111 to the technical team for use in finalizing their reports and responding to SEIS requirements. Status: 1124111 Status: 21281'11 Complete for tlre purpose of environmental review. Craig and Vicki worked with Jen McKen (GIUH Architects)the week of 1117111 lo finalize the set of phasing plans to implement Alternative 3. The 1121111 version of these plans was forwarded to David Wayne Johnson for review and acceptance prior to distribution to the technical team. Additional edits were sent to Jen 1122111. Distributed to TechnicalTeam and County. The phasing plans and construction sequencing narrative were distributed 2101111 to the technical team for use in finalizing their reports and responding to SEIS requirements. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Vicki had GMH Architects add a line delineating the 200-ft Shoreline Environment on the three sets of alternative site plans to be evaluated in the SEIS. Each of the alternatives also shows setbacks and buffers observed for the Shoreline Master Program in effect (or followed) at the time each site plan was developed. Complete for the purpose of environmental review 2. Full-sized Map of Marina Shoreline Area and 150-ft buffer with Contours and all Present and Planned lmprovements [Natalie] 3. Updated Zoning Ordinance: Text and Map [J.T. and Craig] 4. Updated Draft Development Agreement based on Master Plan Layout U.T.l Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort SE/S Priority Work ltems Stafus Report: 2/28/11 2 Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 David Wayne Johnson forwarded lhe 7113/'10 comments of David Alvarez to J.T. Cooke 12108110. There is a potential for minor changes to the draft Zoning Ordinance to address building setbacks in the revised Alternative 3 site plan Maritime Village retail/commercial and residential area near the Black Point Road intersection with U.S. Highway 101. Vicki received an e-mail message from David Wayne Johnson 1119111 confirming that pertinent information describing proposed development regulations shall be presented in the body of the SEIS (to address this as an element of the proposal), with the draft Zoning Ordinance to be produced as an appendix to the SEIS. Not complete. No change in status during February. Setbacks to address the Alternative 3 Reunion House and Harbor View House have not yet been modified in the draft Zoning Ordinance. Status: 1124111 Status:212811'l Following distribution of the Alternative 3 site plan (complete for the purpose of environmental review), J.T. will review the Draft Development Agreement to determine where edits may be needed. Vicki received an e-mail message from David Wayne Johnson 1119111 confirming that pertinent information regarding the Development Agreement (DA) shall be presented in the body of the SEIS (to address this as an element of the proposal), with the draft DA to be produced as an appendix to the SEIS. Not complete. No change in status during February IIIIIIIIIIIIIIITII IIIIIIIIII--IIIIIII 5. Key Map Attachments to the Development Agreement a. Master Plan Zoning Map and Text [J.T. and Craig] b. Shorelines Map [Natalie] c. Phasing plan maps (one for each phase) showing required infrastructure with each phase and showing coordination with adjoining phases. [Natalie] 6. Key Technical Reports a. General Sewer Plan and Reclaimed Water Proposal [Rick, Dwight and Tom McDonald] Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfafus Report: 2/28/11 3 Status: 112411'l Status: 2128111 Site zoning map to be updated by Craig to respond to revisions made by J.T., following agreement/direction received from David Wayne Johnson on the draft Zoning Ordinance (Prioritv Work ltem 3). Not complete. No change in status during February Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 It will be most clear if an enlargement is made of the Alternative 3 lVarina/[t/aritime Village site plan to emphasize the 200-ft Shoreline Environment boundary and 150-ft buffer in relation to proposed improvements, for use in the SEIS and as an attachment to the Development Agreement. These lines show on the Alternative 3 Marina/Maritime Villaqe site plan to be evaluated in the SEIS. Complete for the purpose of environmental review. An enlarged illustration of the Marina area of the site in each of the three conceptual land use alternatives will be requested for use in the EIS section that discusses applicable land use regulations (including the County's Shoreline [Vlaster Program). Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Craig and Vickiworked with Jennifer McKen (GlvlH Architects) to update the set of phasing plan maps following finalization of the Alternative 3 site plan. These were sent to David Wayne Johnson for review and acceptance prior to distributing the phasing plans to the technical team. Complete for the purpose of environmental review. The phasing plan maps and construction sequencing narrative were distrlbuted to the technical leam 2101 I 1 1. Status: 11241'11 Status: 2128111 This will be a comprehensive facilities plan for wastewater collection, treatment, disposal/reuse, maintenance and operations for the resort, including identification of the entity that will operate the wastewater system. This report needs to be prepared for and coordinated with State agencies as well as Jefferson County, Not complete. Vicki to review draft General Sewer Plan by mid-fVarch. The wastewater treatment process now proposed is a Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Process with Clarifiers and Class A Filtration. This will be described as the Alternative 3 proposal. The MBR plant will be described as the proposal with Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Dwight met with Ecology and Jefferson County (David Wayne Johnson) 1l13l11to present a preliminary draft GeneralSewer Plan and invite comments/direction for completing the Plan. The County asked Dwight to coordinate the content of the plan with Vicki. At Garth's request (12122110), Rick began designing a more conventional treatment system for the reclamation of wastewater to produce Class A effluent. The alternative treatment process is proposed to build a plant with lower capital cost and approximately a25% electrical power savings compared to the Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) plant previously planned. Wastewater reclamation plant (WRP)site plan modifications were made during January, requiring revisions to the grading plan and the Alternative 3 site plan. An SEIS information requirenrents memo is needed fronr Ricl< Esvelt to: 1) describe and evaluate the treatment process differences between the site plan alterrratives, 2) distinguish between impacts during construction and developed condition irnpacts, and 3) to address the five categories of IVitigation Measures identified in Vicki's 2lO1l11 transmittal memo. Since there will not be a completed irrigation pond in which effluent can be discharged during the initial phases of development, interim uses for the reclaimed water from the treatment process will include sprinkler irrigation in the native plant nursery south of the treatment plant site, subsurface drip irrigation systems on future fairways, and drainfields in the west area of the site. The interim reuse and disposal options will be described and illustrated in the draft General Sewer Plan. Tom lt/cDonald will coordinate acquisition of the reclaimed water permit with Rick Esvelt, Craig, and Scott Bender. The proposal (on 11113110) was to mix reclaimed water with collected surface water runoff for use for irrigation and fire protection, and for toilet and urinal flushing in the Terrace 1 building. ln December, Garth asked Rick to investlgate alternative wastewater treatment methods that would use subsurface disposal durinq the initial phases of resort development. The wastewater reclamation plant now proposed will still produce reclaimed water and thus require a reclaimed water permit. 