The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About044Michelle Farfan From: Sent: lo: Subject: Attachments: Swenson, Karen < kswenson@eaest.com> Monday, June 10, 2013 9:11AM David W. Johnson FW: County review image00l- j pg; PreDraft SEIS-cpEdits.zip From : peckassoc@comcast. net Ima ilto: peckassoc@comcast. net] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2073 2:11 PM To: Swenson, Karen Subject: Re: County review Karen, As we discussed, there continues to be new information being developed so complete review is not possible as yet. I thought you might get a head start with your questions and comments for me with the attached. Thank you. Craig From : "Karen Swenson" <kswgnsqn@eaegtaem> To: "Craig Peck (peckassoc@comcast.net)" <peckassoc@comcast. net> Sent: Monday, June 3,2013 10:'18:15 AM Subject: County review I spoke with David Johnson this morning. He and Stacie have completed their review, but Carl was out last week, so he will be completing his review the first half of this week. Kora*r, Sv4*vlow l:lI lxl =r'Karbri:Swenson, AICP Senior Planner 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 | Seattle, WA 98121 206.452.5350 x 1716 kswenson@eaest.com 1 @SNS Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE) Version 3.3 (October 2076)OfEce of theSecretory olStote Woshington Stote Achives 3.1 ACCOUNTING The octivity relating to the creotion of finonciol records of ogency business tronsactions and the preparation of statements concerning the assets, liabilities, and perfurmance of the local government agency. DtsPostTtoN AUTHORITY NUMBER (DAN) DESCRIPTION OF RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSITION ACTION DES!GNATION G52011-L84 Rev. 2 Financiol Tronsadions - General Records documenting all resources received and expended by the agency provided thot receipts ond expenditures dre not lor bond, gront or levy projects. lncludes, but is not limited to: . Purchase and sales (purchase/field orders, bills of sale, receipts, cash books, remittance advices, vouchers, fiscal purchasing/receiving documents, etc.); . Billing statements; billing summaries (registers/ledgers); adjustments to accounts (error corrections, overpayment refunds, conservation rebates, etc.); delinquent accounts lists; . Financial statements and reports (cash receipts transmittals, daily cash report/summary, expenditure tra nsactions, treasu rer/fi nance officer, etc.); . Registers and journals (general and subsidiary) for all funds and functions; . Check/warrant registers; o Petty cash. Excludes: . Sensitive Cardholder Data covered by G52014-030; . LeW-, grant-, and bond-funded transactlons covered by GS2011-183; o Utility meter readings covered in the Utlrty Services Records Retention Schedule; . General and subsidiary ledgers covered by GS50-03A-15; o Contracts and agreements; . Annual financial reports covered by GS50-03D-02. Retain for 6 years after end of fiscal year then Destroy. NON.ARCHIVAL NON-ESSENTIAL OPR 3. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Page 93 of 189 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW FAGT SHEET PROJECT TITLE PROPOSED ACTIONS SEIS Required SEIS ALTERNATIVES Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Jefferson County is considering the adoption of amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County Code to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for the Master Planned Resort approved by the Board of County Commissions by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 adopted January 28, 2008. ln addition, the County is considering the text of a proposed Development Agreement, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, to guide the development, phasing and standards for the proposed Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner (BoCC) conditioned approval of the Master Planned Resort Comprehensive Plan amendment to require project-level environmental review of the MPR proposal, and programmatic environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement requirement to implement the proposal. Accordingly, a Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS) is being prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW to supplement the programmatic FEIS prepared for the Comprehensive plan amendment that approved the MPR, adopted by the County in Ordinance No. 01.0128- 08. The environmental impacts of three alternatives are analyzed in this SEIS, including two development alternatives -- Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 - and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 - Alternative 1 would include a golf course, 890 residential units (including 52 units for staff housing), 49,772 sq ft of commercial area, and resort related amenities on the 231 acre site. Approximately 33 acres of natural area would be preserved, and 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill would be required for golf course grading. Alternative 2 - Alternative 2 would include a golf course, 890 residential units (including 52 units for staff housing), 52,650 sq. ft. of commercial area, and resort related amenities on the 231 acre site. Approximately 80 acres of natural area would be preserved, and 1 million cubic yards of cut and fill would be required for golf course grading. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 I Fact Sheet PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW No Action Alternative - Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed (based on the Comprehensive Plan MPR designation for the property and absence of site-specific zoning)l, that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit MLA03-00577. 2007 Ers Draft EIS A Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued by the Jefferson County, Department of Community Development in September 2007. The DEIS was a programmatic EIS issued to address non-project actions. The Proposed Action was adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment approving a Master Planned Resort and associated approval of a development agreement confirming mitigation phasing and development regulation vesting rules required by the County. The 2007 DEIS Proposed Action for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Master Plan approval for a Master Planned Resort consisted of a golf course resort, marina, and Maritime Village with 890 residential units and 79,000 sq.ft. of commercial uses. ln addition to the Proposed Action, two action alternatives (the Brinnon Subarea Plan Alternative and a Hybrid Alternative) and a No Action Alternative were evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The two action alternatives were based on the assumption that the balance of the property within the Brinnon Subarea be included in the proposed MPR. The No Action Alternative assumed the Master Plan proposal was withdrawn or denied, and that the area would be developed under the current zoning. The DEIS was issued with a 45-day comment period through October 24, 2007. Public meetings were held in Brinnon by a Planning Commission committee on September 11th, 18th and 25th,2007. Final EIS A Final EIS (FEIS) was issued in November 2007. The FEIS was based on the DEIS, with responses to comments added to Chapter 3 (Probable Significant Adverse lmpact Review of the Proposal), and a new chapter (Chapter 5), which included a summary of mitigation requirements, 1 The No Action Alternative from FEIS is still valid since the zoning will not change until the Development Agreement and Zoning regulations are signed by BoCC - see Citizens v. Mount Vernon. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 il Fact Sheet MPR Approval LOCAT!ON PROPONENT/APPLICANT Resort LLP LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON PERMITS AND APPROVALS PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW technical comments, and a log of comments received on the DEIS. The MPR designation was approved for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point property, subject to 30 conditions imposed by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 02- 0128-08. The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Canal, about 1.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Brinnon. More specifically, the site is located on a 710-acre peninsula known as Black Point that is surrounded by the waters of Hood Canal on the north, south and east, and is bordered by U.S. HUAf-Hw)L101 to the west. The Statesman Greup ef CemBaniesPleasant Harbor Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Stacie Hoskins Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 3794463 David W. Johnson Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 37e-4465 Jefferson County - Non Project Approvals Unified Development Code amendment to add a section on the Pleasant Harbor MPR Approval of a Development Agreement between the Jefferson County and the Applicant (Statesman Group) a a ilt Fact Sheet Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 o a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Local or County Permits Preliminary/final plat(should this be subdivision of land - since we mav not use Preliminarv Plat method) for roads, utilities and other infrastructure Stormwater permit for: - Preliminary site grading, cut and fill - New roads and impervious surfaces - Construction and operation of the resort properties - CriticalAreas protection and modification Class lV conversion Forest practice permit for predevelopment logg ing Shoreline permit for any development within 200 feet of the shoreline (close beach access to south and possible wetland mitigation for buffer work) Building permits for construction Fuel containment and fire plan State Permits . Wastewater treatment and upland disposal (Class A recycled water) facility permits from WDOE. Class A Water System approval by WDOE. U.S. HIAAr-H!0L101 right of way access permits for access to U.S. H\AAf-HlUlL101 from WDOT. Well closure approval by WDOE. Hydraulic project approval by WDFW for all work below OHWM in Pleasant Harbor. Water rights certificate approval by WDOEo Underground storage tank certification by WDOE. Construction period air quality permits from air quality authority. NPDES general permits for clearing from WDOE. Water quality certification, wetlands, by WDOE Federal Permits Section 404 and Section 10 permits for allwork in waters of the U.S. and stream modification or crossing (road crossing streams a & b). a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 tv Fact Sheet EIS AUTHORS AND PRI NCI PAL CONTRIBUTORS PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW SDEIS Project Manager, Primary Author; Housing and Employment, Rural Character and Population, Aesthetics, Public Seryices and Consistency with BoCC Conditions. EA Engineering 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 Earth Craig A. Peck & Associates 11402 40th Avenue E. Tacoma, WA 98446 Water Resources Bender Consulting 19920 South Elger Bay Road Camano lsland, 98282 Plants GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Fish and Wildlife GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 GriticalAreas GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Energy and Natural Resources TBD (Mason County PUD?) Transportation Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC PO Box 65254 Seattle, WA 98155 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 v Fact Sheet PREVIOUS ENV!RONMENTAL DOCUMENTS LOCATION OF BAGK. GROUND !NFORMATION DATE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS ISSUANCE DATE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS COMMENTS ARE DUE DRAFT EIS PUBLIC PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Failsafe Canada !nc. 4628 sth Street NE Calgary, Alberta, Canada TzE7C3 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Consultants, lnc. 710 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bainbridge lsland, WA 98110 Light and Glare Michael Bornyk Signature Lighting Manufacturers Las Vegas, Nevada Water and Sewer System Craig A. Peck & Associates 11402 40th Avenue E. Tacoma, WA 98446 FiscalAnalysis Evans, Carroll & Associates, lnc. 2785 NW 26th St. Boca Raton, FL 33434 Per WAC 197-11-620, this SEIS supplements the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Draft ElS, September 2007, and the Final ElS, November 2007. This SEIS together with the DEIS and FEIS comprehensively addresses the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. This document is available for review at Jefferson County Background material and supporting documents are available at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368. (360) 379-4450. _,2013 _,2013 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 vl Fact Sheet MEETING AVAILAB!LITY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW A public meeting has been scheduled for_, 2013, to provide orientation, answer questions about the SDEIS and the SEIS process, and allow opportunities for public comment. The public meeting is scheduled for the following time and location: Date: _,2013 Time: Place: Copies of the SEIS have been distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List (Appendix A). Copies of the SEIS are also available for review at the following locations: A limited number of printed copies may be purchased at Jefferson County. The purchase price is $_ to cover printing costs. The SEIS can be reviewed and downloaded at Jefferson County's web site at: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdeveloomenUbrinnon mor.htm. Persons interested in receiving a copy of the SEIS on CD (at no charge) should contact David W. Johnson at (360) 37 9-4465 or dwiohnson@co. iefferson.wa. us . Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 vlt Fact Sheet PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW TABLE OF GONTENTS Paqe FAGT SHEET CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY 1.1 lntroduction1.2 Proposed A;i;;r ;;o nri"i."tires .............1.3 lmpacts Summary Tab|e........1.4 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 1-1 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS CHAPTER 2 - DESGRIPTION OF PROPOSAL and ALTERNATIVES 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Background .............. ..............2-1 Environmentat Review P;;;;tt:::.::...... ............2-z Site Description........ ........... ..2-5 Objectives of the Proposal ....2-15 Description of the Proposal and Alternatives ......... .2-16 Separate Actions .2-35 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring lmplementation of the Proposal2-36 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 Earth........ Water Resources Plants Fish and Wildlife. Shellfish.... Shorelines .......3.1-1 .......3.2-1 .......3.3-1 .......3.4-1 CriticalAreas Energy and Natural R;d;;;r . ... . . . Transportation ........... Air Quality Housing and Employment....... Rural Character and Population. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Light and Glare Aesthetics Utilities. Public Services Fiscal Analysis.... Relationship to Plans and Policies (BoCC Conditions) .. 3.5-1 3.6-1 3.7-1 ... ...3.8-1 .......3.9-1 .....3.10-1 ..... 3.11-1 .....3.12-1 .....3.13-1 .....3.14-1 .....3.15-1 .....3.16-1 .....3.17-1 .....3.18-1 .....3.19-1 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 vilt Table of Contents PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW CHAPTER 4 - REFERENCES (To be provided) APPENDICES A. Distribution List (to be provided by the County) B. SEIS Scoping Summary C. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Data D. WDFTV Road Realignment Memo (to be provided by applicant) E. Earth Reportso 2008 Geotechnical Report. Grading and Drainage Engineering Report. SEIS Soil and Earth lmpacts and Mitigation F. Water Resources Reportso Water Quality Draft Monitoring Plan. Groundwater lmpact Addendum. Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memo. Groundwater Right Application G. Plants Reports. Forestry Report. Vegetation SupplementalAnalysis. Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan H. Habitat Management Planl. WDFW Tunicate Monitoring Plan J. Wetland Mitigation Report K. Energy and Natural Resources Reports. Electrical Capacity Report (to be provided by applicanUPUD)o Compliance with LEED Standards L. Transportation lmpact Study M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report N. Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts. Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy O. Cultural Resourceso Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocolo DAHP Response to Cultural Resources Plan. Skokomish Tribe Response to Cultural Resources Plan P. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards Q. Utility Reports. Water and Sewer Systems Engineering Reporto Wastewater Pump Stations and Electricity R. Draft Memorandum of Understanding's (MOU's). MOU with Fire District #4o MOU with Jefferson County Sheriff's Officeo MOU with School District #46o MOU with Jefferson Healthcareo MOU with Jefferson County RE: Housing. MOU with Jefferson Transit Authority S. Fiscal Analysis Reportso Economic lmpact Reporto Business Plan Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 tx Table of Contents PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW T. BoCC Conditions. Proposed Public Amenitieso Draft Brinnon MPR Zoning Code and Proposed Zoning Map. Draft Development Agreement Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 x Table of Contents PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW LIST OF TABLES 2-1 2-2 2-3 3.9-1 3.9-2 3.10-1 3.10-2 3.10-3 3.10-4 3.11-1 3.11-2 3.1 1-3 3.11-4 Table 3.1 1-5 3.17-1 3.17-2 3.17-3 3.1 9-1 2007 EIS and SEIS Alternatives Comparison............. SEIS Action Alternatives Comparison -Residential and Commercial Action Alternatives Comparison............. Proposed Parking Capacity by Alternative............ Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative............. Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources.... Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources.... Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources.... Alternative 2 - Estimated GHG Emissions. Jefferson County Housing Characteristics, 201 0 ............... Brinnon Housing Characteristics, 2010............... Jefferson County, Non-Farm Employment, 2013............... Jefferson County And Washington State - Resident Labor Force And Employment Number of Employees per Job Sector Fire District ll4.-Fire and EMS Calls 2008-2012.. Brinnon School District Enrollment . 2008-2012..... Pleasant Harbor Estimated Student Generation - Alternatives 1 & 2 BoCC Conditions Page ..2-19 ..2-21 ..2-28 .3.9-9 .3.9-9 3.10-4 3.10-6 3.10-6 3.10-7 3.11-2 3.11-2 3.11-3 3.1 1-3 3.1 1-5 3.17-2 3.17-9 3.17-10 ,.3.19-2 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 xt Table of Contents PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW LIST OF FIGURES Fiqure Paqe 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 3.1-1 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.3-1 3.4-1 3.12-1 3.1 9-1 2007 EIS Site Boundary Regional Map ............... Vicinity Map.................. SEIS Site Boundary...... Kettles Wetlands and Streams Alternative 1 Site Plan. Alternative 2 Site Plan. Phasing Map ............... Grading Plan ............... Drainage Basins Soil lnfiltration........... Developed Drainage Basins . Forested Subareas Wildlife Corridors Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity Zoning Map 2-3 2-6 2-7 2-8 ..2-11 ..2-12 ..2-17 ..2-18 ..2-34 .3.1-4 .3.2-4 .3.2-6 3.2-10 .3.3-3 .3.4-5 3.12-3 3.19-13 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 xtt Table of Contents GHAPTER { SUMMARY To be provided Anxiouslv waiting. @ Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 Chapter 1 Summary1-1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW GHAPTER 2 DESGRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AN D ALTERNAT vEs This chapter of the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft E/S (SDEIS) provides: 1) an overview of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Draft and Final EIS (issued by the Jefferson County, Department of Community Development in September 2OO7 and November 2007, respectively; referred to collectively as the 2007 EIS); 2) an explanation of planning activities that occurred after the 2007 EIS was issued, and why a SDEIS is being prepared; and 3) a description of the Proposal and the Alternatives that are analyzed in this SDEIS. See ChapterI for an Executive Summary of the information and analysis contained in this SDEIS and Chapter 3 for a more detailed comparison of the probable significant adverse impacts of the Alternatives to those impacts analyzed under the 2007 EIS Alternatives and analysis of any new significant impacts and mitigation under the SBEIS Alternatives. 2.'l BAGKGROUND The Statesman Group of Companies (Statesman) 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. ln September 2007, Jefferson County completed a programmatic-level EIS that addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and MPR approval for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort project. The MPR proposal represented a change in land use for the project site, from rural to urban, and proposed 890 units of housing, an 18-hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina and at the golf course. A 45- day comment period on the Draft EIS was open from September 5, 2007 through October 24, 2007. A Final EIS addressing all comments received on the Draft EIS was issued in-on November 27,2007. ln 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (BMPR) Comprehensive Plan Amendment with 30 conditions, as well as requiring project-level review of the BMPR proposal (including environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement required to implement the proposal). Accordingly, this Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS) prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW provides projec't- level environmental review to supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 ElS. Since 2008, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resoft LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) setbaek-buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The new master plan relocates the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline management area to a new location near Highruaf-![.S. Hwy 101. Redevelopment of the marina area is permitted under an existing Binding Site Plan (BSP) which allows for re-modeling or completion of previously approved structures within the existing building footprints or as shown on the BSP. As a result, the site area analyzed in this SBEIS is less than that analyzed in the 2007 ElS. The marina and marina uplands area are not Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft MareEMav 2013 EIS Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW subject to environmental review under this SEIS due to the existinq BSP permit; all other areas remain within the SEIS site area and are described in detail in Section 2.3 below. <Add realignment ef WDFW read whieh ehanges the SEIS beundary?> ln addition, the applieant has a tentative aq reement with Washinoton State Department of Fish n heu rtion of the WDFW boat launch access roadwa further east to resolve a drivewav spacinq issue with the proposed Maritime Villaqe access roadwav and deficient qeometric standards and siqht distance conditions onto Black Point Road. ln order to analvze potential impacts of this road realionment. the WDFW propertv adiacent to the proiect site has been added to the SEIS site boundarv, and is described in Section 2.3 below. (Aqreement in Appendix alonq with CriticalArea Recon by Habitat Technolooies) 2,2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGESS Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort ElS, 2OO7 The 2007 EIS evaluated a Proposed Action for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Master Plan approval for a Master Planned Resort consisting of a golf course resort, marina, and Maritime Village. The approximately 256-acre resort contained two components: the Golf Course and Resort, located on the Black Point campground portion of the property, to the south of Black Point Road, and the Marina/Maritime Village, adjacent to the current Pleasant Harbor Marina, and north of Black Point Road. See Figure 2-1 for a figure showing the study area under the 2007 EIS; the Proposed Action is the area east of U.SCig,nwsf lwv 101. The main features of the MPR proposal included: Golf Course Resort Area: o A championship 18-hole golf course of 6,200 yards "Links Design" o 60,000 sq. ft. resort center with restaurant and lounge with outdoor lanai, conference center and reception, spa, pro shop and officeso 128-unit terrace lofts for resort occupancyo 462 two-story Black Point garden townhomes o 97 one-story Black Point villasr 52 units of staff housing o Class A reuse recycle sewage / effluent / water treatment plant and ponds o A 200 seat community center o A 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant for golfing refreshments and community diningo 739 total residential units in the Golf Course Resort area Marina/Maritime Village Areao 16,000 sq. ft of commercial area. 63 water-side unitso 4O townhouseso 48 villaso 151 total residential units in the Marina/Maritime Village area Total Units: 890 P leasa nt H a rbor S u ppl em ental Chapter 2 MareEMav 2013 Draft EIS 2-2Description of Proposal a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ln addition to the Proposed Action, two action alternatives (the Brinnon Subarea Plan Alternative and a Hybrid Alternative) and a No Action Alternative were evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The No Action Alternative assumed the Master Plan proposalwas withdrawn or denied, and that the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft MareEMav 2013 EIS Chaoter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW P I easant H a rbo r S u pplem ental Draft MareEllleL2Ol3 EIS Chapter 2 Fisure 2-1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW area would be developed under the current zoning. The two action alternatives were based on the assumption that the balance of the property within the Brinnon Subarea be included in the proposed MPR. The Brinnon Subarea plan-Plan (BSAP) alternative assumed that the entire approximately 31O-acre area is included within the Master Plan, and as such is subject to the MPR limitations on resort-based urban development. The Hvbrid Alternative assumed that the lands outside the Master Plan proposal develop under the current zoning, but that such development could be accelerated under the current proposal and developed on a timetable in concert with the MPR. The 2007 EIS analyzed nine elements of the environment on a programmatic, non-project action level including: Shellfish, Water, Transportation, Public Services, Shorelines, Fish and Wildlife, Rural Character/Population, Archeological and Cultural Resources, and CriticalAreas. Supplemental EIS Per the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules (WAC 197-11-600(a)(d), a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) may be prepared if there are: i) Substantial changes so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or ii) New information indicating a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, this SDEIS is being prepared due to substantial changes in the proposal and to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as noted above in Section 2.1. The SDEIS supplements the programmatic FEIS prepared in 2007 for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that approved the MPR boundary, adopted by the County in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, and satisfies the conditions within that ordinance. Preparation of this SDEIS has been carried outfollowing the procedures setforth in WAC 197- 11-620, as detailed below: 1) An SEIS shall be prepared in the same way as a draft and final EIS WAC 197- 11-400 to 197-11-600), except that scoping is optional. The SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously prepared ElS. 2) The fact sheet and cover letter or memo for the SEIS shall indicate the EIS that is being supplemented. 3) Unless the SEPA lead agency wants to prepare the SEIS, an agency with jurisdiction which needs the SEIS for its action shall be responsible for SEIS preparation. According to SEPA Rules WAC 197-11-620(1)), scoping is optional for a SEIS; however, the County elected to proceed with scoping to inform and engage the public. A notice of scoping for the SEIS was issued on October 13,2009, and mailed to adjacent property owners, affected agencies, and interested parties, posted as a legal notice in the newspaper, and posted on the site. An extended 45-day scoping period was conducted from October 13, 2009 to November P I easant H a rbor S u pp lem ental Chapter 2 112y64MsL2013 Draft EIS 2-SDescriotion of Proposa 2.3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 30, 2009. Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public were invited to comment on the scope of the SEIS, alternatives to be considered, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. A Scoping Meeting was held at the Brinnon Public School on October 28,2009. The majority of the comments received during scoping were specific to "Elements of the Environment" as outlined in WAC 197-11444. See Appendix &E for an Overview of the SDEIS Scoping. Both the Fact Sheet and Cover Letter of the SDEIS state that this SDEIS is being prepared to supplement 2007 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resod Draft and Final ElS, in accordance with WAC 197-11-620(2). As with the 2007 ElS, Jefferson County is the lead agency for purposes of SEPA review. The County's Planning D+e€t€+-M3lgggr serves as the Responsible Official for the SEPA review. This SBEIS includes all elements addressed in the 2007 FEIS with the addition of the following elements of the environment: earth, air quality, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, light and glare, aesthetics, utilities, and fiscal analysis. SITE DESGRIPTION Location The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Canal, about 1.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Brinnon. More specifically, the site is located on a71O-acre peninsula known as Black Point that is surrounded by the waters of HoodCanalonthenorth,southandeast,andisborderedbyUffi-_Hwv101tothe west. Pleasant Harbor is an all-weather deepwater harbor formed by the west shore of Black Point and the mainland, and is connected to Hood Canal by a narrow channel at the harbor's north end. See Figure 2-2for a regional map and Figure 2-3for a vicinity map. The project site for purposes of this SEIS consists of 13 parcels and is located on approximately 232 acres; 221 acres are located south of Black Point Road, 1 1 acres are located north of Black Point Road. See Figure 24tor the site boundary. As noted above, the marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. The Binding Site Plan (BSP) allows construction of a storaoe buildino shown within the BSP boundarv and redevelopment of structures within their existing footprints only. The marina area includes the area north of the Pleasant Harbor House and the existing Bed and Breakfast (not owned by the applicant), and includes a grocery store, lounge, yacht club, pool and service building, laundry, boaters shower and washroom. The BSP includes replacing the grocery store, lounge and yacht club within the same building footprint, and remodeling the pool and service building, laundry, boaters shower and washroom to comply with code, and completion of a boater's storage building. As noted in Section 2.1. the aoplicant has a tentative aoreement with WDFW to realion the uooer oortion of the WDFW boat launch acce roadway further east and intersect with Black matel st U,S 101. Thus immediatelv adiacent to the eastern boundarv of the proiect site north of Black Point Road has been added to the SEIS site boundarv. even thouqh it is owned and manaqed bv the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The overall site calculations. acreaoes or percentaqes of area P leasant H a rbo r S u ppl em ental Chapter 2 ItareEM3L2Ol3 Draft EIS 2-O Desc ri pti on of P rooosa l PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Chapter 2 Mare$Mav 2013 2-7Descrtpfion of Proposal PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft MareEMav 2013 Fiqure 2-3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Fisure 2-4 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft Mare$Mav 2013 EIS Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW presented in this SEIS for the proiect do not include the WDFW propertv. Data and information reqardino the WDFW propertv/road alionment is included separatelv in the approoriate sections of Chapter 3 of this SEIS. (Preparinq data for Chapter 3 now 6.4.13.) Existinq Site Character and Uses The Pleasant Harbor site as delineated in this SEIS is generally comprised of two distinct areas: 1) the generally forested area to the north of Black Point Road which includes t#e-lhreg structures near the northern site boundary; and 2) a former RV parUcampground (hereafter referred to as the Black Point campground) to the south of Black Point Road. , An existing real estate office is located at the intersection of Black Point Road and t{rgrhway!!$. Hwy 101. The area from this intersection to the BSP boundary is forested with a mostly gravel pathway that connects Black Point Road with the marina area. Two single family residences are located at the north boundary of this area including the Pleasant Harbor House, and a Bed & Breakfast Currently, the Black Point campground located to the south of Black Point Road is unused and consists of overgrown vegetated areas (trees, shrubs, and grasses), a system of paved and graveled roads, paths, parking areas, tent camp sites, recreation vehicle (RV) pad sites, picnic areas with shelter buildings, an activity center and swimming pool, playground equipment, restroom buildings with septic tanks and drain fields, wells for water supply, gravel borrow areas, an entry guard house, and fenced equipment storage areas. None of the buildings within the former Black Point campground are in use. The southern portion of the site is a steep bluff (100+ feet high) and a narrow beach fronting the shellfish beaches on the Duckabush River delta south of the Black Point peninsula. A small path presently leads from the top of the bluff to the beach, but no development is located in proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. <Add description of the WDFW road and surroundinq WDFW propertv> (NOTE: See partial description bv Habitat Technolooies in Aopendix.) Past Uses The majority of the Pleasant Harbor site was previously developed as a 500-unit RV parUcampground (NACO/Thousand Trails) which was established about 50 years ago. Prior to that, the site was logged. A Conditional Use permit was obtained by the previous owner of the site in December 2006 to re-establish a portion of the site as a commercial campground, including a 60 unit commercial campground. This was in use until late 2007. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Direct access to the Pleasant Harbor site is provided via Black Point Road. No vehicular access currently exists from Black Point Road to the north within the site area; however, a mostly gravel pedestrian path connects Black Point Road and the Pleasant Harbor Marina that is overgrown insomeareaS.VehicularacceSStothePleasantHarborHouseffiisvia the marina area which accesses Highway 101 and access to the Bed and Breakfast is direct from Hiohwav 101 via and oravel drivewav (see Figure 2-4). Pleasant H a rbo r S u ppl em ental D raft MareEMav 2013 2-1 0 Description of Propos PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Vehicular entry to the existing campground is via Old Black Point Road, an undefined County Road that serves as the first 0.04 miles of the existing entrance into the campground. Old Black Point Road interseclgests with Black Point Road at approximately 0.05 miles from Highway 101. Public access to the campground is cunently restricted via an entry gate at the entrance to the campground. The existing campground contains a network of privately-owned paved and gravel roads and paths. | .nOd description of existing WDFW road - overall lenqth, condition. steepest qradient> Veqetation Existing vegetative cover on the site is remnant from earlier logging activities and the former Black Point campground. Vegetation consists primarily of an over story of Douglas-fir with red alder, black cottonwood, bitter cherry, big leaf maple and Pacific Mardone. Understory includes broadleaf shrubs, red flowering currant, Scot's broom, vine maple, salal and evergreen huckleberry. Topoqraphv The site is characterized by several relatively flat terraces, interspersed with steep slopes and a series of kettles or depressions. The topography of the site ranges from mean sea level (msl) to about 320 feet above msl on the peninsula, and from msl to approximately 100 ft. above msl in the area north of Black Point Road. Slopes on the peninsula range from less than 2 percent in the western portion of the site, 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 site. Kettles The Black Point campground area contains several "kettle" depressions, formed when blocks of ice buried in glacial moraines melted. The largest of these kettles, Kettle B in the north-central portion of the site, occurs in impervious soils and supports a wetland. Other kettles on the site occur in porous soils and are well-drained. Refer to Figure 2.;5 for the location of existing kettles on the site. Wetlands Three wetland systems have been delineated in the central and eastern portions of the site. The two western wetlands are small, isolated systems with no outlet. The first isolated wetland is located at the bottom of the largest kettle (Wetland B in Kettle B, see Figure 2.-6), and is 0.475 acres in area. The second isolated wetland (Wetland C) is located southeasterly of the largest kettle and is 0.279 acres in area. The eastern wetland (Wetland D) occurs on both sides of the east property line, with0.274 acres on the project site of the total 0.5 to 1.0 acre area. This wetland is the headwater of a drainage that flows easterly to Fulton Lake and continues easterly to Hood Canal approximately 0.5 miles to the east. Refer to Section 3.7, Critical Areas, for further information on wetlands. Pl easant H a rbor S u pp lem enta I D raft Mare$Mav 2013 2-llDescription of Proposal and Alternatives G#apter4 Chaoter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW P leasa nt H a rbo r S u ppl em ental Chapter 2 MareEMav 2013 Draft EIS 2-1 2Description of Proposa Fiqure 2-5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW P I easa nt H a rbor S uppl em ental D raft MareEMav 2013 2-1 3 Description of Proposal Fiqure 2-6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Streams Two streams flow through the site north of Black Point Road (See Figure 2-.;6). Both streams are seasonal streams that do not support fish use or habitat and are classified as Type Ns streams that require a S0-foot buffer per Jefferson County Code (JCC 18.22.270). Both streams floweastunderW101wheretheyflowthroughaseriesofculvertswithinthe project site and discharge at the southwestern end of Pleasant Harbor. Stream B is located north of Stream A. Three additional seasonal streams are located north of the site area. Referto Section 3.7, Critical Areas, for further information on streams. Existinq Utilities Water The water system infrastructure within the site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution uetleplpllg. Water Supplv - Three wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. Two additional wells north of Black Point Road serve the site area; one well provides water to the Pteasant narber no Bed & Breakfast and another well serves as backup water supplv for the Pleasant Harbor House and Marina.. a a and-++hir+ Another well at the north end arina property serves as aMprimarv water supplv to the Pleasant Harbor House and the marina area outside the site boundarv. Anether well leea site area near the Pleasant Harber Heuse eerves the marina area eutside ef the eite beundary, Two remaining wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula. Water Storaqe - One storage tank currently serves the site: a wood stave tank on top of the hill in the southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground. A metal storage tank outside of the site boundary located in the marina upland area serves the marina area. . Water Distribution - A water distribution system is present within the Black Point campground to provide water directly to campsites in the north central area, the lodge building, restroom building, pool, storage building area and park entrance buildings. This system is not currently fully functional. The limited extent water distribution system located within the marina upland area is outside of the site boundary. Sanitary Sewer The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site consists of gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor House has its own septic tank, pump tank, and pump. The forcemain discharges into the gravity collection system within the marina (within the BSP area, outside of the site area) and flows through the marina septic tank, pump tank, pumps, and into the drainfield across U.S. Hwy 101 . The Bed and Breakfast is served by its own septic system. There are several septic systems throughout the Black Point campground area that are currently not in use. These include systems near the restroom buildings, lodge building and entrance building. P leasant H a rbo r S u ppl em ental Chapter 2 MareEMav 2013 Draft EIS 2-1 4Description of Proposa PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Stormwater Most natural runoff on the site is presently contained in the kettles or is filtered through natural vegetation. Existing stormwater runoff conveyance systems in the form of culverts are located under Black Point Road and in the streams and drainages north of Black Point Road. Untreated surface drainage from U.S. Highway 101 is collected in roadside ditches and conveyed to culverts that pass the runoff under the highway to open channels and other culverts to discharge in Pleasant Harbor. Drainage that begins upslope from the highway is also discharged to the roadside ditches and highway culverts. <Add info reoardino existino runoff from WDFW road>The proposed new portion of the WDFW road would be constructed with a collection and convevance svstem to control and treat the runoff from the pollution qeneratino surfaces. Discharoe of the treatment runoff is proposed in the local depression to the SW of the new intersection of the proposed road and the existino boat launch access road. Power, Propane Gas, and Communication Existing utilities in both areas of the site include electrical power, propane gas and telephone. Electricity is supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Propane gas is utilized by the adjacent marina and sunounding residential uses. Naturalgas is not provided in the area. Centurylink is the communication provider in the area for telephone and DSL internet service. CenturyLink is the only DSL option in the area and is currently not available to new DSL customers. HughesNet is a rural satellite internet service provider in the area. Existino Land Use Desiqnations Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site is Master Planned Resort (MPR), which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2008. Prior to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the area was designated Rural Residential. Zoning The Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2008 changed the land use designation for the site, but the zoning for the site will not change until a development agreement and site-specific zoning regulations are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to adopting a site- specific zoning ordinance for the MPR site, Jefferson County requires preparation of this SEIS. Upon adoption a site-specific zoning regulations, the site will be zoned MPR-BRN Brinnon. Surroundinq Land Uses The site is within the greater Brinnon Subarea Planning Area which extends to the county line on the south, a United States Forest Service (USFS) campground (Rainbow Campground) on Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Chapter 2 MareEMav 2013 2-lsDescription of Proposal PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW the north, Hood Canal on the east, and the Olympic National Park on the west. The majority of the surrounding lands in the Brinnon Subarea are forest lands owned by the federal and state government and private timber companies. The Brinnon Subarea Planning Area is generally characterized by low density residential development with a remote, rural character. There is also a small concentration of retail and commercial services in Brinnon, approximately 1.5 miles north of the site. lmmediately north of the site, the Pleasant Harbor Marina contains 285 boat slips, a grocery store/convenience store/deli and office, restrooms, showers and laundry, and a swimming pool. These structures are being redeveloped within their existing footprints under an existing Binding Site Plan, as noted above in Sections 2.1 and2.3, Wildlife (WDFW) ewns abeut 30 aeres ef ferest; whieh eentaine a beat ramp and pienie faeilities (Whv delete?) Fulltime and seasonal/recreational dwelling units are dispersed over the remainder of the Black Point Peninsula, with the largest concentration along Rhododendron Lane at the northeast tip of Black Point and a smaller concentration off of Roberts Road at the southeast corner adjacent to Highway 101. Undeveloped areas of the Black Point Peninsula are dominated by stands of mature second and third growth forest. 2.4 OBJEGTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL For purposes of SEPA (WAC 197-11-440) the following are the applicant's primary objectives for the proposal: Designate sufficient buildable land for residential development to accommodate the economic feasibility by providing a variety of housing types to support an array of amenities. Encourage designs that complement the natural setting and promote the alpine and maritime village theme. Establish appropriate styles, materials and scale of development that contribute to a consistent and complimentary architectural character. . Encourage the use of the extensive pathway system and open space and reduce reliance on motorized transport. . Reduce the impact on environmentally sensitive areas by designing a road network to preserve and protect more of the naturalvegetation, drainage courses, and slopes. o Establish the siting of buildings to reduce impacts on sensitive areas. o lncorporate a fire protection plan that preserves a beautiful blend of forest and home by adopting FireSmart planning principles that combine clearing of selective undergrowth with the use of proven non-combustible construction materials. o lncorporate a well designed system for potable and non-potable water conservation and treatment. P I easant H a rbor S u pp lem ental Chapter 2 a a a Mare$Mav 2013 Draft EIS 2-l0Description of Proposal a 2.5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW . lncorporate a state-ofthe-art sewage and effluent treatment plant to deliver Class A water. . Eliminate the risks to Hood Canalfrom the eutrophication effects of poor development. . Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. DESGRIPTION OF THE SDEIS ALTERNATIVES ln order to disclose environmental information that is relevant to the approval of a Development Agreement and adoption of a zoning ordinance for the Pleasant Harbor_Maflna an! Golf Ceu+se an4Resort, this SDEIS evaluates two development alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2), and a No Action Alternative. SDEIS Alternatives Summary ln order to conduct a comprehensive environmental review, a range of Alternatives are included in this SBEIS that both fulfill the applicant's objectives and provide a useful tool for the decision- making process. These alternatives create an envelope of potential development for the analysis of environmental impacts under SEPA. See Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-B for illustrations of the site plans for potential development under Alternatives 1 and 2. The Alternatives include a site plan that was developed to address BoCC conditions of approval and 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 (Alternative 1); and a modification of Alternative 1 to make more efficient use of the site and to minimize environmental impacts (Alternative 2). Gomparison of SDEIS Alternatives to 2OO7 EIS Proposed Action The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a master plan for a golf course resort on the Black Point campground and the marina area. Since 2008, the applicant has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan setbaek-pqfler of 150 feet. The SDEIS Alternatives have been drafted to conform to these 30 conditions and the SMP setgaet<hU:ffef, and reduce the potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed Master Plan. While both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 include a golf course and the same total number of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the distribution of the units are more consolidated under the SDEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of impervious area. The layout of the golf course in Alternative 2 is also revised to reduce the amount of cut and fill necessary, preserve more natural vegetation, and more closely follow the existing topography. See Table 2-1 tor a basic comparison between the 2007 EIS Proposed Action and the SDEIS Alternatives. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Chaoter 2 Mareh-Mav 2013 Draft EIS 2-1 7 Description of Proposa PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft MareilMav 2013 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Chapter 211sv64M2y2013 2-lgDescription of Proposal PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Table 2-l 2OO7 EIS AND SDEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and resort with 890 residential units and approximately 79,000 square feet of commercial uses located on the Black Point campground and the upland portion of the marina area. Under the current proposal, the number of total residential units remains the same, but the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced to less than 50,000 square feet. Redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan on the north side of Black Point Road. The commercial development and a portion of the residential development proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area is now relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Hwv 101. Compared to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, 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. Hwv 101 intersection. Primary access to the qolf resort has been relocated to the northeast corner of the site from the northwest corner of the site. The one-way access (Marina Access Drive) from Black Point Road to the waterfront proposed in the 2007 EIS would instead be used 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. Access to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife boat launch would be revised to accommodate safe access to the Maritime Village. Compared to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, residential units would be increased in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area, transfened from reduced development in the Maritime Village area of Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draftgs6AMey2013 2007 Ets Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Site Area 256 acres 231 acres 231 acres Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units 890 units Total Retail/Commercial sq. ft. 73,000 sq. ft 49,772 sq.ft.52,650 sq. ft. Maritime Village location Adjacent to marina Upland near Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection Same as Alternative 1 Golf Course Area 220 acres 220 acres 220 acres . Residential Units o 739 units o 828 units a 822 units o CommercialSq. Ft.. 63,000 sq. ft.. 36,000 sq. ft.. 36,000 sq. ft. Maritime Village Area 36 acres 11 acres 11 acres o New Residential Units a 151 units a 60 units a 66 units o CommercialSq. Ft.o 16,000 sq. ft.. 13,772 sq.ft.. 16,650 sq. ft Golf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 2.2 million cy 1 million cy 2-2ODescription of Propo PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW the site. ln order to reduce the built or impervious footprint on the site, the majority of residential units are now housed in four Golf Terrace buildings. The number of original two-story Black Point Townhouses has been reduced significantly and renamed to the Golf Vistas or Alpine Vistas. The number of one-story Black Point Villas has approximately doubled and renamed the Sea View Villas. Under the 2007 ElS, the staff quarters and maintenance building was located in the northwestern corner of the site. Under the current proposal analyzed in the SDEIS, the staff quarters and maintenance building has been relocated to the northeast corner of the site, but still contains 52 units and remains at 3 stories in height. Golf course fairways have been modified from the 2007 FEIS proposal, particularly under Alternative 2 to more closely follow existing site topography. Tennis courts have also been added, as well as a swimming pool within the Golf Resort area. Features Gommon to Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternatives 1 and 2 include development of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, and commercial development for resort-related services. The location, configuration, and type of residential units and commercial space differ somewhat between the alternatives, as do the amenities to be provided within the development. Under both alternatives, significant clearing of vegetation, demolition of existing structures, and grading would be required in areas of the Black Point campground not designated as sensitive or protected. Structures within the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina would be renovated or replaced, as a separate action within the existing Binding Site Plan permit. This project under the existing BSP does not require additional SEPA review and is not evaluated in the SDEIS. Golf Course The first nine golf course fairways would be developed along the eastern side of the site. The second nine fairways would be developed along the south and west sides of the property (see Figures 2-T and 2-8). Golf course fairways would be located in areas of permeable soils to allow for infiltration of storm water runoff to recharge the local groundwater aquifer. Portions of the golf course area would be left undeveloped (or restored) for the retention of wetlands and buffers, for wildlife corridors, 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). Golf Resort A range of housing and golf support uses would be provided throughout the golf course area. The Golf Resort would include a primary building four to five stories in height, with a conference center, restaurant, and spa, along with Golf Terrace residential units on the upper floors and structured parking below the building (see Figure 2-l and 2-8). Three similar Golf Terrace residential buildings would accommodate additional resort visitors. These Golf Terrace units would provide over half of the short-term rental units within the resort. The two-story Golf Vista/ Alpine Vista residential units would be smaller buildings with less than 10 units per building. The SeaView Villas would be single-story buildings with less than 10 units per building, providing opportunities for home ownership within the resort. See Table 2-1 below for a breakdown of units within the Golf Resort. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Chaoter 2 Mare$Mav 2013 2-2lDescription of Prooosal and Alternatives Qhagfpr4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW A three-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 both Alternative 1 and 2. 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. Maritime Villaoe The Maritime Village would be located near the intersection of Black Point Road and H+grhway U.S. Hwv 101. This is a departure from the 2007 ElS, in which the Maritime/Marina Village was located closer to the waters of Pleasant Harbor. ln response to the_new Shoreline Management Plan, which requires a setbaek-luffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), the Maritime Village is now proposed to be located uphill with the primary access off of Black Point Road near the intersection with SR-UI- l-llUJ_101. The largest structure within the Maritime Village would be three stories in height. The structure would be built into the existing topography,withtwostoriesvisiblefrom@101tothewestandthreestories visible internal to the site to the west. lt would accommodate 36 to 42 residential units and provide 13,772 to 16,650 square feet of commercial space, depending on the alternative. Two additional three-story buildings to the north of the proposed Maritime Village building would provide 12 residential units each that could be rented out for group gatherings. See Table 24! below for a breakdown of units within the Maritime Village. Table 2-4.1 SDEIS ACTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON .RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL Alternative I Alternative 2 Residential -#of units Golf Resort Area o Golf Terraces a 500 units a 520 units . Sea View Villas o 200 units a 206 units . Golf/Alpine Vistas o 76 units a 44 units . Staff Quarters o 52 units a 52 units Maritime Village Area o Reunion House a 12 units a 12 units . Harbor View House o 12 units a 12 units r Maritime Village Building o 36 units a 42 units . Existing Residences - to remain o 2 units a 2 units Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units Total Retail/Commercial sq. ft. 49,772 sq.ft.52,650 sq.ft. a Golf Resort Area a 36,000 sq.ft.a 36,000 sq.ft. a Maritime Village Area a 13,772 sq.ft.a 16,650 sq. ft. Total Surface Parking 641 stalls 687 stalls a Golf Resort Area a 290 stalls o 366 stalls a Golf Users a 63 stalls a 133 stalls Pleasant Harbor Ma+eEMav 2013 Chapter 2SupplementalDraft EIS 2-22 Desc ri pti on of P roposa l Alternative I Alternative 2 a Maritime Village Area a 228 stalls a 128 stalls a Transit Stop a 60 stalls a 60 stalls Total Structured Parking 1,003 stalls 712 893 stalls a Golf Resort Area a 999 stalls a 63+817 stalls a Maritime Village Area a 4 existing stalls a 76, including 4 existinq stalls Total Parking 1,53&62!1[_stails 1,399580 stalls PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Architectural Concept The proposed architectural concept for the buildings within the Maritime Village is a Cape Cod waterfront style incorporating some stone and cedar accents. Buildings in the Golf Resort are proposed in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled roof elements. Site Access Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, improvements would be made to Black Point Road, and to the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway-HlyJ_101. A 12-ft wide (with turn-outs) Marina Access Drive would be constructed parallel to the east side of U.S. Highway Hwv 101 between Black Point Road and the existing marina. ln order to keep Resort traffic internal 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 only, 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 at the primary entrance in the northeastern corner of the site. The northwestern access point from Black Point Road would provide emergency and service access only, and would be controlled by a gate. Parkinq Parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would be provided at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highwafl[U]L101, 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 removed. Provisions would be made for this use within the commercial space of the Maritime Village. Parking would be primarily provided under the proposed residential buildings, with surface parking also provided for the Golf Terrace buildings, for the staff/maintenance building, and for the three Maritime Village buildings. Surface parking would also be provided within the site for golf guests. Utilities The resort would be largely self-sufficient with regard to utilities, as described below: P I easant H a rbor S u pplem ental Chapter 2 11arc+M3L2013 Draft EIS 2-23Description of Propos PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Water Domestic water would be provided under existing water rights granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15, 2010. The existing onsite well within the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated plus a second well would be drilled in one of two potential locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. A below-grade 260,000-gallon water storage tank would be constructed on the property near the main conference center_fie11gce'!_1. An on-site wastewater treatment plant is proposed capable of producing Class A reclaimed water for irrigation. The plant would be designed to treat 280p09309,400_ gallons per day. Sanitary Sewer A wastewater reclamation plant would be located in the northwest corner of the site, utilizing a nutrient removal activated sludge process with clarifiers and C{ass--4-filtratation to produce Class A effluent. Effluent use during initial phases of development would include sprinklerirrigationinthenativeplantnurseryinthewestareaofthesite until Kettle B is converted to a retention pond. Stormwater Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, golf course fainruays would be located in areas of permeable soils to allow for infiltration of stormwater runoff to recharge the local groundwater aquifer. Kettle B would be partially filled and lined with synthetic liners to receive site runoff along with Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment plant for irrigation and fire protection. Kettle C, which would be reconstructed as a new created wetland, would also receive site runoff if Kettle B reached capacity. Power and Communication Electricity would continue to be supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Geothermal exchange within Kettle B and in drillwells would be utilized for heating and cooling of buildings. Centurylink is the communication provider for telephone and DSL internet service for existing customers. Broadband is coming to the area, with government agencies getting connected first in mid-2013 and then will be available to the general public in (date). Shoreline 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 easementle Gomparison of Action Alternatives While both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 include a golf course and the same total number of residential units, the layout of the golf course and the distribution of the residential units within Alternative 2 are revised to reduce the amount of disturbed area, reduce the amount of cut and Pleasant H a rbo r S u pplem enta I D raft MarcEMav 2013 2-UDescription of Proposa PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW fill necessary, preserve more natural vegetation, and to more closely follow the existing topography. Alternative 1 clearing and grading would be greater than that of Alternative 2 because of the golf course design philosophy difference. ln Alternative 1, the golf course design would use larger gentler graded sloping areas of play in contrast to the Alternative 2 golf course design that would use existing site topography with limited areas of grading. Total site grading would be approximatelv 2.2 million cubic yards under Alternative 1, compared to approximately 1 million cubic yards under Alternative 2. Approximately 80 acres of natural area (33 percent of the total site acreage) will be preserved under Alternative 2, compared with only 33 acres (or 14 percent) under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, Kettle B would not be significantly reconfigured by mass grading as would occur under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have a total water volume of 60 million gallons, whereas under Alternative 2, Kettle B would have double that capacity al 123 million gallons. To reduce the built area within the Golf Resort under Alternative 2, the total number of buildings is reduced to 36, as compared to 52 buildings under Alternative 1. As a result, the four Golf Terrace buildings are one story greater in height than under Alternative 1. Building positioning has been revised to allow foundations to be placed on undisturbed soil for the majority of the buildings, which allows the structures to fit into the existing site contours more efficiently than Alternative 1. Due to the concentration of buildings under Alternative 2 as noted above, the impervious surface area under Alternative 2 is slightly less (12 percent) than Alternative 1 (13 percent). Alternative I The Alternative 1 site plan represents a modification to the site plan analyzed in the 2007 EIS to reflect the BoCC conditions of approval and in response to the Jefferson County locally- approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update of December 2010 (see Figure 2-7). Site plan modifications associated with the BoCC conditions generally relate to reducing the impervious surface on the site by consolidating the residential units into fewer buildings. Site plan modifications associated with the SMP update primarily relate to the relocation of the Maritime Village from the shoreline area to an upland area near the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Highway 101. Alternative 1 includes development of an 18-hole golf course with 890 residential units, including 828 units in the Golf Resort area and the remaining 62 in the Maritime Village area. Golf Course The golf course layout would be similar to the 2007 ElS, utilizing large gentle graded sloping areas of play. The orientation of the fairways would be similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, with the exception of the fairways in the far southeastern comer of the property (Fairways 7-9), which would be aligned in a more north-south orientation than the east-west orientation proposed in the 2007 ElS. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft il|areh-MsL20l3 2-2sDescription of Propos PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Golf Resort A total of 828 residential units would be provided in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site under Alternative 1. ln order to reduce the built or impervious footprint on the site, the majority of the units (500) would be located in four Golf Terrace buildings; each 4 stories in height. An additional 200 units would be located in 31 one-story Sea View Villas buildings, and 76 units would be located in 13 Golf Vistas buildings. A 3-story staff quarters and maintenance building would be located in the northeast corner of the site, containing 52 residential units. Tennis courts would be provided adjacent to three Golf Terrace buildings, as well as a swimming pool next to Golf Terrace 3 building. Other recreational amenities proposed adjacent to the Golf Terrace 1 building include a bocce ball court, pool and deck area. Parking would be provided under the proposed Golf Vistas and Sea View Villas buildings, as well as under the Golf Terrace buildings. Surface parking would be provided for the Golf Terrace buildings as well. The staff/maintenance building would include surface parking, and surface parking stalls would also be provided within the site for golf guests. Maritime Villaqe A total of 62 residential units are proposed within the Maritime Village area. Of the total, 60 units would be located in three new buildings, and the remaining two units are existing buildings that would be retained (Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed-and-Breakfast).1 The Pleasant Harbor House, which is owned by the applicant, could be renovated with no change to the footprint of the structure. The largest of the three new buildings would be the Marina Village building, which is proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. gighwafHwv_101. The Marina Village building would include 36 residential units and 13,772 sq. ft. of commercial space. The remaining 24 residential units would be located in two buildings (12 units each) designed to accommodate group gatherings (Reunion House and Harbor View House). These 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 from the Maritime Village building as well as the marina. Surface parking would be provided at the U.S. Highway Hwv 1O1/Black Point Road intersection for Maritime Village visitors and marina slip owners. Surface parking for transit users would be provided south of the intersection. Access to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife boat launch would be revised to incorporate it with the four way intersection of Black Point Road and the Maritime Village and golf resort entrances. l The Bed-and-Breakfast, which is owned by others, would remain with a corresponding minor reduction in the overall developable land area within the MPR compared to the approved FEIS. Pleasant Harbor S upplem ental Chapter 2 MareEMav 2013 Draft EIS 2-26Description of Proposa PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Landscapinq Under Alternative 1, the landscaping proposal includes re-vegetating disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be cleared. Consideration would be given to the use of native vegetation as well as ornamental shrubs, perennials and annuals in select locations at the Maritime Village, Terrace Buildings, and along meandering pathways. The proposal includes creating a temporary native plant nursery south of the wastewater treatment plant site in the area of Fairway 14, as these fairways will be developed during later construction of the project. A sprinkler irrigation system would be installed to temporarily maintain plants kept in this area for relocation during phased development of the site. Alternative 2 The Alternative 2 site plan was modified from Alternative 1 to improve constructability by refining the development to further minimize environmental impacts. The primary modification under Alternative 2 is the golf course design which uses existing site topography with limited areas of grading. Maritime Villaqe A total of 68 residential units are proposed within the Maritime Village area under Alternative 2. Of the total, 66 units would be located in three new buildings, and the remaining two units are existing buildings that would be retained (Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed-and-Breakfast).2 The Pleasant Harbor House, which is owned by the applicant, could be renovated with no change to the footprint of the structure. The largest of the three new buildings would be the Marina Village building, which is proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. HighwafHvr,lll0l. The Marina Village building would include 42 residential units and 16,650 sq. ft of commercial space. The remaining 24 residential units would be located in two buildings (12 units each) designed to accommodate group gatherings (Reunion House and Harbor View House). These would provide a common area and kitchen facilities for rental residents staying in 12 individual rooms. Parking would be provided in an underground parkade for residents and staff of the commercial spaces and in surface parking lots at the intersection of U.S. HtghwafHwJ_101, for visitors and Marina slip owners. Surface parking for transit users and marina and resort visitors would be provided south of the intersection. The designed intersection of Black Point Road and the access to the WDFW boat launch would be relocated approximately 1300 feet to the east of its current location. Golf Course Compared to Alternative 1, the golf course under Alternative 2 is designed to more closely follow existing site contours and to minimize site disturbance. Accordingly, the fairways are 2 The Bed-and-Breakfast, which is owned by others, would remain with a corresponding minor reduction in the overall developable land area within the MPR compared to the approved FEIS. Pleasant H a rbor S u pp lem ental Chapter 2 MareEMsL2Ol3 Draft EIS 2-27 Description of Propos PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW more angular in nature and with varying orientations, compared to Alternative 1, with substantial elevation differences. Golf Resort A total of 822 residential units would be provided in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site under Alternative 2. ln order to reduce the built or impervious footprint on the site, the majority of the units (520) would be located in four Golf Terrace buildings; each 5 stories in height. An additional 206 units would be located in 23 one-story Sea View Villas buildings, and 44 units would be located in 5 Alpine Vistas buildings. A 3-story staff quarters and maintenance building would be located in the northeast corner of the site, containing 52 residential units. Compared to Alternative 1, the positioning and placement of the buildings under Alternative 2 is adjusted to ensure placement on undisturbed soil and to work within the existing site contours. The recreational amenities under Alternative 2 are also repositioned to work better with the existing site layout. Structured and surface parking would both be provided as with Alternative 1, but with slightly fewer stalls for the Golf Tenace buildings and significantly less stalls for the Sea View Villas buildings. Additional surface parking would be provided on site for golf users. Less parking would be available overall compared to Alternative 1 (see Table 21f). Landscapinq The landscaping proposal under Alternative 2 includes re-vegetation of disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be regraded, but the amount of disturbed areas would be significantly reduced as compared to Alternative 1. Native vegetation, as well as ornamental shrubs, perennials and annuals would be placed in select locations at the Maritime Village, Terrace buildings and along meandering pathways. I See Table 24lbelow for a full comparison of the two action alternatives. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft MarefuMav 2013 2-2S Desc ri pti on of P rooosa l PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Table 24! AGTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Fifty-two buildings, 828 residential units Maritime Village: Three new buildings, 60 new residential units Total New Buildings 55 Existing Buildings lncluded ln MPR 890-Unit Count: Pleasant Harbor House - 1 Bed and Breakfast House - 1 Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Thirty-six buildings, 822 residential units Maritime Village: Three new buildings, 68 new residential units Total New Buildings: 39 Existing Buildings lncluded ln MPR 890-Unit Count: Pleasant Harbor House - 1 Bed and Breakfast House - 1 Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: 500 units Golf Vistas: 76 units Sea View Villas: 200 units Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters; 52 units Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 36 units Reunion House: 12 units Harbor View House: 12 units Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces. 520 units Alpine Vistas: 44 units Sea View Villas: 206 units Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters; 52 units Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 42 units Reunion House: 12 units Harbor View House: 12 units Building Heights and Square Footage: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 4 stories (47 ft9 inches in height; 724,000 sq ft) Golf Vistas: Thirteen buildings, 2 stories (27 ft9 inches in height; 123,000 sq ft) Sea View Villas: Thirty-one buildings, 1 story (28 ft 5 inches in height; 371,400 sq ft) Building Heights and Square Footage: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 5 stories (58 ft 9 inches to 70 ft in height; 612,674 sq ft) Alpine Vista: Five buildings, 2 stories (27 ft 4 inches in height; 71,280 sq ft) Sea View Villas: 23 buildings, 1 story (28 ft 5 inches in height; 382,542 sq ft) Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS MareEMav 2013 2-29 Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 r.2O1O.2O11I ALTERNAIIVE 2 (c012I Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: One building, 3 stories (39 ft; 87,000 sq ft) Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: One building, 3 stories (52 ft 3 inches height, 72,453 sq ft) Reunion House and Harbor View House; Two buildings, 3 stories (36 ft 7 inches height; each 8,892 sq ft) Existing Pleasant Harbor House: One building 1 story (same as Alternative 1) Existing Bed and Breakfast House: One building to remain (counted as one residential unit). Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters; One building, 3 stories (39 ft; 87,000 sq ft) Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: One building, 3 stories (39 ft height; 71,886 sq ft) Reunion House and Harbor View House: Two buildings, 3 stories (39 ft height; each 8,892 sq ft) Existing Pleasant Harbor House: One building, 1 story Existing Bed and Breakfast House: One building, to remain (counted as one residential unit) Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 42 units located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Reunion House and Harbor View House: 24 units in two buildings located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House - same as Alternative 1 Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House (owned by others) Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 36 units located up the hillside away from the waterfront Reunion House and Harbor View House: 24 units in two buildings located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House (owned by others) Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units: Short Term Tourist Residential Units: 560 (67%) Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278 (33Yo) Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units:* Short Term Tourist Residential Units: 560 (67%) Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278 (33o/o) Gommercial Development Proposed : Golf Resort: 36,000 sq ft llllaritime Village: 13,772 sqft Total Commercial Development: 49,772 sqft Commercia! Development Proposed: Golf Resort: 36,000 sq ft Maritime Village: 16,650 sq ft Total Commercial Development: 52,650 sq ft Proximity of Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM: Modified earlier plan to relocate all proposed residential units outside the 150 ft Shoreline buffer proposed in the County's locally-approved Shoreline Master Program update. Existing Proximity of Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM: Same as Alternative 1. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS tdareilMav 2013 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 2-30 Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 (d2O1O.2O11I ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 structures at the waterfront to be repaired and replaced within existing footprints under a pre-existing Binding Site Plan, outside of this SEIS. No new buildings are proposed in this ?r€?.; Repair and widening of existing roadways and reconfiguration of parking areas would also occur. Length of Proiect Roads Proposed: Overall length of projects roads approximately 12,700 lf. Combined WDFW boat launch access road with Maritime Village access. Does not include approximately 1750 lf of combined golf cart, service road, EMS access through east side fainrvays. Length of Proiect Roads Proposed: Overall length of project roads approximately 13,750 lf. Relocated WDFW boat launch access road 1300 feet east of current location. Marina Access to/from Black Point Road: Construct the Marina Access Drive (12 ft wide with turn outs) to be used for two way shuttle service and emergency vehicle access. Marina Access to/from Black Point Road: Same as Alternative 1. Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Resort main entrance controlgate relocated from previous plans to the northeast corner of the site with primary access from Black Point Road. U.S. Highwa#g+L$ry intersection realigned further south. Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Same requirements as Alternative 1 Provisions for Transit Service: Surface parking at the Black Point Road/U.S. Highway Hwv 101 intersection revised slightly from Alternative 1 . 16,650 sq ft 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. H€hwafHwll101. Provisions for Transit Service: Surface parking at the Black Point Road/U.S. Highway Hwv 101 intersection significantly revised compared to FEIS, due to relocation of the Marina Village residential units and approximately 13,772 sq ft 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 fortransit access to U.S. TighwafHvw 101. Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Relocated this building along with the resort main entrance to the northeast corner of the site (adiacent to Black Point Road). 52 Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Same requirements as Alternative 1. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS MareEAsL20l3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 2-31 Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 (.2010-20111 ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW residential units proposed in the upper 2 stories of this structure Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Ground water 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. Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Ground water supply from on-site wells. Two options for second well location: east of Fairway 2 or west of Fairway 8. Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP): Nutrient RemovalActivated Sludge Process with Clarifiers and Class A Filtration proposed to produce Class A reclaimed water. WRP to be relocated to northwest corner of site. Effluent use during initial phases of development will include sprinkler irrigation in the native plant nursery and subsurface drain fields in the west area of the site until Kettle B is converted to a retention pond. Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP): Same requirements as Alternative 1. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site biodiesel co-generation. propane and geothermal sources proposed. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site propane and geothermal proposed. Wetland Mitigation Proposalfor 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. Wetland Mitigation Proposalfor Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Same requirements as Alternative 1. Amenities (4): Golf Terrace 1 building to have a restaurant, lounge, spa, conference and meeting rooms, chapel and billiards room. The Maritime Village building near Black Point Road/U.S. Highway Hwv101 intersection would provide approximately 13,772 sq ft of retail/commercial space, including a restaurant and the relocated deli, grocery, convenience store from the marina upland area. Amenities (4): Golf Terrace 1 building would be the same as Alternative 1. The Maritime Village building near Black Point Road/U.S. Hrghnay Hwv 101 intersection would increase to approximately 16,650 sq ft of retail/commercial space, including a restaurant and the relocated deli, grocery, convenience store from the marina upland area. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS MareEMav 2013 2-32 Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010.20111 ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Recreational Amenities (4) (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): Renovated swimming pool in the marina upland area-foruse+y slp-ewnerslS; 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. Turn Building (Halfway House shown in qraphics) eliminated in Alternative 1. Recreational Amenities (4) (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): One new swimming pool on the golf resort side, two tennis courts, a Bocce ball court, billiard and game rooms, a common- use fire pit, and amphitheater. Walking paths throughout. Turn Building (Halfwav House shown in qraphics) by Hole #9 lmpervious Area: 13o/o lmpervious Area: 12o/o Pervious Area Pervious Disturbed Area: 170 Ac or 73o/o NaturalArea: 33Ac 14% Total Pervious Area: 210 Ac or 87o/o Pervious Area Pervious Disturbed Area: 133 Ac or 55o/o Natural Area. 80 Ac or 33o/o Total Pervious Area: 213 Ac or 88% Perimeter Buffers: Maritime Village: 25 ft Minimum building setback Golf Resort= 25 ft Minimum building setback Perimeter Buffers: Same requirements as Alternative 1. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Mareh-Mav 2013 2-33 Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 (.2'0,.0-20111 ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Phasing The applicant proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort over the course of approximately 10 years, or in response to market demand. The phasing plan for development under Alternative 2 is as follows (see Figure 2-9): Stage I Phase 1:o Construct Wastewater Treatment Plant 0I/WTP)o Construct Water Storage Tank with new piping distribution. Create Construction Materials Processing Location on Golf Course Siteo Construction of Rese rvoir (Kettl eB a Construction Cam Phase 2:o Construct Maritime Village Buildingo Construction Sanitarv Sewer Pump Stationso Construct Reunion Houseo Construct Harbor View House Construct U.S. Hwv S.R 101 and Black Point Road lntersection lmprovements Construct Marina Access Drive Develop second well G€nstru€++Aadna+€€€ss-EriveCon stru ct Staff H ousi nq a nd Ma i nte n a n ce Ce nte r a Start clearino for Golf Course and creation of the planUtree nurserv Stage ll Phase 1:. Create Wetland in Kettle C a Construct Golf Terrace and Conference Center/S pao Construct Sanitary Sewer Pump Stationo Begn-Conllnue Golf Course Construction Phase 2:o Construct Golf Terraces 2, 3, and 4o Construct Seaview Villas (36 units)o Construct Golf Vistas (38 units)r Maintenanee Building and Staff Quarters o Reconstruct Black Point Roadr Construct Sanitary Sewer Pump Stationso Complete Golf Course Constructiono Golf Course opens Phase 3:o Construct rRemainder of Seaview Villas a a a o Chapter 2 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EISMareEA3L2013 2-34 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW o Construct rRemainder of Golf Vistas (6 units)o Construct Halfway House (drink bartsnack and beveraq ) at Fairway 9o Construct Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS tiareEMav 2013 2-35 Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS MareEMav 2013 2-36 Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed (based on the Comprehensive Plan MPR designation for the property and absence of site-specific zoning)3, that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit MLA03-00577 . 2.6 SEPARATE AGTIONS Two separate projects would occur independent of the Proposed Actions/ElS Alternatives, and may be subject to additional environmental review at the time that permit applications are submitted. Agency decisions regarding environmental review under SEPA would be required prior to issuance of any applicable permits and approvals. Separate projects known to be planned or proposed in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort include: r Float Plane Dock at the Pleasant Harbor Marina. Renovation/Reconstruction of Marina Buildingso flee-Top Adventure with ZOLiaeo Realigned WDFW beat ramp aeeess+ead teestablish new entranee further east en B{e€k+€'in+-rR€ed Float Plane Dock The applicant is investigating the possibility of establishing a float plane dock at the Pleasant Harbor Marina to allow seaplanes access to the harbor. A Substantial Shoreline Development Permit would likely be required. The float plane dock would allow air access to the area for the general population, marina users, and resort visitors. lt is assumed that the seaplanes would land outside the mouth of Pleasant Harbor and taxi into the harbor itself. Renovation/Reconstruction of Marina Buildings As noted in Section 2.1 and 2.3 above, the marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan which does not require environmental review. The Binding Site Plan (BSP) allows redevelopment of structures within exrstingrfootprints illustrated on the BSP.enly. The BSP includes replacing the grocery store, lounge, and yacht club within the same building footprint, and remodeling the pool and service building, laundry, boaters shower and washroom to comply with code, and completion of the boater's storage building. 3 The No Action Alternative from FEIS is still valid since the zoning will not change until the Development Agreement and zoning regulations are signed by BoCC - see Citizens v. Mount Vernon. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EISg2s6Amgy2013 2-37 Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Tree-Top Adventure with Zip Line The aoolicant is intendino to include a Tree-T,op Adventure Course with a Zip Line that would connect from the Maritime Villaqe buildino to a pole within the upland manna area. The aoplicant is coordinatinq with the Countv for the reouired permits for this proiect. The beat ramp aeeess read at the seuthern end ef Pleasant Harber was eriginally eenstrueted by the Washingten S ^n07=*s-designe4 the WDFW driveway dees net meet geemetrie standards, ner dees it previde adequate sight tentative agreement with WDFW te realign the upper pertien ef the WDFW beat launeh aeeess U,S, nwv tgt, Sepam iseuanee efary aBplieable permits and apprevals fer thie prejeet, 1l think the foreqoinq is oood) 2.7 BENEFITS and DISADVANTAGES of DEFERRING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSAL The benefits of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of Pleasant Harbor Master Plan include deferral of: a a Potential impacts from development on the transportation network; Potential impacts from redevelopment on public services providers due to demand for fire and police services, from employees and visitors to the site; Potential impacts from development on existing views from surrounding areas; Potential impacts from development on water resources and critical areas onsite-anC-in the surreunding area. The disadvantages of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of development include deferral of: The potential opportunity to create a golf course development with a variety of housing types to support a range of site amenities; The potential to site buildings that complement the natural setting and reduce the impact on environmentally sensitive areas by preserving more of the natural vegetation, drainage courses, and slopes. The potential direct and indirect employment associated with construction and operation of the proposed project; and Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS MareilMav 2013 2-38 o a a a a Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW . The potential opportunity to provide economic opportunity to the region through tourism. o The potential loss of tax revenue that would benefit countv public services. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS ldareEMav 2013 2-39 Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS Mare$Mav 2013 2-40 Chapter 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.3 PLANTS 3.3-{ Affected Environment This section of the SEIS describes existing plants and vegetation conditions on the site, including trees, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section is based on the 2009 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Forest Report,the 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan, and the 2012 Habitat Management Plan (Appendix G). 2007 Ers Existing plants and vegetation were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS sEts This section is based on field reconnaissance conducted by GeoEngineers in 2006 as part of the 2006 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment (2007 DEIS Appendix 7). Currently, the Pleasant Harbor site is largely undeveloped with development limited to scattered vacant buildings within the Black Point area from the historic campground use, and two single- family residences and a real estate office north of Black Point Road. Vegetation presently found on the overall site consists primarily of an overstory of Douglas-fir (Pseudofsuga menziesr) with occurrences of Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata), Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Broadleaf shrubs and other plants found in the understory include: Red-Flowering Currant (Rr'bes sanguineum), Scotch Broom (Cyfrsus scoparius), Vine Maple (Acercircinatum), Salal (Gaultheria shallon), and Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum). Throughout the site, there is an amalgamation of various forested areas that have already been severely impacted by logging prior to 1970 and construction of the Black Point campground. Within these impacted areas, smaller pockets of trees and vegetation have remained relatively unaffected by site history and development. Within the boundaries of the site, there are no endangered or threatened plants currently listed under the ESA that are identified on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP) rare plants list. However, according to the Washington NHP, the presence of current sensitive species occurring within 1.5 miles of the project area was documented. A small patch of chain-fern exists about one mile northeast of the site along U.S. Highway 101. A large patch of sensitive plants is present atthe mouth of the Duckabush River approximately 0.5 miles southwest of site. This community includes saltgrass, pickleweed, sea- milkwort, Pacific silverweed, Baltic rush, Lyngby sedge and seaside arrowgrass. Golden paintbrush is noted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to occur within the limits of Jefferson County. However, there is no documented on-site occurrence of this species in the DNR NHP rare plants list, nor was suitable habitat or individual plants observed during the site investigation. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.3-1 3.3 Plants PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Marttrme Village Area The Maritime Village as a whole demonstrates a heavily impacted previously forest area. From past log dumping and rafting along the harbor shore, to the extent of the clearing and grading that has occurred adjacent to Highway 101, a very large percentage of this area is now converted in use from forest growth to other purposes and activities. The northern portion of the Maritime Village area is comprised of a fairly uniform stand of Douglas fir beginning at or just above the ordinary high water line of the harbor and extending up to the edge of Highway 101, with a small portion comprised of mixed conifer and hardwood. This area has been selectively logged in the area of the two existing homes, yards, and parking areas. Significant mass grading activity has occurred in creation of the building sites and also in creation of the access to the waterfront and to the existing dock and floats that serve the two houses. Trees in this area have been impacted by environmental and mechanical influences. The southern portion of the Maritime Village area is predominately a gravel parking area and also includes a small building currently being used as a real estate office. Expanding areas of scotch broom and blackberries and other invasive species compose the remaining landscape of this area. Black Point Area Under existing conditions, the Black Point Campground area of the project site is currently primarily comprised of existing vegetation with several scattered vacant buildings. The Black Point area is divided into subareas based on the health of the forest: BP-1, BP-2, BP- 3, and BP-200' (see Figure 3.3-1). The BP-1 subarea encompasses approximately 21 percent of the total Black Point area and is characterized by relative low impact within steeper terrain, with larger trees than other Black Point timber stands, perhaps 50 to 70 years old. The BP-2 subarea encompasses more than half of the Black Point area and is comprised of a moderate level of impact caused by campground roads, trails, and utilities, causing poor stand development, insufficient reestablishment of tree cover and invasion of scotch broom and other non-native species. Some regrowth of vegetation and young tree groMh is evident due to cessation of campground use in recent years. The glacial kettles are also within this subarea, which have been logged in the past with skid trail evidence and timber stand regeneration. The BP-3 subarea encompasses almost one-fifth of the Black Point area and is heavily impacted by camp site, roads, buildings, recreational areas, and maintenance facilities. The 200 foot Hood Canal Shoreline buffer area (BP-200') is designated as Conservancy and the trees and vegetation have experienced light impact through human activity. 