6. Key Technical Reports a. General Sewer Plan and Reclaimed Water Proposal [Rick, Dwight and Tom McDonald] (continued) b. Comprehensive Water Plan [Craig and Dwight] 4 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfalus Report: 2/28/11 Status: '1124111 Status: 2128111 A comprehensive water facilities plan is required to describe the sources of supply, treatment, storage (including fire protection volume), and distribution, and the operations and maintenance proposal for the resort, including identification of the entity that will operate the water system. The Comprehensive Water Plan will be prepared by Craig and Dwight Holobaugh. This report needs to be prepared for and coordinated with State agencies as well as Jefferson County. Dwight has developed the storage volume requirements by phase and prepared the preliminary distribution system design. lt is anticipated that the draft Plan will be available for review in January. Not conrplete. No change in status during February IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIITIITIIII-IITIIII 6. c. Grading PIan (by Phase) [Craig] d. Road lmprovement Schedule (by Phase) [Craig] e Required Amenities (by Phase) [Natalie, working with Vicki] TECHNICAL REPORTS lN GENERAL: lnstructions forfinalizing technical reports and responding to SEIS requirements were distributed 2101111 along with three sets of alternative site plans, phasing plans, and supporting documentation. Technical team members were asked to update their reports to address comments received from the County and peer review team in September 2009; distinguish the potential impacts of the alternatives both during construction and in the developed condition of the project; and provide lVitigation [/easures in five categories: compliance with FEIS Chapter 5 tVitigating Conditions, conrpliance with Board of County Commissioners conditions, mitigation required by applicable regulations, other mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, and other mitigation recommendations (at the discretion of each technical consultant). Team members were asked to review the drawings and supporting documentation sent 2/01/'11, determine whether they have any other information requirements, and reply with an estimated completion date. With the possible exception of the EarthRenew report, these requirements apply to all technical reports listed below. Final reports will be subject to review and acceptance by Vicki, Craig, and Jefferson County, with input from the Peer Review Team. Pleasant Harbor lrlaster Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfatus Report: 2/28/11 5 Status: 1124111 Status: 2l2$l11 A grading plan "by phase" is a misnomer - difficult to predict, and subject to change by the contractor. Grading by phase is described in the Construction Phasing/Sequencing Proposal narrative distributed with the phaslng plans. Complete for the purpose of environnrental review Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Road improvements by phase are described in the Construction Phasing/Sequencing Proposal narrative distributed with the Alternative site plans and phasinq plans. Complete for site planning purposes Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 David Wayne Johnson and Stacie Hoskins provided clarification in a 12108110 e-mail message to Vicki and Craig that the "amenities" of the [\4aster Planned Resort shall be defined as "Those things that would attract the visitor and enhance the experience of the resort. Basically, amenities are everything that is not residential or operational in nature." BoCC Condition 63.d requires that the SEIS list all proposed amenities of the development along with conditions for public access. A chart was completed 1115111 . Conrplete for the purpose of environrnerrtal review. Submitted to Jefferson County and distributed to the technical leam 2101111. TECHNICAL REPORTS lN GENERAL, continued David discussed final technical report format with Stacie Hoskins and Al Scalf during a 12t07110 staff meeting and replied to Vicki that technical reports that were vetted through the programmatic FEIS review process (related to the application for Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan amendment to designate the site for development of a Master Planned Resort) may be completed by means of a technical memo or addendum to the original draft report. Given the complexity and unique format of the l\Iitigation Measures to be addressed, most team members are choosing to prepare a technical memo to respond to the SEIS requirements. 6. t. Hydrology and Hydrogeology Report [Scott Bender] g. Wildlife Management Plan [GeoEngineers] h. WDOE Document Approving Water Rights, Adequate Water Supply Condition, and Class A water system [Scott Bender] Pleasant Harbor lvlaster Planned Resort SE/S Priority Work ltems Slafus Report: 2/28/11 o Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Not complete pending receipt of the final Alternative site plans to be addressed in the SEIS and supporting documentation. Scott indicated in an e-mail message to Vicki daled 2121111 that he anticipates generating his response to final report requirements by early to mid-March. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128,1.1 The proposed wildlife corridor shown on Figure 3 in the Bl21l0B draft Wetland and Wetland Buffer Arlitigation P/an should be incorporated into the GeoEngineers final Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessmenf report. Verification will be requested whether observations of existing wildlife use of the site provide the basis for the proposed wildlife corridor. GeoEngineers will be asked to confirm the fencing proposal during preparation of their final Frsh and Wildlife Habitat Assessmenf technical report, and to address a man-made stream added to the Alternative 3 site plan as an "overfloW'feature from the Kettle B pond across Fairways 1,2, 4,5, and 6. The overflow stream will direct flows into infiltration galleries constructed under each of these fairways. Not complete. GeoEngineers is in communication with Statesman concerning a revised scope of work and cost estimate to address SEIS requirements. Status: '1124111 Status: 2128111 Vickiforwarded the surface and groundwater rights issued 6/15/10 to Jefferson County 7115110. David has entered these on the matrix of BoCC conditions as evidence that Conditions 63m and 63n have been met. The approved water rights (Surface and Groundwater Reports of Examination) indicate an estimated construction start date of July 2011 Complete Tom McDonald advises that well testing and progress on the SEIS and draft Development Agreement should be sufficient to show progress with developinq the water riqht. IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II-IIIIIIIIIIIII-II 6. i. Neighborhood Water Policy [Scott Bender] j. Stormwater Management Plan for the Golf Course/Resort and Marina Upland Area [Craig] k. Water Quality Monitoring PIan [Don Coleman] Pleasant Harbor ltrlaster Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfafus Report: 2/28/11 7 Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Vickiforwarded the Pleasant Harbor Neighborhood Water Policy and lVlonitoring Plan to David Wayne Johnson (Jefferson County) 7l15l10lo demonstrate satisfaction of BoCC Condition 63p. David requires acceptance of the Neighborhood Water Policy by Susan Porto (Jefferson County Health Department). Scott Bender prepared responses to Ms. Porto's comments 4113110 and 12101110 (the latter with additional clarifying information and supporting documentation). Tom lt/cDonald advised 9127110 that the water right permit has adopted a Neighborhood Water Policy with the caveat that it does not preclude the County from including what it deems appropriate (provided that negotiations with the County on this matter do not result in revisions to the point that there would be a conflict with the requirements of the water right approvals). Not complete. David transmitted a second set of comments from Susan Porto's re: the Neighborhood Water Policy 2123111. Scott Bender will prepare a response to these comments. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Jefferson County Public Works is satisfied with the level of detail in the draft Grading and Drainage report. Quantitative analysis will be prepared for the Alternative 3 site plan; qualitative comparisons will be made for the other two alternatives. Garth requested that, to the extent feasible, all stormwater runoff shall be directed to irrigation storage ponds (main, driving range, Kettle B) by gravity and forcemain from fairway pump stations. An overflow stream is being designed to direct flows to infiltration galleries under Fairways 1, 2, 4, and 5. Not conrplete. Craig expects to work on the final Grading and Drainage Technical Engineering Report during lVarch, subject to budget authorization from Statesman. This report will be needed by some of the other technical consultants in order to finalize their reports. Status: 1124111 Status: 2l2Ll11 Don Coleman prepared and submitted a draft Water Quality Monrtoring Plan to David Wayne Johnson 12120110. David forwarded the draft Water Quality [Monitoring Plan to Michael Dawson, Jefferson County Environmental Health, for review (12120110). tVichael Dawson returned the documenl1ll3l11 with comments and suggestions. Still in-prr:gress. Don has initiated communications with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe regarding sampling as they help with University of Washington Research projects in the area and currently collect water quality samples. The Plan will be coordinated with Jefferson County, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, the U of W and Tribes. Status: 1124111 Status: 212811'l BoCC Condition 63.k requires coordination with Tribes (plural)for things like management responsibility for the south bank Conservation Easement. Still in-progress. Don Coleman is working with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) for assistance with creating agreement with more than one Tribe. The Skokomish Tribal Council approved moving forward with the agreement but would like to review the Exhibits to be attached to the easement. J.T. Cooke replied 3l}2ll1with requirements for completing the exhibits (requires a professional land survey and photo documentation). 6. L Gonservation Easement Meeting the Terms of BoCC Condition 63s [J.T. Cooke and Garth] m. Marina Tunicate Monitoring Plan [Don Coleman] n. Proposed Covenants and Restrictions Dealing with Buffers and Greenbelts [J.T. Cooke and Garth] p. Landscaping Plan [Michelle Wong] Pleasant Harbor Arlaster Planned Resort SE/S Priority Work ltems Slalus Report: 2/28/11 8 Status: 11241'11 Status: 2128111 Don Coleman prepared an adaptive management proposalto address invasive tunicates in Pleasant Harbor Marina and submitted it to WDFW 10121110. He followed up by e-mail communication with Larry Leclair (WDFW), but has not yet received a response. Still in-progress. No change in status during February. Larry LeClair (WDFW)referred Don to BillTweit to coordinate the Department's response to the draft Plan (3i0111 1). Bill and Don are scheduled to discuss this 3/04/11. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Vicki received the "[Vlarina Management PIan" (long-term moorage contract)from Statesman on3124110. This plan, which describes CC&Rs for boat owners and guests of the existing marina, is adequate for that purpose; however, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions are needed to address renovations and new development related to the Marina Village, and golf course development/operation. ln addition, Sandy Jt/ackie's list of Priority Work ltems recommends that CC&Rs specific to buffers and greenbelts be prepared to address BoCC Condltion 63.u. Not complete. No response or additional information received during February. Vicki brought this BoCC requirement to the attention of the Landscape consultant (2126111), and the Forestry consultants (2128111) Status: 1124111 Status: 212811'l Michelle Wong (SuSA Design Studio) replied to Vicki 1Ol12l10lhat a general landscaping plan will be developed to show areas to be rehabilitated. ln-progress. Michelle sent draft landscape plans for the marina upland area and Maritime Village building 2125111. Vicki reviewed and replied with commenls 2126111. Michelle is responding to these suggestions. IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIII-III 6. p. Landscaping Plan [Michelle Wong], continued Vicki requested a narrative description to accompany the drawings, to include addressing BoCC conditions that pertain to landscaping and the preservation of greenbelts and buffers. Michelle did not provide a landscape plan for the Golf CourseiResort area of the site. ln her opinion, the site plan is not developed in sufficient detail: more work is needed to establish pathways, walkways, circulation, roads, outdoor areas, and amenities for each building location as well as the overall golf course. Garth's reply was: the landscaping plan for the golf course area is revegetation of disturbed areas using the materials stored within tlre "tree farm" (native plant nursery proposed near the WWTP). The Foresters will address the feasibility of the reveqetation proposal. q. Documentation of Compliance with Specific LEED Standards and Date of Specific LEED Guidelines Followed [Natalie and Garth] Status: 112411'l Status: 2128111 Jefferson County (via e-mail communication from David Wayne Johnson dated 10/07/09) accepted compliance in principle with LEED standards for design, construction, and performance within the Ir/PR. LEED certification will not be pursued. Garth submitted a "New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist" along with narrative information 1114110 to the County and a select list of team members, indicating LEED points that will be earned by elements of the MPR proposal. Vicki requested a narrative document to describe - in lay person's terms -- where/how the intent of each specific LEEDS standard will be provided within the development for the purpose of satisfying BoCC Condition 63.x and providing information for use in the SEIS. Don Coleman, Vicki and Garth collaborated to complete the LEEDS narrative 1 l20l 1 1. Complete for the purpose of environmental review.f he 1l2Ol11 version LEEDS compliance narrative was distributed to the technical team 2lO1l11 along with other documents describing the proposal and alternatives. Correction needed: The wastewater treatment process from which reclaimed water will be derived is described in LEEDS compliance narrative ltem '17.c (page 6) as a Membrane Bioreactor (lt/BR) plant. That document was completed before an alternative treatment process was proposed. The correct description of the proposed wastewater treatment process is described above: Priority Work ltem 6.a. r. Best Practices Manual for the Golf Course [Garth, Don Dabbs, Paul Hospelhorn] Status: 1124111 Status: 2l28l11 Drafl Golf Course Best Alanagement P/an (August 19, 2008) received from GeoEngineers 7128110. This document, as with all other technical reports, will require an update to address the three alternative site plans and additional project description information (e.9., use of the EarthRenew product). Not complete. Garth advised by 2l2$l11 e-mail that he plans to work with Don Dabbs (EarthRenew) and Paul Hospelhorn to write the Golf Course Bli/Ps manual. Vicki advised that this manual needs to comply with BoCC Condition 63.y and FEIS Chapter 5 Water Quality Mitigating Conditions, and recommended interdisciplinary review by the team. Pleasant Harbor lvlaster Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Stafus Report: 2/28/11 I 6. s. Lighting Proposal and Current lnternational Dark-Sky Association Standards to be lncorporated into the Project [Milton K.] t. Golf Course Management Plan [see Priority Work ltem 6.r, above] u. Marina Management Plan [Don and Diane Coleman] v. Pet Waste Management Plan [Don Coleman] Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Vicki reviewed and returned to Milton Kiehlbauch on 12114110 the version 2 drafl Development Lighting Proposal with tracked changes and notes requesting clarification and additional information. J.T. noted that BoCC Condition 63.2 states the ttIPR shall use lnternational Dark-Sky Association (lDA) Zone E-1 standards. J.T. thinks IDA may no longer use the E-1 zone standards. Vicki sent an e- mail request to lvlilton Kiehlbauch 12120110 to investigate this and report the current situation in the next version of the draft Development Liqhtinq Proposal. Not complete. No response received from Milton to the 2/01/11 request to finalize technical reports by responding to SEIS requirements. The status of completing this technical report is unknown. This report shall address the question whether IDA still uses the E-1 zone standards specified in BoCC Condition 63.2. Status: '1124111 Status: 2128111 Vicki requested a copy of the Golf Course Management Plan if this has been prepared. Nothing in writing yet seen on this subject. Question: How will the Golf Course Management Plan differ from the Best Practices Manual for the Golf Course? Should these two requirements be addressed in one manual? It is presumed that the Golf Course Management Plan is the same as the Golf Course BMPs document. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Don Coleman submitted a draft Marina Management Plan to Garth and Vicki 1/03/11 for review and comment. Vicki returned a tracked changes version with suggestions and comments on 1104111. Some job descriptions are still being defined; otherwise, the draft Plan is nearing completion for use in the SEIS process. Still in-progress, No change in status during February Status; '1124111 Status: 2128111 Seven-point (one-page) Pet Waste [Vanagement Plan received from Don Coleman 1Ol28l10. Complete 10 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfafus Report: 2/28/11 IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII III IITIIIIIIIIIIIII 6. w' Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions / Climate Change Analysis [Richard Steffel, Lisa Graham: Environ Corporation] x EarthRenew SEIS Report [Don Dabbs] y. Co-Generation Proposal [Don Coleman? Jonathan Heller (Ecotope)? Others?] Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Stafus Report: 2/28/11 Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 The Environ scope of work and cost estimate was submitted to Garth 1114111. David Wayne Johnson has expressed an interest to review and comment on this scope of work to confirm that it will meet the County's requirements for the GHG emissions analysis. Zoe Ann Lamp confirmed to David Johnson in an e-mail message dated 8/05/10 that it is not necessary to calculate GHG emissions associated with the MPR in conjunction with the Climate Advisory Committee as stated in BoCC Condition 63.cc provided that the emissions and reductions are addressed during SEPA review in accordance with Ecolo s draft SEPA Guidance and Climate Cha documentation Not complete; not yet started. Communications were exchanged during February to schedule a 3114111 site visit for Environ to receive orientation to the site and the N/PR proposal. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 EarthRenew SEIS report received 7107110; distributed to Jefferson County, Craig, Scott, Wayne Wright, Richard Steffel, and Vinnie Perrone. The report will be used to describe this element of the Ii/PR proposal. Vicki also sent the EarthRenew Research Trials document to Craig, Scott and Wayne Wright for review. Complete, pending review and response from Jefferson County and technical team. No change in status during February. Technical consultants have not yet reviewed this document in the context of their final report revisions. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Vicki reviewed and returned a7114110 preliminary draft of this report, and re-sent lhe 5127110 outline of information requirements to Milton Kielhbauch on7129110. Vicki sent subsequent follow-up e-mail inquiries to l/ilton with no response. Vicki reiterated her inquiry in a 12121110 e-mail message to Garth asking to know who is preparing the Co-Generation Proposal report and when it will be available for review. Garth replied that he has asked the manufacturer (TRI-GEN) to prepare the report. Vicki asked if the person at TRI-GEN has been given the 5127l10 outline of information requlrements for this report, as the manufacturer is more likely to write specification-type information rather than the content required for environmental review. Not complete. A thorough description of the Co-Generation Proposal is needed by several of the technical consultants before their draft reports can be finalized. Don Coleman did some research on the biodiesel proposal during February and found that it may not be feasible. Garth is apparently talking with a new consultant re: the energy generation proposal for the resort. The new consultant advocates that solar power generation be emphasized, This raises a host of additional questions and information requests to provide the analysis and explanation for lay reviewers to: 1) demonstrate that this is a viable proposal, and 2) provide the details needed for environmental review in the SEIS. No indication has been given for when information about the resort energy proposal will be provided. 11 Status: 112411'l Status: 2128111 County staff prepared comments on the draft Forestry Report dated 9122109. The report was modified in response to these comments. David Wayne Johnson indicated during a 7l1411O conference call that he thinks the Forestry consultant's response to County comments was acceptable. Not complete. Vicki met with Brian Merryman and Jim Otness to discuss their questions re: technical report completion and the format for providing SEIS information requirements. 6. z. Forestry Report [Brian Merryman, Jim Otness] aa. Sound Attenuation Wall Proposal [Natalie and Garth] bb. Transportation lmpact Analysis (TlA) and Parking Demand Analysis [Mike Read, TENW] 12 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Stafus Report: 2/28/11 Status: 1124111 Status: 212811'l E-mail communications were exchanged during October and November 2010 re: refinements to the fencing proposal to deflect road noise from U.S. Highway '101. lt now appears that this will consist of discontinuous segments of solid concrete wall to deflect noise at the location of specific buildinqs proposed within the resort. Not complete. The 12123110 Status Report requested a narrative description from Natalie of the confirmed proposal for fencing along U.S. Highway 101 and the north boundary of the Black Point property for use in the SEIS, along with an illustration that shows the proposed location of concrete panels. Not yet received. Status: 112411'l Status: 212811'l During a 10127110 telephone conversation with Mike Read, Mike indicated that he proposes to finalize the TIA and Parking Analysis in the form of a technical memo to address differences from Alternative 1 that relocate commercial and residential development from the marina upland area to the Black Point Road intersection with U.S. Highway 101 . Not complete. IVike prepared and submitted to Vicki for review a 2117l11draft technical memo that addressed the Alternative 3 site plan The memo was a minor modification of the 8/26/08 TENW memo prepared to address Alternative 2; it did not address all SEIS information requirements identified in Vicki's 2101111 transmittal memo. Mike is working on a revised version of the memo. IIIITIIIIIITIIIIIII IIII'IIIIIIIIIIIII- DRAFT MOUs (overall) [Don Coleman]: Don Coleman has lead responsibility for completing the draft Memorandum of Understanding with each agency for which a mitigation agreement is required by Board of County Commissioners Condition 63.c. All draft MOUs should be dated for clarification of the version accepted by the public service provider and the Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and lVlarina. When the draft MOUs are acceptable to both parties, a letter shall be requested from the public service provider to confirm that the draft MOU (identified by date) is acceptable to them, and they will enter into the agreement at the conclusion of the SEIS process and IVPR land use decision. David Wayne Johnson advised in an e-mail comm unication to Vicki and Craig 12lOBl10 that MOUs that reach an im passe will not prevent com pletion of the SEIS. These can be described in the SEIS and/or draft Development Agreement, then presented to the BoCC with documentation showing that a good faith effort was made to reach agreement, allowing the BoCC to determine final resolution. David sent a follow-up clarifying e-mail communication 12123110, citing a statement in the lntroduction lo lhe Brinnon hrlaster Planned Resort Final EIS (November 27,2007): "ln the event an agreement cannot be reached [with each of the Public Service providers], the County may deny the application for the development" (page vi). David reiterated that it will be up to the Commissioners to decide whether or not to approve the Development Agreement if there is a lack of meeting any of the conditions or reaching agreement on any of the tVOUs required by Ordinance 0'1-0128-08. Vicki received an e-mail message from David Wayne Johnson 1119111 confirming that pertinent information from the draft tMOUs shall be presented in the body of the SEIS to describe proposed mitigation measures. The draft IMOUs shall be addressed as elements of the proposal, with the draft documents to be produced in an appendix to the SEIS. MOU with Jefferson County Fire Protection District # 4 (Brinnon Fire Department) MOU with Jefferson County Sheriff's Department Pleasant Harbor Arlaster Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfatus Report: 2/28/1 1 Status: 1124111 Status: 2l2$l11 Don submitted a version 6 draft ttIOU to the Brinnon Fire Department 1117111. Fire District Commissioners discussed this version at their regularly-scheduled meeting 2108111. Don participated in the discussion. Not yet accepted. Don followed up with the Fire Chief 3i02111 and requested the District's edits to the version 6 draft. He asked if the District plans to discuss the draft MOU again at their 3/08/11 meeting Status: 1124111 Status: 2l2$l11 Don Coleman circulated a 10121110 e-mail message from Sheriff Tony Hernandez indicating that the Sheriff concurs in concept with the draft IMOU. Don requested confirmation from David Wayne Johnson whether the Sheriff's e-mail communication is sufficient evidence for the County of agreement in principle with proposed mitigation for Security Services. David Wayne Johnson indicated during a 11130110 telephone conversation with Vicki that the 10121110 e-mail communication from Sheriff Tony Herhandez was acceptable evidence of agreement in principle on this draft MOU. Accepted 13 Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Don compleled a 10120110 revised draft MOU for consideration by Brinnon School District #46. Diane Coleman forwarded this document 10122110 along with an acceptance letter with a request for signature to her contact on the School Board. The Board decided to invite public comment on the potential impact of the resort on the District. The District also indicated that they plan to engage in more due diligence before responding to the draft I\tlOU. They plan to look into mitigation agreements between school districts and other Master Planned Resorts in the State. Twelve letters of comment were submitted; these were read and discussed allhe 1124111 Board meeting. Diane attended the meeting. Not yet accepted. No subsequent communication or change in status during February. MOU with Brinnon School District #46 MOU with Jefferson Transit MOU with Jefferson County re: the Housing Proposal 14 Pieasant Harbor lulaster Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Stafus Report: 2/28/11 Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 A draft MOU and acceptance letter for signature were transmitted to Leigh Kennel (Jefferson Transit) 10121110. Don followed up with Jefferson Transit in mid-January and learned that there has been a complete staff turn-over. The new General Manager (Peggy Hanson) is not comfortable signing the MOU or acceptance letter without first meeting with a representative from the Resort. Craig and Don met with her 1124111 to discuss the bus stop and draft lvlOU. Not yet accepted. No subsequent communication or change in status during Febrary. Status: 1l?4111 Status: 21281'11 Agl29l1} draft MOU for the mitigation of housing impacts was sent to David Wayne Johnson 10112110 for routing to the appropriate person within the County. David Wayne Johnson indicated to Vicki during a 11l3ol10 telephone conversation that Stacie Hoskins (Planning lt/anager)will need to review the Housing Proposal draft tt/OU. David Wayne Johnson sent an e-mail reply 1 2127l1O re: the draft Housing tt/OU stating: Condition #63.9 must be complied with, not just #63.c, since #63.9 defines and requires affordable housing: Not yet accepted. Don Coleman is working to respond to David's questions. He obtained a copy of the Edwards Economics "National Economic lmpact of the Pleasant Harbor lt/arina and Golf Resort" prepared for the EB-5 program, and has asked Al Scalf for the current median income for the Brinnon area. IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MOU with Jefferson County re: the Housing Proposal, continued MOU with Jefferson County General Hospital MOU with Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfatus Report: 2/28/11 "The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the lrrlPR that earn B0%o or /ess of the Brinnon area average median income (Alll) The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon lvlPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs created that earn B0% or /ess of the Brinnon area AMl. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing development." David asks: "Was a study commissioned to arrive at the workforce of 104, created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR, that earn B0% or less of the area average annual income? lf not, what is the basis for that number (104) other than Section 3.5.6 of the FEIS that proposes building 52 multi-family apartments?" Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 Jefferson Healthcare signed and returned this ti/OU 10/01/10. Don Coleman sent a letter of reply thanking Jefferson Healthcare for their response, and advising that Pleasant Harbor [/larina and Golf Resort could not sign and fully execute the document until after the SEIS and County land use approval process is complete. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 A7121110 e-mail communication from J.T. Cooke to Don Coleman indicates that a [\IOU is needed with Jefferson County Parks to satisfy BoCC Condition 63 c. A draft MOU with Jefferson County Parks was prepared and submitted to David Wayne Johnson for review (10112110). Alternatively, it seems that County Parks mitigation could be addressed in the Development Agreement (DA) rather than a separate MOU, in the same manner that County Public Works mitigation will be addressed in the DA. Follow up calls to David Johnson have not resulted in clarifying how County Parks mitiqation shall be handled. tt/itigation approach not yet confirmed 15 Accepted by Jefferson Healthcare. Status: 1124111 Status: 2128111 47121110 e-mail communication from J.T. Cooke to Don Coleman indicates that State Parks did not request a MOU (in their October 2009 SEIS Scoping comments), nor have they demonstrated that the Pleasant Harbor MPR would have significant impacts to the State Park system to the extent that mitigation should be provided via a N/OU. State Parks identifies shellfishing access as the primary potential impact, and requests that this issue be addressed in the SEIS. Resort visitors to State Parks would be assessed user fees that J.T. suggests could be used to maintain/improve the State Park system. J.T. Cooke and David Wayne Johnson reached agreement in late September that a MOU with the National Park Service was not necessary, and David was in general agreement that a ti/OU with State Parks is also not needed. David indicated that he would follow up