3.3,-2 Impacts 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.3-2 3.3 Plants PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Dralt EIS May 2013 3.3-3 3.3 Plants PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW SEIS Through clearing and grading of the project site, the proposed development would disturb existing plant communities. Under Alternative 1, approximately 73 percent of the site would be disturbed, compared to 55 percent under Alternative 2. These areas would be cleared of existing vegetation and new maintained landscaping would be provided in pervious areas. Approximately 25 to 56 acres of existing vegetation would be retained under SEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Maritime Villaqe Area As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now proposed to be limited to occur within existing building footprints in the Marina Center (marina upland) area, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit, which does not require additional environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development other than that shown on the Bindinq Site Plan would occur outside of existing building footprints in the marina area under the SEIS Alternatives. The commercial development and a portion of the residential development proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area would be relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, and two new single-family homes. This new configuration would reduce the vegetative impact and retain the viable forest in the Maritime Village area. Black Point Area Within the Black Point area, designated vegetated areas would be left undisturbed and extend throughout areas of the proposed development. These undisturbed vegetated areas would consist of the typical forested habitat that currently exists on the site. The areas would continue to be dominated by the coniferous and deciduous forest, with dense to moderately dense shrub and herbaceous layers. Vegetated corridors that lead to offsite areas and to other remaining vegetated areas would be retained throughout the golf course and housing areas. These corridors would lead to more than 200 acres of relatively undisturbed vegetation on and off site in addition to existing and created wetland features on site. These corridors would be dominated by native vegetation. The 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation along the southern shoreline edge of the site would be retained under the SEIS Alternatives, similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives. Public access to this area would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff. This buffer area would be restored to a more natural state where needed and protected as part of the proposed project. During construction, viable trees within proposed development areas that can be transplanted would be relocated on a temporary basis to an on-site nursery located in the western edge of the development. These trees would be irrigated and cultivated until replanting is possible within designated areas of the development. A typical area of non-golf course disturbance would be re-connected to the natural environment through transplanting healthy vegetation from the site, as well as using native and low water Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.34 3.3 Plants PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW consumption plants such as junipers and on-site bark mulch and non-invasive ground cover Certain areas would be attractively planted with annuals and perennials for color. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The plants and vegetation would generally remain as described under existing conditions. 3.3-3 Ul@ 2007 EIS The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (a) [The SEIS shall include] an analysis of environmental impacts to be based on science and data pertinent to the Brinnon site. o The 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan is a template for development of a Tree Hazard Control Program that relies on historical methodology, combined with science-based research and literature, to support tree hazard identification and assessment. The program design would enable evaluation (grading) of the degree of risk and recommend mitigation treatments for individual circumstances. Mitisation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durins Gonstruction 63 (s) The developer will ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to a 200 foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the south Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman at its expense shall manage these easements including removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101 . o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. o a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.3-5 3.3 Plants PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The Maritime Village building is now proposed to be located north of the Black Point Road and U.S. Highway 101 intersection. The stand of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village no longer applies to the proposed site layout. a 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135t1]t2lt6]), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for screening of facilities and amenities so that all the uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites and public views. ln keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall be designed to blend with the natural setting and to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas. Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. a 63 (v) !n keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6) and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings will be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-line greenbelts between the buildings. a 63 (w) Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or more at breast height. An arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure roots and surrounding soil of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (10 inches or more in diameter at breast height [DBH]) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery. sErs ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measures would apply: A Vegetation Management Plan based on the 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan template shall be developed to address BoCC Conditions 63 (s), (u), (v), and (w). 3.3-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With proposed development under eilhe1 Altematives 1 and :g 2, large areas of existing vegetation would be retained (11o/o to 260/o). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.3 3.3-6 Plants PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE This section of the SEIS describes existing fish and wildlife resources on the site and in surrounding areas, and evaluates how development under each of the alternatives could affect these resources. This section is based on the 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H). Shellfish resources are described and analyzed in a separate section, Section 3.5, Shellfish. 3.4-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ets A site analysis was done for the 2007 EIS for endangered species and listed species and the results were detailed in a site-specific Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated July 20, 2006, contained in 2007 DEIS Appendix 7. Fish Several intermittent or seasonal stream channels were identified on site (Type 5 under the County classification system). The streams are steep in gradient and blocked from fish passage due to structural barriers. Hood Canal is habitat for multiple fish species, including Chinook and Chum Salmon, Steelhead, and BullTrout. The southerly beach of the site is adjacent to important tidelands and the mouth of the Duckabush River, which is important not only for shellfish, but for all stages of salmon and fish life cycles. The Duckabush River delta is considered an important shrimp nursery area, and important habitat and nursery for juvenile stages of Dungeness crab. Wildlife The site was evaluated for terrestrial habitat. The site is cut off from the balance of the peninsula by US HWY 101, but is still used by a variety of species, including birds, deer, and coyote. Large animals, including elk, may occasionally visit the site, but there is no evidence of regular use due to the highway. The site was examined for use by threatened or endangered species, but no nesting sites were found. The riparian edge, wetlands, and buffers do provide good habitat. No evidence of eagle nesting or roosting was identified onsite. A potential osprey nest, if still active, could exist in the Pleasant Harbor area. Threatened and Endanqered Species No threatened or endangered species were found onsite. Hood Canal is home to six federally- Iisted threatened or endangered species (Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead, Bull Trout (Coastal Puget Sound), Southern Orca Whales, and Stellar Sea Lions). Further, both the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers are considered important systems in the maintenance and rehabilitation of affected runs. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.+1 3.4 Fish & Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW sEts The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resod Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) included a file review of available information on existing and historic sensitive fish, wildlife and plant species occurring in the vicinity of the site, and two site visits to gather direct observations of habitat features (snags, nests, burrows, trails, dens, streams, marine shoreline habitat, etc.) and visual observations of fish and wildlife. Two additional site visits were conducted to delineate the location of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OWHM) along the Hood Canal and Pleasant Harbor shorelines. Fish Consistent with the 2007 ElS, there are no streams containing ESA-listed fish species present on the site. There are five seasonal streams, which are non-fish-bearing drainages that enter Pleasant Harbor along the northern shoreline near the marina and proposed maritime village. These small drainages are seasonal and primarily carry stormwater from US Highway 101 to Pleasant Harbor. As noted in the 2007 ElS, Hood Canal, which connects to Pleasant Harbor and borders Black Point to the east, contains many fish species and serves as a migratory corridor for adult salmonids returning to spawning streams. Although there are no fish present on the site, fish presence is assumed to occur along the shoreline of the site, as well as where the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers enter Hood Canal, approximately one mile from the site, during certain times of the year. Forage fish presence has been documented along the shoreline of Black Point (WDFW,2011). Pacific herring is the only species of forage fish with spawning areas along the southern shoreline of the site (WDFW,2011). The preferred habitat for Pacific herring spawning is in eelgrass beds. Eelgrass was identified on the WDFW PHS maps in the vicinity of the marina, but its presence was not verified during the fleld investigation (WDFW,2011). There is no expansion of the marina or hardening of the shoreline proposed within Pleasant Harbor; thus, an eelgrass survey was not conducted in this area. Sand lance spawning areas have been documented along the mouth of Pleasant Harbor and surf smelt spawning areas have been documented along the southeastern shoreline of Black Point (WDFW,2011). These species of forage fish are expected to use areas in the vicinity of the site for spawning due to the substrate size and composition present. Wildlife The seasonal, and often secretive, habits of many wildlife species make it difficult to confirm habitat use with just a few site surveys. Therefore, not all wildlife species that use the site could be verified by direct observations or signs (tracks, nests, etc). Species utilization of the area is estimated from the documented presence of species described in the literature including the USFWS endangered and threatened species list for Jefferson County and the WDFW Priority Habitat Species (PHS) maps of the site and the surrounding area. Vegetation is a major factor in the distribution of wildlife. Plants provide food and shelter against predators and weather, and sites for nesting, resting, perching and breeding. The field reconnaissance revealed the presence of numerous mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibian species as well as vegetation communities that are expected to support certain species. There is no documentation or evidence of terrestrial-listed ESA species utilizing the site. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.4-2 3.4 Fish &Wildlffe PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The WDFW PHS maps indicate the presence of two bald eagle nests on the eastern shoreline of Black Point approximately 0.5 mile east of the site. There are also two nests located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest along the shoreline of the Hood Canal and one inland nest located approximately one mile to the north WDFW, 2011). The shoreline on the southern edge of Black Point and the Pleasant Harbor shoreline contain mature trees suitable for eagle perching. There are no nests, communal roosts, foraging areas or buffers located on the site. However, there is presence of bald eagles in the project vicinity, which indicates there is potentialfor bald eagles to utilize the site. Numerous snags that contained signs of use by woodpeckers and insects were observed throughout the site. !t is likely that the indicators of woodpecker use on the snags were caused by the Northern flicker. Visual observations of various birds were made during the investigation, including American robins, American crows, hummingbirds, and great blue heron. Although several bird species were observed at the site, no nests were observed during the site investigation. There is a documented osprey nest located offsite about 300 feet south of Pleasant Harbor. Ospreys were observed to be present in the nest during a field reconnaissance on April 3, 2008. Marbled murrelets are associated with marine environments and old-growth forests. There is no suitable nesting habitat present on or near the site. There is also no documented presence of marbled murrelets in the vicinity of the site (WDFW, 2011). However, because the site is adjacent to nearshore marine environments, there is potential for foraging marbled murrelets to be present near the site during certain times of the year. Migratory water fowl, such as ducks, geese and swans, are expected to be present within the vicinity of the site. The Duckabush River enters Hood Canal about one mile southwest of the site. There is an extensive delta and shallow mudflat habitat at the mouth of the river. This area is prime habitat for waterfowl: thus, they can be expected to feed and migrate through the area during various times of the year. There is a documented waterfowl concentration of trumpeter swans along the southern shoreline of Black Point that is associated with the mouth of the Duckabush River and of hooded merganser along the east shoreline of Black Point (WDFW, 2011). There is also documented presence of hooded merganser as concentrations in a pond approximately 0.5 mile to the east of the site (WDFW,2011). The presence of marine mammals along the shorelines of the site was evaluated through a review of available literature (USFWS endangered and threatened species list for Jefferson County, NOAA ESA Listed Marine Mammals, and the WDFW PHS map) and a site investigation. ESA-listed marine mammals that may be found along the shoreline of the site include southern resident killer whales, humpback whales, and Steller sea lions. There are two documented harbor seal haulout sites at the mouth of the Duckabush River located about one mile south of the site (WDFW, 2000a and 201 1). One group consisted of less than 100 seals and the other contained between 100 and 500 seals. Harbor seals typically congregate in flat beach areas. The shoreline along the site consists of steep cliffs; therefore, it is not likely for harbor seals to inhabit the southern shoreline of the project site. Several signs of mammal presence were observed during the field reconnaissance. Blacktail deer scat and tracks were observed throughout the site from the shoreline to the upland in all areas of the site. Coyote scat and tracks were also observed on site. There is documented presence of regular large concentrations of Roosevelt elk in the vicinity of the site (WDFW, Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.+3 3.4 Fish &Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 2011). Elk migrate on a seasonal pattern and can be expected to be in the site vicinity during certain times of the year. Elk could potentially wander onto Black Point and inhabit the site for short durations during the year. However, U.S. Highway 101 separates the entire site from the elk range. Elk are not expected to cross over heavily traveled roads such as Highway 101. Approximately two miles northeast of the site there are "Elk Crossing" signs posted in Brinnon, so there is potential for elk to cross over Highway 101. A western fence lizard was observed sunbathing on a large log on the southern shoreline of the site during the field visit. These lizards are preyed upon by birds and snakes. Several different common garter snakes were observed at various locations on the site and were typically found in upland areas with low-lying grass and shrub layers. Pacific tree frogs were also heard calling during the site visits. 3.4-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets Fish Section 3.7.2 of the 2007 EIS noted that the marine/estuarine species of Hood Canal (shrimp, clams, geoducks, oysters, Dahl's porpoise, and orcas) would not expected to be impacted from the development, due to the protection of the southern bluffs from human intrusion and the treatment of water to avoid contaminated discharge from the site. The water quality in Pleasant Harbor, as it pertains to the proposed development, would be monitored and adaptive management programs would identify additional mitigation as required. The sensitivity of the Duckabush River delta area for shellfish and sea life of all kinds reinforces the importance of maintaining a riparian buffer along the southern shoreline, assuring retention and treatment of all water affected by construction or development to assure water quality of all waters and seeps on the peninsula affecting or affected by the development. The sensitivity of the area was also the rationale for the proposed closing of any efforts to access or use the southern beaches. Wildlife The construction of a Master Planned Resort would inhibit use of the site by larger mammals, but as noted particularly the elk are not noted in the Black Point area, but typically utilize land farther north in the river plains. Project-level review was directed to protection of riparian habitat on the south boundary, the vegetation buffer along US HWY 101, appropriate vegetation and tree buffers along the Pleasant Harbor shoreline, and the maintenance of functions and values of the wetland and stream critical areas in the appropriate sub basins. An adaptive management program to address water quality and upland issues was identified as being planned to be part of the marina water quality program to address issues as they may arise in the future. A potential osprey nest may exist in the Pleasant Harbor area. Plans to protect the nest, as appropriate, would be addressed during permitting if the nest is still active or capable of providing support to local populations. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.4-4 3.4 Fish & Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The endangered species potential was evaluated and determined that the project would not affect terrestrial species on the project site. No evidence of eagle nesting or roosting was identified onsite. The fringe riparian area along the south boundary would provide significant protection for wildlife using the bay and the forested edge, as well as snags that eagles and other raptors may use for perching and feeding and these areas would be protected in the plan. The retention of a significant riparian area on the south shore would retain existing snags for perching. sEts This section identifies and analyzes impacts to fish and wildlife on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site with proposed development. lmpacts are expected to be generally similar for Alternatives 1 and 2, except that development under Alternative 2 would be consolidated into fewer buildings, thereby potentially providing additionalwildlife habitat compared to Alternative 1 and the 2007 ElS. Fish Proposed site development is not expected to increase pollutants into the harbor. As part of this development and as part of the water quality mitigation effort, the existing septic tanks-and, pumps. and drainfields h€sse-would be replaced with a sewage treatment plant and water treatment system. The treated water from the ould then be used as irrigation for the golf course. Also, as part of the water quality mitigation effort, the resort would be required to collect water quality data in the surrounding area using existing state monitoring stations. Should changes in water quality be identified, the resort would be required to notify Jetferson County and participate in rectifying problems. @unoff from new pollution within the Maritime Village area is required by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be eapturcA--ena-treated prior to discharge into the harbor. As a result of the stormwatermanagementandthereplacementoftheseptictanksanddrainfieldst he net discharge to the harbor is anticipated to be cleaner than current conditions. Wildlife Wildlife use within the Black Point area is essentially isolated from the Olympic Peninsula by U.S. Highway 101. However, the wildlife described below may use the site through corridors that connect with the Olympic Peninsula habitat west of Highway 101. Figure 3.4-1 shows the wildlife corridors formed by areas of temperate coniferous forest that could connect the project site to the peninsula and additional undeveloped parcels in the vicinity. Various strategies would be implemented to help protect wildlife resources throughout the site from impacts caused from the development. These strategies include providing natural vegetated areas that would be protected from development and remain undisturbed. A trail leading from the top of the bluff to the beach is located along the western portion of the shoreline buffer. This trail would be decommissioned and access to the shoreline from the site Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.4-5 3.4 Fish &Wildlife Threatened and Endanqered Species PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW or access from the shoreline to the site would not be permitted. Disturbed areas that encroach into the 200-foot buffer would be restored and planted with native vegetation found within the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.4-O 3.4 Fish &Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.