with State Parks as a courtesy. No MOU required at this time. David followed up with Randy Persons during the last quarter ol 2010. State Parks did not subsequently follow up with the County to request an MOU, so the County has determined that one is not required at this time. Mr. Person's SEIS Scoping comments will be addressed in the Draft DEIS, which will be sent to State Parks for review and comment. Though not under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, WSPRC expressed concern in EIS scoping comments about a potential significant increase in use of the WDFW boat launch by resort visitors. Don Coleman sent a 12107110 draft agreement to Penny Warren at WDFW describing measures to mitigate resort visitor use of the State's Pleasant Harbor boat ramp, in the event that monitoring of this use shows a significant impact caused by the MPR user group. Reply not yet received from WDFW. Don continues to follow up MOU with Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC) 16 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort SE/S Priority Work ltems Sfafus Report: 2/28/11 II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII T ! T T T T T T T T I I t T I I T T T Attachment E.2 Representative Work Example: Instructional Memo to Pleasant Harbor MPR Team re: Technical Report Completion in a Manner that would Support SEIS Preparation q' VICKI MORRIS CONSULTING SERVICES SEPA/NEPA DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND PERMITASSISTANCE MEMORANDUM To Scott Bender, Bender Consulting, LLC Vinnie Perrone, Subsurface Group, LLC Mike Reed, Transportation Engineering Northwest (TENW) Rick Esvelt, H.R. Esvelt Engineering Dwight Holobaugh, Consultares, Inc. Wayne Wright, GeoEngineers, Inc. Joel Purdy, GeoEngineers, Inc. Glenn Hartmann, Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Brian Merrylnan, Merryman Resource Management, LLC Jirn Otness, Blackrock, LLC Richard Steffel, Environ International Corporation Lisa Graham, Environ International Corporation Milton Kiehlbauch, Statesman Group Don Dabbs, EarthRenew Organics, Ltd Michelle Wong, SuSA Design Studio From: VickiMorris Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation - Instructions for Technical Report Cornpletion Date: February 1,2011 Pleasant Harbor Team Members: At long last, we have the three sets of conceptual alternative site plans and phasing plans approved by Jefferson County to be evaluated in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort SEIS. These will be transmitted as attachments to four messages due to file size. This memo briefly describes the alternatives to be evaluated in the SEIS, supporting documentation that will assist you with understanding and describing the distinctions between alternatives, and the format for the impact analysis and mitigation measures. This memo is lengthy and detailed. Its purpose is to convey that all three alternative site plans and the phasing plans need to be evaluated in your report - during construction and in the completed, operational condition of the resort - as well as the Board of County Commissioners Conditions imposed on the project, and mitigation commitments stated in Chapter 5 of the programmatic FEIS (November 2007).1 have provided near the end of the memo a specific suggested format for the Potential lmpacts and Mitigation Measures sections of your report(s). 7732-78TH A\.ENUE NORTHEAST . SEATTLE ,WA 98775-4426' PHONE: QO6) 522-8057'FAI!: Q06) 523-4648 ' VMorrisCS@aol.com ! Pleasant Harbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation Instructtons for Technical Report Completion February 1,201 I CONCEPTUaL ALTERNATIVE SITE PI-,qNs AND PHASINc PLANS The "final" set of altemative site plans reviewed and accepted by Jefferson County for use in the SEIS analysis are dated ll3llll. The "final" set of phasingplans is also dated ll3llll.If you received earlier versions of any of these plans, please delete them and use the ones sent with this transmittal. Alternative I is the FEIS alternative. It was the preferred alternative identified in the 2007 programmatic EIS on the Comprehensive Plan amendment that designates the site as a subarea for Master Planned Resort development. County Commissioners approved (in concept) development of up to 890 residential units and an l8-hole golf course within the MPR. For this reason, all alternatives to be evaluated in the SEIS include these components, with efforts made to formulate a site plan that would have the least impact on the environment (now Alternative 3). Alternative 2 was developed during 2008-2009 to respond to the 30 conditions imposed by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (Ordinance No. 0l-0128-08), and to improve constructability by refining the grading plan. Modifications were made in the marina upland area in response to the Planning Commission draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update, which advocated a SO-tbot buffer plus 5-ft structural setback from the ordinary high water mark. (Additional descriptive information about this altemative and others is provided in the supporting documentation files identified below.) The Board of County Commissioners did not accept the Planning Commission recofirmendation with regard to the 50-ft buffer in the High lntensity Shoreline Environment, and instead adopted a 150-ft buffer in the locally-approved Shoreline Master Program that was submitted to Ecology for review in December 2009. Alternative 3 responds to this significant buffer by proposing only repair and remodel work within the footprint of existing structures within the Shoreline environment. Maritime Village residential units and commercial development shown in the marina upland area in Altemative I or Alternative 2 have been relocated to the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, with some increase in the number of residential units on the golf course/golf resort side, as well. Altemative 3 is the current proposal and the preferred alternative. Narrative explanations regarding the altematives are provided for your orientation. The SEIS will identify them only as Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, not by any other name. It is important to treat each alternative individually, as only one alternative will be selected for implementation. For example, avoid saying "all alternatives" would have some effect, or any two aiternatives (like Alternative 1 and 2) would have the same effect. Please use the words 44y altemative, and Alternative 1 91 2 in these examples. Please use future tense verbs (like would, could), not present tense verbs (like rs, are), as improvements under any alternative are not yet in-place and are not yet producing some effect. No Action Alternative. Your technical reports and the SEIS also need to discuss the No Action Alternative, which the County defines as: no further development at this time, as there is no site-specific zoning in place to implement the MPR designation. The No Action Altemative presumes that the owner would continue to operate the 286-berth marina and could perform maintenance, repair and replacement on existing improvements in the marina upland area until a Master Planned Resort could be successfully implemented on the site, either by the present owner or by others. Campground use of the Black Point 2 Pleasant Harbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation Irustructions for Technical Report Completion February l,20ll Peninsula property could resume under an existing Conditional Use permit. Please make the No Action Alternative discussion meaningful rather than just saying there would be no change from existing conditions. It is often the case that for some elements of the environment, conditions would improve over time with no further development on the site. For other elements of the environment, conditions may decline without the improvements proposed with the MPR. Please consider and describe these potential effects specific to the element(s) of the natural and built environment for which you are responsible. S uPpOnTINC DoC UMENTATIoN Craig, Natalie and I have developed a narrative document for your use, and comparative charts that show the distinctions between altematives. These documents will be sent as attachments to the same e-mail message by which you receive this transmittal memo. They are listed below by file name. Please use whatever infbrmation is helpful and relevant to your report; it is not necessary to use any of the supporling documentation in its entirety. You undoubtedly have additional introductory and explanatory information that is specifically relevant to your subject area. The supporting documentation is provided in order to achieve consistency in the description of the proposal and altematives in all reports and the SEIS, but is not intended to limit other information vou want to include. PH-Intro-ComparisonOAltematives-PhasingNarrative-Feb i - 1 I -v I 5 PH-ComparisonOfAlternativesChart-Feb I -1 1 -v1 9 PH-ProposedDrainageBasins-Jan3 1 - 1 1 -v2 PH-ResidentialUnitCalculationByAlternative-Jan3 I - I 1 -v2 If preliminary utilities planning has been based on a different unit mix and commercial area estimate than shown on the ll3llll Alternative 3 site plan, please update calculations based on the site plans that will be used in the SEIS. (Comparative calculations will be needed for all three conceptual site plan altematives and the No Action Alternative. See explanation later in this memo.) As indicated by the file name of the narrative document, it includes a description of the construction sequencing proposal. You will receive a set of seven Phasing Plan drawings based on the Alternative 3 site plan: an overall phasing plan, Stage I drawings with three phases, and Stage II drawings with three additional phases. Additional detail is provided in the narrative document. Please consider sequential development of the site over a i0-year period in your "Potential Impacts during Construction" subsection. Please use the nomenclature of the site plans, phasing plans, narrative document and charts as you finalize your reports. If you have a question about what something is being called for consistency throughout the SEIS and technical reports, send an e-mail message to Craig and me and we will respond promptly to confirm. The County has approved referring to the project as the "Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort" (or MPR), as opposed to the Brinnon MPR as it was called at the time of the FEIS. You may also refer to the proposal as the "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort" (consistent with the project logo). Don, Garth, Natalie and I completed the following documents during January that may also be of interest to you: J Pleasant Harbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation Instructions for Technical Report Completion February 1,2011 PH-ListOfAmenities-Jan3 1 -1 I -vB PH-LEED S -Comp lianceNarrative-J ar20 -l I -Final These will be sent with the narrative document and comparative chart identified above. The LEEDS compliance narrative, in particular, will be a source of information for describing Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Applicant in your reports (see explanation below). If you received earlier versions of these documents, please delete them and use the versions with the file names above. Several other reports have been prepared or requested. These are listed in the monthly Priority Work Items Status Report. Please review that list and let me know if you need any of these for review while you work to complete your technical report(s). TocsNrcu RBpoRr Couplrrrox Most of you completed one or more draft technical reports between 2008 and 2010 that described existing conditions (i.e., the Affected Environment) of the site for the element(s) of the environment you address, and to some extent evaluated the potential impacts of Master Planned Resort development of the property based on the alternative identified as preferred at the time the FEIS was prepared (which is now Alternative i to be evaluated in the Supplemental EIS). Your draft reports were reviewed by Jefferson County and the SEIS Peer Review Team. Their comments were distributed to you in September 2009. Each of you reviewed and responded to those comments to confirm whether the questions and issues raised would be addressed in your final report, or whether some additional explanation would make report modifications unnecessary. Please locate the County and Peer Review Team comments and your responses, and make those changes while finalizing your reports. There was a time when I thought I would review and comment on each draft technical report to provide a specific list of what I would like to see in the f,rnal reports to support preparation of the Supplemental EIS. I have spent many more hours than anticipated assisting with the development of work products to distribute to you at this time, so I did not do a detailed review of each of your reports. Rather, I decided to describe my overall requests below with regard to the format and approach to the impact analysis and mitigation measures, then rely on your best professional judgment for how to accomplish these requests within your report. Please feel free to contact me if there is anything you would specifically like to discuss with regard to my requests. Impact Analysis Please segregate your impact analysis discussion into two subsections: Potential Impacts During Construction Potential Developed-Condition Impacts Within these subsections, please first and most thoroughly describe the potential impacts of Alternative 3, then compare Altemative 2 and Altemative 1 to Alternative 3 and to each other.r The SEIS impact ' SEPA allows using one alternative as a benchmark for comparing altematives (WAC 197-11-aa0[5][v]). Alternative 3 is the current proposal, most responsive to current regulations, and therefore the preferred altemative. 4 Pleasant Hqrbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation Instructions .for Tec hnical Report C omp letion February 1,2011 analysis needs to be as quantitative and specific as practicable (whereas your work for the FEIS was relatively general due to the fact that the proposal at that time was a Comprehensive Plan amendment rather than site development). Where quantitative impact analysis can be performed, please calculate the impacts of Alternative 3. If it is relativeiy simple to do so (e.g., no costly modeling involved), please also quantify the impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 1, or compare these to Alternative 3 and to each other by approximate percentage ditference in impact. Let me know if you would like to see an example text section for your element of the environment. (It will be unusual to discuss the alternatives in reverse numerical order; i.e., from 3 to 1 rather than from I to 3, but my thoughts at this time are that we should do this since neither Alternative I or Alternative 2 is still proposed.) Mitigation Measures You may recall that during our team meeting on-site July 20, 2009, I distributed a small comb-bound document in which there was an outline of the contents of the SEIS with inserts indicating which of the 30 Board of County Commissioners conditions should be discussed under each element of the environment. If you do not have this, let me know and I will send it to you. The purpose for the outline notated in this manner was to assure that discussion of the proposal to comply with each of these conditions would be complete and appropriately located in SEIS Chapter 3; BoCC conditions are not to be the only discussion in these sections. The July 20,2009 comb-bound document also included FEIS Chapter 5 in which mitigation commitments were listed, to be addressed during project-level environmental review. The SEIS is project-level environmental review, and therefore needs to acknowledge all commitments previously made for each element of the envirorunent at the end of the progranrmatic EIS (November 2007). A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is, to the extent practicable, a mitigation measure should be described for every potentially adverse impact identified in the impact analysis. Conversely, I suspect that the FEIS Chapter 5 list of mitigation measures addresses some impacts that may not have occurred to you. Please be sure these two sections are reconciled in your reports. There is no precedent about which I am aware for how/where to address BoCC conditions in the conventional format of an EIS. I believe that, for the most part, these will constitute mitigation measures for the development, so I have suggested discussing them under a subheading in this section. If you have a different perspective while you are preparing your report, please contact me to discuss.2 Typically, the Mitigation Measures section distinguishes measures proposed by the applicant, measures required by applicable regulations, and other possible mitigation measures the technical team may recommend for an impact you identify that would not be addressed by either of these other two types of mitigation. Given that we are currently preparing an SEIS that builds on commitments made in the ' I har. seen EIS text sections arranged with the subheadings: Affected Environment. The Proposal, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, in which f'eatures proposed to comply with FEIS conditions, BoCC conditions, and other elements of the applicant's proposal are described before the impact analysis and list of mitigation measures. My concern here would be to avoid duplication and redundancy in subsections that describe The Proposal. These descriptions would need to be focused only on aspects of the proposal that are relevant to the element of the environment being evaluated, and therefore would require some skillful judgment and writing. 5 Pleasant Harbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentatton Instructions for Technical Report Completion February l,2011 programmatic FEIS (November 2007), and given that we have 30 conditions with which to comply that were imposed by the Board of County Commissioners, I have added two additional subheadings below: Mitigation Measures - Compliance with FEIS Conditions Mitigation Measures - Compliance with Board of County Commissioners Conditions Mitigation Recluired by Applicable Regulations Other Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Applicant Other Miti gation Recommendations Please be sure to distinguish within these subsections mitigation measures for impacts during construction from mitigation for impacts in the developed condition of the project. If there would be some difference in mitigation required for Alternative 2 or Alternative 1 compared to Alternative 3, please also describe this under each subheading. Without seeing the substance of each technical report or SEIS text section, I'm not completely clear re: how this breakdown will work out. This is the information needed for the SEIS, so to format your Mitigation Measures section this way would assure that all required information will be provided. Given that the SEIS requirements may be foreign to some or most of you in terms of addressing them in your report, here is another suggestion. You could prepare a mitigation measures section as you normaliy would to address the Altemative 3 site plan, then provide the additional information and distinctions I have requested above in a separate technical memo that I could use to create the SEIS text section on your element of the environment. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss this. Nrxr Srnps As stated in the monthly Priority Work Items Status Report, please review the documents transmitted today to determine whether you have any more information requirements re: the description of the proposal and alternatives, and/or whether there is additional information you need from Garth or other team members in order to evaluate and compare the impacts of the alternatives, formulate mitigation measures, and hnalize your report(s). Please reply with an estimate of the completion date for your final report, allowing for review time (described below). It is also recommended that you discuss with Garth your remaining budget and budget requirements to complete your report(s) in the manner described in this memo. Final reports will be subject to review and acceptance by me, Craig, and Jefferson County, with input from the Peer Review Team prior to them being used to prepare the SEIS. I estimate that we should allow 4 weeks for this review time and your response to comments received. cc David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County Dept of Community Development Garth Mann and Ursula Kurth, Statesman Corporation J.T. Cooke, Perkins Coie Natalie Proft -Carlson, GMH Architects Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina Maintenance and Security Supervisor Diane Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina Manager Tom McDonald, Cascadia Law 6 Suggested SEIS Table of Contents Attachment F T t t T I I I T t I T t I T I I T T T 1.0 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Draft SEIS Table of Contents Cover Memo Fact Sheet Reader's Guide Summary Purpose and Objectives of the Proposal SEPA Procedures and Public Involvement The Proposed Action and Altematives Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Major Issues, Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved Description of the Proposal and Alternatives Project Proponent Purpose and Objectives of the Proposal Location History and Background Master Planned Resort Approval Process Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Principal Features of Proposed Development Phased Development Proposal Construction Management Proposal Infrastructure Proposal Comparison of the Impacts of Alternatives Cumulative Impacts Benefits and Disadvantages of Reserving Project Implementation for Some Future Time Affected Environment, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Note: All sections in Chapter 3 to inclucle and sddress tlrese I subheadings: Affected Environment Potential Impacts During Construction Potential Impacts in the Developed Condition Mitigation Measures - Compliance with FEIS Conditions Mitigation Measures - Compliance with BoCC Conditions Mitigation Required by Applicable Regulations Other Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Applicant Other Mitigation Recommendations 1.1 t.2 1.3 t.4 1.5 2.0 2.t3 2.t 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.r0 2.tl 2.12 3.0 Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Table ofContents - 4/19/ll draft v3 ! I 3.1 3.2 J.J 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Table of Contents, continued Natural Environment Earth Air Quality Water Quantity and Quality 3.3.1 Surface Water 3.3.2 Groundwater 3.3.3 Water Resources Wetlands and Streams Forest Resources Wildlife and Habitats Fish, Shellfish, and Tunicates Energy and Natural Resources: Regional Context Built Environment Relationship to Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Rural Character Population, Housing and Employment Light and Glare Archaeological and Cultural Resources Transportation and Parking Parks, Recreation, Public Amenities, and Public Access Public Services Utilities 3.17.1 Water Supply 3.17.2 Sewage Collection and Treatment: Wastewater Reclamation 3.17.3 Stormwater Management 3.17.4 Electrical Energy: Supply and MPR Demand 3.1.7 .5 Telecommunications 3.17.6 Solid Waste Collection Summary of Mitigating Conditions - Compliance with FEIS Conditions for Permit Approval in Any Phase of the Approved Proposed MPR Summary of Mitigating Conditions - Compliance with Board of County Commissioners Conditions Setforth in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 References Distribution List 3.9 3.10 3.tl 3.12 3.13 3.r4 3.15 3.16 3.r7 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Pleasant Harbor MPR SEIS Table of Contents - 4/1 9/l I draft v3 11 Table of Contents, continued List of Figures List of Tables Pleasant Har"bor MPR SEIS Table ofContents - 4/19/l I draft v3 1ll