+7 3.4 Fish &Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW project vicinity. As a result of this development, there would be no encroachment into the 200- foot buffer and any disturbance within the 200-foot buffer and top-of-slope buffer would be restored. The proposed development may temporarily displace the bald eagles during construction, but impacts should be temporary because the habitat they currently utilize would remain undisturbed. Some mature trees would be left on site and the southern shoreline of Black Point would have an undisturbed 200-foot buffer along Hood Canal. Birds, mammals, snakes, lizards and frogs on the site would be temporarily impacted or displaced during construction, but there should not be significant impacts as a result of the development because designated vegetated areas and corridors would remain undisturbed during and post-construction. These vegetated areas would provide sufficient habitat and food for survival. Undisturbed areas of natural vegetation and habitat corridors are important to wildlife currently using the site. Habitat corridors are important to allow movement and subsequent flow of genes between wildlife populations in habitats that otherwise would be isolated. The two primary users of corridors are corridor travelers and corridor dwellers. Corridor travelers include large herbivores such as deer; medium to large camivores like foxes and coyotes; and various migratory animals. Corridor dwellers generally have limited dispersal ability and consist mostly of plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and birds. The designated vegetated areas would lessen impacts and allow wildlife that typically utilizes the site to continue to utilize the site. While Rainier elk do not currently utilize the site or may to a limited extent, elk would be discouraged from utilizing this site by the installation of an exclusion fence because there is no suitable foraging habitat on Black Point and elk have the potential to damage property. Th reatened a nd E ndanqered.Spec ieq Although listed species may occur along the shorelines of the project area, there are no currently listed species known to utilize the upland areas. There is no documentation of terrestrial-listed ESA species utilizing the site, but listed marine ESA species may be utilizing the adjacent shorelines of the site. These species include fish, mollusks, and marine animals such as: Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, bull trout, southern resident killer whale, humpback whales and Steller sea lion. These animals can be negatively impacted by pollution entering Hood Canal, reducing water quality. However, surface water runoff, a potential source of pollution, would be collected and treated on-site, and then discharged to an on-site infiltration area so that it would not enter Hood Canal. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The fish and wildlife resources would generally remain as described under existing conditions. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.+8 3.4 Fish &Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.4-3 Mitiqation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitisation Measures Completed A habitat management plan will be prepared at the project-permitting phase to identify and address mitigation for any potential impacts to streams and associated buffers. a a o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resod Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this requirement. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The three northerly streams shall be set aside in a natural area, and development shall be limited to that necessary to provide adequate access and road right-of-way. All culverts carrying streams shall be fish passable where the preconstruction reports identify that a stream has the potential for fish passage if obstructions can be removed. o These three northerly streams are outside of the SEIS site boundary. This mitigation measure shall apply to the existing Binding Site Plan for the marina area. a The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. a The site contains several intermittent or seasonal stream channels (Type 5 under the County classification system). Some of these are steep in gradient and blocked from fish passage due to structural barriers. Per JCC 18.15.315, Type 5 streams require a SO-foot buffer of native vegetation. The Proposal will comply with this requirement. Addi*rena+ltt eisenarg+ Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Goncurrent with Operation The resort shall be required to annually collect water quality monitoring data from the state water quality sampling station at Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the County. ln the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall consult with the resort, the local residents, and the State (both WDOH and WDFW concerning the source of the change. The resort permits shall require the resort to implement any mitigation measures determined necessary by the County to alleviate any water quality issues emanating from the resort properties. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.4 Fish & Wildlffe3.4-9 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (l) A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.9., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 1Q1, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce the dangers to predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to humans. o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resod Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this condition. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measures would apply: Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Designated vegetated areas/corridors shall be left undisturbed and extend throughout areas of development. These undisturbed vegetated areas will consist of the typical forested habitat that currently exists on the site. The areas will be dominated by a coniferous and deciduous forest, with dense to moderately dense shrub and herbaceous layers. Instead of the JCC 1SO-foot buffer, a 200-foot shoreline buffer is proposed and will not be disturbed or encroached upon. Disturbed portions of the buffer will be restored. The final wetland critical area buffers will be marked and left undisturbed for Wetlands C and D. Existing concrete and gravel roads within the buffers of Wetlands C and D will be removed and the areas will be re-planted with native vegetation that is found in the project vicinity. Vegetated corridors that lead to offsite areas and to other remaining vegetated areas will be left throughout the golf course and housing areas. These corridors will lead to more than 200 acres of relatively undisturbed vegetation on and off site in addition to existing and created wetland features on site. These corridors will be dominated by native vegetation that will provide food and habitat to animals that may use the site. a a a a a a 3_4 Fish & Wildlife Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.+10 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW An effort will be made to retain trees that have a 1O-inch DBH throughout the site in these corridors. These trees are important because they are used as perch trees and nesting trees for birds such as bald eagles and osprey. An active osprey nest was identified near the west shoreline of Pleasant Harbor and the nest and tree will be protected during construction. 3.4-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the site would result in the loss of some existing upland wildlife habitat. However, the proposed development would retain large areas of habitat onsite (approximately 27 to 45 percent of the site would be undisturbed under Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.th11 3.4 Fish &Wildlife PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.5 SHELLFISH 3.5-{Affected Environment 2007 Ers Section 3.2.1 of the 2007 EIS (within the Water Resources section) outlines the methodology and information sources for the DEIS Shellfish subsection, including shellfish closure zones, marine water quality data records, current and tidal records, field assessments, and a marine survey. Shellfish resources, including mussels, clams, and oysters were observed within Pleasant Harbor and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor Marina. The southerly beach of the project site is adjacent to important tidelands and the mouth of the Duckabush River, which is considered an important shrimp nursery area, and important habitat and nursery for juvenile stages of Dungeness crab. Water Quality As noted in the 2007 ElS, Pleasant Harbor is vulnerable to water quality issues, as is the adjoining Hood Canal. A shallow sill, approximately 150 feet deep, exists at the entrance of the Hood Canal that restricts the exchange of water between Hood Canal and the Puget Sound. A detailed discussion of water quality outside of Pleasant Harbor in the vicinity of the site is found in the report titled Shoreline Characterization Report Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort (2007 DEIS Appendix 3). Water circulation in Pleasant Harbor is limited by a narrow (100 feet wide) and shallow (10 feet deep at low tide) inlet located at the east end of the harbor. The harbor area itself ranges from 30 to 40 feet in depth. The harbor water levels fluctuate with the tides and currents of the Hood Canal. The water quality samples are detailed in the Marina lmpact Analysis (DEIS Appendix 2). Even though Pleasant Harbor has a narrow inlet and there are two marinas located in the harbor, water quality data suggests that the harbor is flushed by the tides on a regular basis to obtain the same water quality levels of the Hood Canal. The Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) has a water quality monitoring station, #293, in the Hood Canal near the mouth of Pleasant Harbor to measure bacteria levels used to determine shellfish closure zones WDOH 2005). Water quality in Pleasant Harbor "meets standards but there are some concerns;" however, the WDOH has prohibited shellfish harvesting in Pleasant Harbor based on standard concerns with any shellfish grown in an area adjacent to a marina (WDOH 2006a). This decision is not likely to change due to the risk of shellfish containing harmful biotoxins and pollutants to humans. Commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting is not allowed in prohibited areas. Outside Pleasant Harbor ln the 2007 ElS, the overall health of the shellfish resources in the adjacent portions of the Hood Canal was good, with only a few harvest advisories and one shellfish closure in the area. The shellfish closure nearest to the closed waters of Pleasant Harbor was located more than one mile north in the Hood Canal along the shoreline of Brinnon, Washington (WDOH 2006). Significant shellfish beaches are found to the south fronting the Duckabush river system and north of Brinnon (see DEIS Section 2.4.1). Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-1 3.5 Shellfish PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW As part of the 2007 ElS, a review of available literature identified no presence of Priority Shellfish, Sea Urchin (Strongylocentrotus spp.), Dungeness Crab (Cancer magister), or Pandalid Shrimp (Pandalus spp.) located in Pleasant Harbor WDFW 2006). However, presence of these species was documented in the water of the Hood Canal surrounding Black Point. The 2007 EIS noted that priority marine species may be present in Pleasant Harbor during certain times of the year. A detailed discussion of marine species in the vicinity of the site is found in the Shoreline Characterization Report (2007 DEIS Appendix 3). Pacific oysters were observed in the inter-tidalzone along the shoreline in Pleasant Harbor. Aquatic lnvasive Species Tunicates The 2007 EIS outlines the threat of Tunicate colonies, an aquatic invasive species that can cause ecological damage and has spread in multiple locations around Puget Sound, including Hood Canal. Tunicates, also known as Sea Squirts (Styela clava), are siphon-feeding marine animals. They have no known predators and can quickly blanket the hull of boats, pilings, and other hard surfaces, out competing or suffocating other sea life, including clams, mussels, and oysters. Section 3.2.3 of the 2007 EIS outlines steps the Washington Legislature and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW) have undertaken to address the spread of aquatic invasive species, including response plans, standards for discharging ballast water, education on boat cleaning, and enforcement and monitoring activities. As part of the response plan initiative the Department of Fish and Wildlife contacted the current owners of Pleasant Harbor Marina and the applicant to discuss the opportunity for partnership in addressing the issue. WDF1 / has determined that power-washing vessels and concrete docks are a more effective removal process than hand-picking Styela clava (Sea Squirts). ln 2007, approximately 40o/o of the docks in the Pleasant Harbor marina were wooden or have Styrofoam billets, which are not conducive to the prefened method of power washing. In order to facilitate the management and/or ultimate eradication of Styela clava in Pleasant Harbor, the WDFW is seeking to have all the wooden docks and those with Styrofoam billets to be replaced over time with concrete docks and concrete floats. sEls As noted in Chapter 2, the marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. However, for consistency, a brief description of new information regarding the affected environment is provided below. Water Qualitv No additional studies regarding existing shellfish or water quality were undertaken as part of the SEIS. The existing water quality has generally remained as described in the 2007 ElS. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-2 3.5 Shellfish PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Aquatic lnvasive Species Tunicates To address the issue of invasive tunicates, Pleasant Harbor Marina embarked on a program of dock replacement consistent with WDFW guidance. ln February of 2009, Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced the D-dock, that was wood & styrofoam construction, with wood frame "enviro- tuf'float system, composite decking with 60% grating for light penetration to the water. This type of construction allows for the power washing as requested by WDFW. D-dock has two small buildings on the far end and is also the fuel dock. The dock replacement also addressed water quality through the replacement of old galvanized gas and diesel fuel lines with double wall lines, installation of sumps and fuel monitoring system, and new fuel dispensers. The marine pumpout system was replaced with a new peristaltic pump system that provides pumpout stations at the slips as well as at the fuel end-tie. The new construction included a new dry fire standpipe system, new power pedestals and wiring, new water lines, and a new fuel building at the end of the dock. Creosote pilings were removed along with a large landing at the upland end of the ramp. New pilings are steel, with a much smaller landing to minimize shading over the tideland. ln February of 2013 Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced the E and F-docks and the headwalk that connects them to the D-dock. The construction was the same as D-dock, with better grating to provide more light penetration to meet DNR requirements. The new docks are connected to the pumpout system that was installed with the D-dock and provides pumpout fittings to accommodate each slip. Electrical wiring and power pedestals was upgraded to accommodate modern boats and improved the potablewater system. Creosote pilings were removed, and new steel pilings installed. The only wood & styrofoam floats remaining are small portable work floats used for maintenance and a small boat / kayak float. The l-dock is older concrete float construction. l, J, and K-docks were installed in the late 90's; no timeframe has been set for replacement of the l, J, and K docks. 3.5-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS stated that the number of slips at the Pleasant Harbor Marina would not increase as a result of the proposed resort, nor would the operation capacity of the marina increase from a previously approved expansion. Boating traffic and movement in the harbor may be expected to increase from the general public over time as a result of increased interest in the resort. However, increased level of activity is occurring in marinas regionally due to the limited number of marinas available, and no material increase would be predicted over that contemplated in permits for the existing marina. The 2007 EIS noted that it would be possible that there will be an increased demand for public shellfish harvesting by visitors to the proposed development. Notification and information (before harvesting shellfish) would be available at the proposed development at specific locations, such as the marina, Maritime Village, and Conference Center. ldentification of public shellfish harvest areas and limitations and mapping of private beds for which public shellfish harvesting is not permitted would be part of the public service kiosk information at the Maritime Village. No additional shellfish closures would be anticipated as a result of the approval of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-3 3.5 Shellfish PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Under the 2007 ElS, to protect fish and shellfish resources, the applicant pulled all development back from the southern shoreline (including closing the current dangerous trail access) to retain the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. This closure to direct public access would reduce the potential for harm to the significant shellfish beds located to the south. With the elimination of the septic system serving the existing marina and the capture and treatment of stormwater from the marina development prior to entering the harbor, the overall effect of the Master Plan proposal would be a reduction in pollutant pathways to the harbor and should result in greater protection of the overall harbor water quality than exists presently. The proposal would replace the existing septic system for the marina (a common source of contamination, particularly in harbors and bays) with a sewer system to eliminate the risk of effluent or treated wastewater entering the bay (all wastewater is treated to Class A standards in the new wastewater treatment system and used for irrigation in the golf course area away from the harbor). The elimination of septic tanks, particularly those serving commercial uses, should provide significant longterm benefit where usage of the overall facilities increases. Potential impacts during the clearing phase include the risk of runoff to the harbor or Hood Canal, a change in the hydrology of the site due to the removal of trees, and changing of the topography and potential impact to wetlands from silts, sediments, or hydrologic flow, both surface and subsurface. On the Black Point portion of the site, significant grading would occur, so special care must be taken to assure stormwater management measures will be implemented concurrently with clearing and grading for all phases, to protect water quality, both off site and in existing wetlands, during construction. All rainwater percolates through the soils on this portion of the site. Rainwater contributes to the wetland systems on the center and east side of the property, and there is no or limited runoff to the Canal from the majority of the site (see 2007 DEIS Figure 3-19). The construction of the golf course, residences, and commercial facilities are all designed to capture rainwater and stormwater onsite. This water would be utilized onsite, treated, and then be infiltrated back into the aquifer to eliminate site runoff and to maintain the aquifer system. The proposal does include a program to dedicate the central kettle to onsite retention and stormwater management, and the depth of the kettle is such that it can easily accommodate preconstruction stormwater from much of the site and prevent any accidental release (see 2007 DEIS Appendix 4). This innovative approach would eliminate offsite impacts and the potential for degradation of water quality and sheltfish populations outside of Pleasant Harbor. The avoidance of offsite stormwater discharge either during construction or operation of the golf course facility would achieve the objective of no net impact to the water quality of Hood Canal by reason of the construction and operation of the golf course resort. ln addition, a 200 foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation would be retained along the shoreline edge to retain the natural condition to the extent possible and provide native plant treatment for stormwater falling outside the developed area. The purpose would be to retain the natural filtration component of the riparian edge to retain the natural condition for stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas. sEts As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or as shown in the Marina Center (marina upland) area, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit, which does not require additional Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-4 3.5 Shellfish PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of existing building footprints or as shown on the Bindino Site Plan in the marina area under the SDEIS Alternatives. The commercial development and a portion of the residential development proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area is now relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101. A similar amount of clearing, and the risk of runoff, would occur under SEIS Alternative 1 compared to the 2007 ElS. There would be less clearing resulting in a lower potential for runoff under SEIS Alternative 2. The 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation along the southern shoreline edge of the site would be retained under the SDEIS Alternatives, similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives. Public access to this area would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff. !n compliance with BoCC Condition 63(q), direct stormwater runoff to Hood Canal from the golf course fairways would not occur through the construction of embankments that change the direction of surface flow. These embankments would direct runoff away from Hood Canal and into natural and created detention areas including the lined stormwater pond on Fairway 10. The wastewater treatment system and proposed stormwater management system under the SEIS Alternatives would be similar to that proposed under the 2007 ElS, contributing to enhanced water quality. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The water quality and shellfish would generally remain as described under existing conditions. 3.5-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Construction period NPDES general permits will need to be obtained and conditions followed to control stormwater during construction to assure no offsite discharge. All construction shall be covered by a stormwater management plan to show how stormwater shall be collected and infiltrated to prevent any turbidity, sediment, or other contaminants from reaching the harbor or waters of Hood Canal. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5 3.5-5 Shellfish a a a a a a a a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW A stormwater site plan that includes a construction stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed by the proponent and reviewed and approved by Jefferson County prior to conducting land disturbing activity on the site. Construction and grading permits shall require stormwater management plans to demonstrate no discharge to waters of Pleasant Harbor or Hood Canal of any contaminants, turbid waters, or sediments as a result of operations. All stormwater crossing newly constructed surfaces shall be captured and treated onsite before discharge, including the golf course side, where irrigation and stormwater shall be captured treated, retained, and infiltrated onsite with no offsite discharge. (NOTE: This is not possible.) The stormwater management system for all phases shall capture, treat, and infiltrate or store for reuse all stormwater from impervious surfaces of the improved golf course areas. (NOTE: This is not possible.) All fueling operations shall be brought up to current codes and protection against leaks and unauthorized discharges shall be provided as part of any permit issued for work on the marina side of the resort. This is a first priority for the project. Fueling permits for facilities shall also require a refueling plan approved by the local Fire Code official as part of the first permit and in place prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for work at the marina or Maritime Village. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented During Operation Marina Mitigation Measures All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated to Puget Sound Water Quality standards (2005 edition) before discharge. There shall be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina. Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times. Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the marina. The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel at any time The marina shall develop and manage an active boater education program appropriate to the marina setting to supplement the County program developed as part of the shellfish protection district. Fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats, docks, piers, and storage lockers. a o a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-6 3.5 Shellfish The Project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines. a a a a a a a a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW No storage shall be permitted on docks, including storage of oily rags, open paints, or other flammable or environmentally hazardous materials except emergency equipment as approved in the Emergency Service MOU. Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be limited to minor repairs when in the water, which do not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor. Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier that prevents debris from entering the marine waters. Notification and information (before harvesting shellfish) will be available at the proposed development at specific locations, such as the marina, Maritime Village, and Conference Center. The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements appropriate under the County Shellfish Protection Plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan. The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from State sources so long as available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with the County in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime Village. Golf Course Mitigation Measures The golf course shall be operated in accordance with the best practice standards of the King County golf course management guidelines, or substantial equivalent, including, but not limited to, American Golf Association standards. The golf course/resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by the County as a result of the water quality monitoring program described above and any changes caused by the resort operations. BoGC Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (t) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and full mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-7 3.5 Shellfish PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW o The Pleasant Harbor Marina has replaced Docks D, E, and F as outlined in Section 3.5.1 above in accordance with WDFW guidance for the elimination of the Tunicate invasive species. o A lnvasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the Department of Fish and Wildlife was drafted in October 2010 (Appendix l). This agreement shall be finalized prior to sErs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.5-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.5-8 3.5 Shellfish PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.6 SHORELINES 3.6-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ers Section 3.6 of the 2007 EIS (Shorelines) noted four issues directly involving shorelines: stormwater, shellfish, surface water, and public access. Surface water and stormwater are addressed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, and stormwater is also addressed in Section 3.16, Utilities of this SEIS. Shellfish is addressed in the previous section, Section 3.5, Shellfish of this SEIS. Public access is addressed in Section 3.19, BoGG Conditions regarding the compliance with BoCC Condition 63(d). The 2007 EIS includes a Shoreline Characterization Report (DEIS Appendix 3), which includes a shoreline inventory and assessment of the site. This report describes the elements of the natural and built environment along the Hood Canal shoreline including shoreline modification such as bulkheads, piers and docks. A detailed discussion of the shoreline in Pleasant Harbor is presented in the Marina lmpact Analysis report (DEIS Appendix 2). The southern shoreline along Hood Canal is currently undeveloped and contains natural vegetation. Steep slopes roughly 150 feet tall separate the upland property from the shoreline. The shoreline is comprised of numerous mature trees and overhanging vegetation. Boat landing on this shoreline is inhibited by the high quantity of large rocks and shallow depths. A foot trail on the site provides access from the upland portion to the southern shoreline. Due to the steep slopes along this section of shoreline, this foot trail is the only shoreline access from the site. Within the 2007 EIS site boundary, the shoreline includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina, which includes commercial structures within the shoreline jurisdiction. The southern portion of Pleasant Harbor does not contain buildings or structures and contains natural vegetation. A public access boat ramp borders the site to the south. The 2007 EIS notes that all of the salt water shorelines of the Master Plan area are shorelines of the state and shorelines of statewide significance under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for Jefferson County. The shorelines within the site boundary are designated "suburban" for Pleasant Harbor and "conservancy" for the southern bluff shoreline along Hood Canal. Residential development regulations in 2007 required a buffer between a 3O-foot minimum or 100-foot maximum setback from steep slopes such as those along the southern Hood Canal shoreline. sEts As noted in Chapter 2, the marina area has been removed from the SDEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. The shoreline area within the SEIS site boundary along Pleasant Harbor dees-+elincludes the Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed and Breakfast. any-5+*ilding€.-er struetures-The shoreline area along Hood Canal remains in the same condition as under the 2007 Ers. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-1 3.6 Shorelrnes PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW An update of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan began in 2005. The updated shoreline regulations were locally approved in 2009 and conditionally approved by the Department of Ecology in 2011 pending some revisions. The setback and buffer from Pleasant Harbor increased to 150 feet under the new SMP compared to the previous SMP. The setbacks and buffers from the southern Hood Canal shoreline remain the same as under the previous SMP. 3.6-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers Under the 2007 EIS Alternatives, the Maritime Village area would be located within the basin and shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The Harbor is designated "suburban" which is a shoreline zone that contemplates a relatively intense level of shoreline development to promote use and enjoyment of the shoreline. Historic development and expansion of the marina and the boat launch, as well as the intensity of residential development on the Black Point area are reflective of the development contemplated by this zone. The Maritime Village improvements described in the 2007 project proposal would be reflective of that intensity. Under the 2007 EIS alternatives, a shoreline substantial development permit would be required for all development within the Maritime Village, including both marina-related commercial and limited resort housing in the waterside area. The surface water on the 2007 project site includes five small (non fish-bearing streams) within the marina area. The streams pass through and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The streams carry both stormwater from the state highway and intermittent overflow in the wet season. The streams will be left in their native condition, buffered, and all stormwater will be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge. As a result, the flows would be maintained and water quality would be improved as a result of the project. The golf course area would be designed to retain the shoreline jurisdictional area (ordinary high water plus 200 feet) in a natural condition. No project stormwater would be discharged into Hood Canal. The existing stormwater facilities along the highway are inadequate by today's standards and would require upgrading to protect water quality in Pleasant Harbor and Hood Canal. All development within the shoreline area of the harbor would be required to be captured and treated prior to discharge into the harbor. As a result, with modern stormwater management and treatment mechanisms, the net discharge to the harbor would be cleaner, with less turbidity, solids and potential pollutants (road runoff) than currently exists. ln addition, a 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation would be retained along the south shore conservancy shoreline edge to retain the natural condition to the extent possible and provide native plant treatment for stormwater falling outside the developed area. The purpose is to retain the natural filtration component of the riparian edge to retain the natural condition for stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas. ln the master plan this shoreline is dedicated to open space and no structures or golf facilities are to be constructed in the shoreline area. Site-specific wetland mitigation plans may provide for water features and wetland mitigation areas at or in the outer 100 feet of the shoreline area to enable the creation of a wetland forested edge mitigation wetland should such designs prove warranted and feasible during permit review. Any site-specific issues of such a feature would be reviewed under the 3.6 Shorelrnes Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW project-specific environmental review for the shoreline permit required and a specific construction/operation mitigation plan shall be approved prior to construction. The Master Plan would pull all development back from the southern shoreline (including closing the current dangerous trail access) to retain the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. The present degraded road/trail access to the conservancy shoreline is cut off for safety and environmental reasons and a shoreline permit would be required for all such construction to assure safety in the area. Public access to the shorelines in the resort is limited to the marina area's "suburban" shore where the more intense use is anticipated and public facilities to safely accommodate that access are provided. sEts As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or as shown on the Bindino Site Plan (BSP) in the Marina Center (marina upland) area, under a separate existing B+ndncg Site Plen permit, which does not require additional environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of exsting-burld+ng inthemarinaareaundertheSDElSAlternatives.The Maritime Village proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area within the shoreline jurisdiction is now reconfigured and relocated to a new three-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, outside the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The SEIS project site now only includes two small, non fish-bearing streams south of the marina (three of the small streams are outside the current site boundary, north of the marina). The streams pass through and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. ThestreamscarrybothstormwaterfromtheWandintermittentoverflowin the wet season. As with the 2007 ElS, the streams would be left in their native condition, buffered, and all-stormwater from new pollution would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge. As a result, the flowswouldbemaintainedandwaterqualitywouldasaresultofthe project. The 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation along the southern shoreline edge of the site would be retained under the SEIS Alternatives, similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives. Public access to this area would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff. Similar to that under the 2007 ElS, the proposed residences along the southern portion of thesiteonBlackPointwouldbesetback@30feetfromthesteepslopein that area. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The shoreline environment would generally remain as described under existing conditions. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-3 3.6 Shorelrnes PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.6-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor. Public access to the southern shoreline should be curtailed and direct access eliminated. All stormwater generated in the upland marina area shall be captured and treated to C o u nty sta n d a rd s befo re d i sch a rg e.-te-the-aquif,er. All surface water runoff from new poll en-eenstruete*surfaces in the golf courseareashallbecapturedandtreated@inaccordancewith adoptedCountystormwatermanuals@.ZerodischargetoHood Canalfrom the developed golf course#esed area is required. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Highway 101. o The SDEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from with the shoreline buffer to the intersection of Black Point Road and US Highway 101 . The strip of mature trees between US Highway 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SDEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location outside of the shoreline buffer. 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-4 3.6 Shore/rnes a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. SEIS With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.6-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6 Shore/rnes3.6-5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.6 SHORELINES 3.6-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ers Section 3.6 of the 2007 EIS (Shorelines) noted four issues directly involving shorelines: stormwater, shellfish, surface water, and public access. Surface water and stormwater are addressed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, and stormwater is also addressed in Section 3.16, Utilities of this SEIS. Shellfish is addressed in the previous section, Section 3.5, Shellfish of this SEIS. Public access is addressed in Section 3.19, BoCG Conditions regarding the compliance with BoCC Condition 63(d). The 2007 EIS includes a Shoreline Characterization Report (DEIS Appendix 3), which includes a shoreline inventory and assessment of the site. This report describes the elements of the natural and built environment along the Hood Canal shoreline including shoreline modification such as bulkheads, piers and docks. A detailed discussion of the shoreline in Pleasant Harbor is presented in the Marina lmpact Analysis report (DEIS Appendix 2). The southern shoreline along Hood Canal is currently undeveloped and contains natural vegetation. Steep slopes roughly 150 feet tall separate the upland property from the shoreline. The shoreline is comprised of numerous mature trees and overhanging vegetation. Boat landing on this shoreline is inhibited by the high quantity of large rocks and shallow depths. A foot trail on the site provides access from the upland portion to the southern shoreline. Due to the steep slopes along this section of shoreline, this foot trail is the only shoreline access from the site. Within the 2007 EIS site boundary, the shoreline includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina, which includes commercial structures within the shoreline jurisdiction. The southern portion of Pleasant Harbor does not contain buildings or structures and contains natural vegetation. A public access boat ramp borders the site to the south. The 2007 EIS notes that all of the salt water shorelines of the Master Plan area are shorelines of the state and shorelines of statewide significance under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for Jefferson County. The shorelines within the site boundary are designated "suburban" for Pleasant Harbor and "conservancy" for the southern bluff shoreline along Hood Canal. Residential development regulations in 2007 required a buffer between a 3O-foot minimum or 100-foot maximum setback from steep slopes such as those along the southern Hood Canal shoreline. sEts As noted in Chapter 2, the marina area has been removed from the SDEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. The shoreline area within the SEIS site boundary along Pleasant Harbor dees-+et-indudes the Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed and Breakfast. any-b+rilding€-€r struetures-. The shoreline area along Hood Canal remains in the same condition as under the 2007 Ets. 3.6 Shorelines Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW An update of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan began in 2005. The updated shoreline regulations were locally approved in 2009 and conditionally approved by the Department of Ecology in 2011 pending some revisions. The setback and buffer from Pleasant Harbor increased to 150 feet under the new SMP compared to the previous SMP. The setbacks and buffers from the southern Hood Canal shoreline remain the same as under the previous SMP. 3.6-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets Under the 2007 EIS Alternatives, the Maritime Village area would be located within the basin and shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The Harbor is designated "suburban" which is a shoreline zone that contemplates a relatively intense level of shoreline development to promote use and enjoyment of the shoreline. Historic development and expansion of the marina and the boat launch, as well as the intensity of residential development on the Black Point area are reflective of the development contemplated by this zone. The Maritime Village improvements described in the 2007 project proposal would be reflective of that intensity. Under the 2007 EIS alternatives, a shoreline substantial development permit would be required for all development within the Maritime Village, including both marina-related commercial and limited resort housing in the waterside area. The surface water on the 20Q7 project site includes five small (non fish-bearing streams) within the marina area. The streams pass through and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The streams carry both stormwater from the state highway and intermittent overflow in the wet season. The streams will be left in their native condition, buffered, and all stormwater will be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge. As a result, the flows would be maintained and water quality would be improved as a result of the project. The golf course area would be designed to retain the shoreline jurisdictional area (ordinary high water plus 200 feet) in a natural condition. No project stormwater would be discharged into Hood Canal. The existing stormwater facilities along the highway are inadequate by today's standards and would require upgrading to protect water quality in Pleasant Harbor and Hood Canal. All development within the shoreline area of the harbor would be required to be captured and treated prior to discharge into the harbor. As a result, with modern stormwater management and treatment mechanisms, the net discharge to the harbor would be cleaner, with less turbidity, solids and potential pollutants (road runoff) than currently exists. ln addition, a 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation would be retained along the south shore conservancy shoreline edge to retain the natural condition to the extent possible and provide native plant treatment for stormwater falling outside the developed area. The purpose is to retain the natural filtration component of the riparian edge to retain the natural condition for stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas. ln the master plan this shoreline is dedicated to open space and no structures or golf facilities are to be constructed in the shoreline area. Site-specific wetland mitigation plans may provide for water features and wetland mitigation areas at or in the outer 100 feet of the shoreline area to enable the creation of a wetland forested edge mitigation wetland should such designs prove warranted and feasible during permit review. Any site-specific issues of such a feature would be reviewed under the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-2 3.6 Sfiorelines PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW project-specific environmental review for the shoreline permit required and a specific construction/operation mitigation plan shall be approved prior to construction. The Master Plan would pull all development back from the southern shoreline (including closing the current dangerous trail access) to retain the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. The present degraded road/trail access to the conservancy shoreline is cut off for safety and environmental reasons and a shoreline permit would be required for all such construction to assure safety in the area. Public access to the shorelines in the resort is limited to the marina area's "suburban" shore where the more intense use is anticipated and public facilities to safely accommodate that access are provided. sEts As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or as shown on the Bindinq Site Plan (BSP) in the Marina Center (marina upland) area, under a separate existing BinCing Site Plef, permit, which does not require additional environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of exs,tin+burlding inthemarinaareaundertheSDElSAlternatives.The Maritime Village proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area within the shoreline jurisdiction is now reconfigured and relocated to a new three-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, outside the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The SEIS project site now only includes two small, non fish-bearing streams south of the marina (three of the small streams are outside the current site boundary, north of the marina). The streams pass through and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The streamscarrybothstormwaterfromtheWandintermittentoverflowin the wet season. As with the 2007 ElS, the streams would be left in their native condition, buffered, and all-stormwater from new pollution would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge. As a result, the flowswouldbemaintainedandwaterqualitywouldasaresultofthe project. The 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation along the southern shoreline edge of the site would be retained under the SEIS Alternatives, similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives. Public access to this area would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff. Similar to that under the 2007 ElS, the proposed residences along the southern portion of the site on Black Point would be set back appreximate{yno less than 30 feet from the steep slope in that area. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The shoreline environment would generally remain as described under existing conditions. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-3 3.6 Shorelrnes PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.6-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor. Public access to the southern shoreline should be curtailed and direct access eliminated All stormwater generated in the upland marina area shall be captured and treated to Co u nty sta n d a rd s befo re d i sch a rg e.-te{he-aquife+. All surface water runoff from new pollu en eenstrueted surfaces in the golf courSeareashallbecapturedandtreated@inaccordancewith adoptedCountystormwatermanuals@.ZerodischargetoHood Canalfrom the developed golf course#ese* area is required. BoGG Gonditions Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Highway 101. The SDEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from with the shoreline buffer to the intersection of Black Point Road and US Highway 101 . The strip of mature trees between US Highway 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SDEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location outside of the shoreline buffer. 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so a o a a a o a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-4 3.6 Shorelines PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. sErs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.6-4 Significant Unavoida ble Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harhor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.6-5 3.6 Shorelines PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.7 GRITIGAL AREAS This section of the SDEIS describes existing critical areas on the site, and evaluates how development under each of the alternatives could affect these areas. The critical areas discussed and analyzed are the five listed critical areas under the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO): wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The wetland subsection is based on the 2012 Wetlands Mitigation Report (see Appendix J). 3.7.1 Affected Environment 2007 Ets Each of the critical areas listed above were addressed in Section 3.10 of the 2007 DEIS. Each of these critical areas exists on the site, with the exception of frequently flooded areas. Wetlands The 2007 EIS included a detailed wetland assessment (2007 DEIS Appendix 9). The site has three wetlands within the golf course area and none north of Black Point Road within the site. The confirmed wetlands in the golf course area are identified as Wetlands B, C, and D and are rated as Category l!. The onsite wetlands were delineated using the 2004 wetland rating manual as required by JCC 18.15.325(1)(2). Standard wetland buffer widths are 100 feet from a Class ll wetland and 50 feet from a Class lll wetland (JCC 18.50.340(5)). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) made a determination on March 27, 2007 that the wetlands are not jurisdictionalfor purposes of USCOE permit review. Wetlands C and D have well established native buffers. Wetland B has seasonal ponding in a large glacial depression known as a kettle and does have some vegetation, but is also affected by vestiges of logging, roads, and infrastructure and as such has disturbed, marginal habitat in places, and was identified as a candidate for modification and restoration to improve both function and value. Aquifer Recharqe Areas As noted in 3.10 of the 2007 ElS, portions of the Black Point area of the site is mapped as an aq uifer protection district. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas A site-specific Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated July 20, 2006 was contained in the 2007 DEIS Appendix 7 and existing fish and wildlife habitat on and around the site is summarized in Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife, of this SEIS. Frequentlv Flooded Areas The site has no flood plains or frequently flooded areas and these provisions do not apply to the Pleasant Harbor site. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-1 3.7 Critical Areas PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Geologicallv Hazardous Areas The 2007 EIS included a geologic hazard analysis (see 2007 DEIS Appendix 4). The principal geologic hazard feature on the site is the steep bluffs along the southern shore. See Section 3.1.1, Earth of this SEIS for a summary of this steep bluff described in Appendix 4 of the 2007 DEIS. sErs Wetlands Wetland B is approximately 0.475 acres in size and is located at the bottom of the largest kettle in the center of the Black Point area of the site (see Figure 2-6). The kettle, Kettle B, is approximately 140 feet deep with moderately steep slopes that were formed in glacial till. The catchment basin for Wetland B is approximately 30 times the size of the wetland and the main source of hydrology comes from precipitation and localized surface run-off within the catchment basin. There are two other wetlands (Wetland C and D) located within the site boundary in the Black Point area. All of the identified on-site wetlands were determined to be isolated wetlands and not federally jurisdictional as outlined in the jurisdictional determination from the Corps of Engineers dated March 27,2007 Seasonal precipitation and localized run-off is the primary source of hydrology for Wetland B. The moderately steep slopes of Kettle B capture water as it falls into the basin and directs it into bottom of the kettle. Signs of inundation in Wetland B include marks of ponded water up to two feet on vegetation, water stained leaves, adventitious roots and buttressed tree trunks. Hydrology appears to be present on a seasonal basis likely starting in the late fall and ending in the spring. Wetland B is classified as a Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland and is currently undeveloped. Wetland B contains seasonal open-water and is densely occupied by native scrub-shrub and emergent wetland vegetation and that provide food, hiding cover and shelter currently supporting a variety of wildlife species including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Wetland B is not directly connected to streams, tributaries or other wetlands that could provide habitat for fish species. Wetland B is positioned at the bottom of the watershed and collects precipitation runoff from the slopes surrounding the kettle. Precipitation runoff enters the wetland but does not directly discharge back into surface features of the watershed due to its depressional and isolated nature. Wetland B is rated as a Category lll wetland in accordance with the Jefferson County Code with a high score for habitat value. !n general Wetland B scores moderate to high for water quality functions due to it being a closed depressional system that holds back water to allow sediments to settle out and emergent plants to remove pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals and toxic organics. Because Wetland B has no outlet, it was not evaluated for reducing peak flows or decreasing downstream erosion. However Wetland B is considered to function highly for groundwater recharge because there is no surface water outlet and water is only released from the system by groundwater release (recharqe?) and evapotranspiration. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-2 3.7 Critical Areas PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Wetland B provides a relatively high general wildlife habitat function, especially for smaller species such as invertebrate, amphibians and birds because there are relatively large surrounding areas of forested habitat, which provide a large upland buffer necessary for wildlife mobility. Native plant richness provides moderate function and the overall size of the wetland results in a moderate score in functional capacity for mammals, birds, amphibians and other invertebrates. Aquifer Recharqe Areas A description of the aquifer recharge areas within the site is included in Section 3.2.1, Water Resources of this SEIS. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas A description of the wildlife and associated habitat within the site as well as fish within waters adjacent to the site is included in Section 3.4.1, Fish and Wildlife of this SEIS. Frequentlv Flooded Areas As noted in the 2007 ElS, there are no frequently flooded areas on the site. Geoloqicallv Hazardous Areas A description of the steep slope within the site on the southern site boundary is included in Section 3.1.1, Earth, of this SEIS. 3.7.2 2007 Ers Wetlands lmpacts Wetlands are regulated as a critical area under the state's Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.060, and local regulations are to assure that functions and values of the wetland system are maintained. Cour(and Growth Board cases make it clear that wetlands may be altered or moved to accommodate a specific project, so long as the actions are reasonably necessary and the overall subbasin functions and values are retained. The criteria for wetland protection and mitigation are set forth in the County Code for critical areas which governs replacement ratios and buffer management. Wetland B, which is approximately 0.475 acres in size, would be converted from awetland to a control pond for treated process water from the wastewater treatment system and irrigation return flow to provide a source of water reuse and golf course irrigation to reduce the overall water consumption of the site. Wetlands "C" and "D" would remain unaltered and would be retained. Wetland B would be modified to provide adequate storage on site for the processed water from the wastewater treatment system. The wetland at the bottom of this kettle would be filled, and an appropriate mitigation plan would be developed per the compensatory mitigation requirements of JCC 18.15.350(2). Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-3 3.7 Critical Areas PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Although Wetlands C and D would remain unaltered, impacts to retained wetlands C and D could occur both during construction and during operation of the resort. During construction the hydraulic and structural integrity of the wetlands and associated buffers to be saved would be marked and protected. Water quality entering wetlands and buffers would be protected to avoid turbidity. Water quantity entering wetlands and buffers would be assured to avoid a change in function and value for wetlands being preserved. The 2007 EIS outlines several alternative strategies for wetland mitigation. A wetland mitigation plan would be developed in conjunction with the detailed design phase of the project and would be required at the outset of the grading plan in advance of final plat approval and project development when details of the construction would be available. Aquifer Recharqe Areas The County critical area regulations impose specific limits on projects that are designated (mapped) as critical area aquifer recharge areas. Potable water to the Black Point area is provided by ground water, and prohibited uses in significant aquifer recharge areas are detailed as JCC 18.22.120. None of the prohibited uses are to be included in the development of the golf course area, and the Master Plan approval requires the project to meet best management practices for use, treatment, and discharge of all waters used on the golf course. The Master Planned Resort best management practices are taken from aquifer protection guidelines in the County to assure any potential impact to the aquifer is eliminated or minimized. County rules do have special provisions for golf courses, which would be followed, and the Class A recycling regulations also have rules concerning existing potable water sites that would be incorporated into the reuse/recycling treatment and discharge plan for the site to be approved by WDOE as part of the water rights/wastewater discharge permit approval process. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas Section 3.4 of this SEIS summarizes the impacts to Fish and Wildlife within the 2007 ElS. The impacts were also detailed in a site-specific Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated July 20, 2006, contained in 2007 DEIS Appendix 7. Geoloqicallv Hazardous Areas The Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (JCC 18.22) requires setbacks for any structures or development from tall bluffs of at least 100 feet. The project is retaining a 200-foot vegetated edge along the steep slopes and eliminating potential road and trail traffic down or along the bluffs. The plan fully complies with all requirements and provides an extra margin of safety. The stormwater management plan shall require that all water from developed areas be captured in areas sufficiently removed from the bluff edge and are sized sufficiently to avoid discharge to or destabilization of the bluff in the event of wet seasons or upset. sEts ln general, the potential for impacts to critical areas from either SEIS Alternativee 1 oraad 2 remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 ElS. Wetland B would be filled and the steep slopes area at the south end of the property would be preserved under either Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-4 3.7 Critical Areas PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Alternatives 1 and-or 2, as under the 2007 ElS. lmpacts to aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas under Alternative 1 would generally remain the same as under the 2007 ElS. Alternative 2 consolidates development into fewer buildings, thus retaining more existing habitat, reducing impervious surface area and increasing aquifer recharge compared to the 2007 ElS. Wetlands Development under silhe1 Alternativee 1 and q 2 would result in the loss of approximately 20,700 square feet of wetland area associated with Wetland B. The soils within Wetland B would be covered with approximatelv 100 feet of earth and an impermeable layer and then the kettle would be filled with water to the desired level. The water level in Kettle B would be maintained for use in the water recycling system and the golf course driving range. The kettle and pond would eentinue-{e-collect precipitation from the larqer drainaoe basin created bv site qradino.@ien frem the site, The water in the filled kettle would be incorporated into the irrigation system for use on the golf course. Filling Wetland B with water would create a larger, deepwater hydrologic feature that can be used as habitat for waterfowl and amphibians. The construction of the €entr€l-pond fer the water treatment system in the kettle would require the removal of vegetation on the slopes and within Wetland B; therefore, vegetation in Wetland B and its corresponding buffer would be removed. The filling of Wetland B and corresponding buffer would result in the loss of habitat primarily used by birds, mammals and reptiles, but, in return, would create additional habitat for waterfowl and amphibians. To offset the fill of Wetland B, compensatory mitigation is proposed to be provided in another large kettle south of the Wetland B (Kettle C). Jefferson County replacement ratios, based on Ecology's (2006a) document, were used to identify the amount of wetland creation required, and forms the basis of the preparation of this plan. !t is the overall mitigation goal of this project to provide no net loss of wetland functions, values or acreage as a result of development. Mitigation would be on-site and inkind through wetland creation in Kettle C. See Appendix J for a full description of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Development under either Alternativee 1 qand 2 would retain Wetlands C and D, and the proposed development would maintain hydrologic input to these areas. However, development under silhel Alternatives 1 qpnd 2 would encroach on wetland buffer areas. Buffer averaging consistent with Jefferson County Code is proposed to minimize impacts to wetland buffers. Aquifer Recharqe Areas Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-5 3.7 Critical Areas The Jefferson County designated wetland buffer for a Category lll wetland with high impact land use and a high habitat function score is 150 feet from the edge of the wetland. The buffer surrounding Wetland B is occupied by a multi-layer second-growth forest with relatively little invasive species. This buffer is undisturbed and serves as a wildlife corridor and also as habitat for numerous bird, mammal, and reptilian species. The 1S0-foot buffer surrounding Wetland B would be cleared of vegetation to accommodate the proposed water recycling system and driving range. PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW An analysis of the potential impacts to the aquifer recharge areas within the site is included in Section 3.2.2, Water Resources of this SEIS. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas An analysis of the potential impacts to fish and wildlife and associated habitat within the site is included in Section 3.4.2, Fish and Wildlife of this SEIS. Geological lv Hazardous Areas Potential impacts to the steep slope on the southern site boundary are detailed in Section 3.1.2, Earth of this SEIS. No Action Alternative 3.4,3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Comoleted The stormwater management plan for the golf course shall demonstrate compliance with the County requirement for golf courses and stormwater management on aquifer protection districts. An approved preconstruction aquifer protection plan shall demonstrate retention of sheet flow water and ground wells onsite. o See Section 3.2, Water Resources and Appendix F of this SEIS for the stormwater management plan and aquifer protection plan. Wetlands shall be protected from development (except the central kettle used for reuse and recycling) and a wetland buffer and mitigation plan shall be developed which demonstrates, under best available science principles, that the wetland functions and values of the resort area have been maintained through a combination of retained, enhanced, and constructed wetlands and buffers. The plan shall demonstrate no net loss to overallwetland area function and value. o The 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan (Appendix F) fulfills this mitigation measure. a a a An approved preconstruction wetland mitigation plan must demonstrate how loss of wetland habitat is offset, protection measures for water quality and quantity maintenance, and buffer protection. Such protections must be in place prior to Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-o 3.7 Critical Areas Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The fish and wildlife resources would generally remain as described under existing conditions. PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW commencement of any grading onsite. The wetland mitigation report for the central kettle shall be approved and demonstrate how the overall system will operate, both during construction and operation to assure overall no net loss of function and value for the resort area wetland system. o The 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J). Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The stormwater management plan for construction shall require all wetland areas (existing and new) meet the no net loss test and are in place prior to the removal of the central kettle wetland. The three northerly streams shall be set aside in a natural area, and development shall be limited to that necessary to provide adequate access and road right-of-way. All culverts carrying streams shall be fish passable where the preconstruction reports identify that a stream has the potential for fish passage if obstructions can be removed. o These three northerly streams are outside of the SEIS site boundary. This mitigation measure shall apply to the existing Binding Site Plan for the marina area. The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. Mitiqation Measures to be !mplemented Concurrent with Operation The resort shall be required to annually collect water quality monitoring data from the state water quality sampling station at Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the County. ln the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall consult with the resort, the local residents, and the State (both WDOH and WDFW) concerning the source of the change. The resort permits shall require the resort to implement any mitigation measures determined necessary by the County to alleviate any water quality issues emanating from the resort properties. BoGG Gonditions No mitigation measures were identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) specifically applicable to critical areas that are not addressed in other sections (e.9., Section 3.{, Earth; Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife). SEIS ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measures would apply: Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction o a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-7 3.7 Critical Areas PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The mitigation of Wetland B shall be implemented in accordance with the 2012 Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J). The buffer reduction/averaging for Wetlands C and D shall be mitigated in accordance with the 2012Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J). Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation Post-construction monitoring of the created wetland will occur on an annual basis for a minimum of 5 years and up to 10 years based on the success of the project, in accordance with the 2012Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J). Maintenance of the wetland creation areas will be conducted throughout the monitoring years and will be the responsibility of Statesman to ensure completion. Maintenance during the first two years will include periodic watering (irrigation) and control of undesirable species. Maintenance during the subsequent years will be focused on invasive plant removal. 3.7.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Site development under either Alternatives 1 an+or 2 would result in the loss of approximately 20,700 square feet of wetland area (Kettle B) and a portion of the wetland buffers associated with Wetlands C and D. However, wetland creation and wetland buffer averaging consistent with Jefferson County regulations is proposed. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.7-8 3.7 Critical Areas PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.8 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES This section of the SDEIS describes existing energy and natural resourc€ conditions on the site, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section also focuses on how the proposed project complies with the intent of the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards, as required by the BoCC conditions for the proposed project. 3.E.{ Aflected Envlronment 2007 Ers Energy and natural resource conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEls Existing uses of energy and natural resources within the site include electrical power and propane gas. Electricity is supplied to the site via the Mason County IPUD]. Propq4e gas !s utilized by the adjacent marina and surrounding residential uses. Natural gas is not provided in the area. Existing energy and natural resource usage on the Pleasant Harbor site are limited due to the existing primarily vegetated and forested condilion of the site. Under existing conditions, the Black Point Campground area of the site is currently primarily comprised of existing vegetation and vacant buildings. The site is not actively in use therefore it does not utilize energy and natural resources. Energy usage is currently associated with the existing single family residences. real estate office. and the Pleasant Tides water svstem wells on the Maritime Village portion of the site. The rest of the site is not in current use. 3.E-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers As noted previously, energy and natural resource conditions and impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under sllhe1 Alternatives 1 an+912 would use energy in the form of electricity, with geothermal used as an alternate source of heating and cooling; biodiesel cogeneration would also be utilized underAlternative 1 as an alternate source of heating. Development under_gilhgl Alternatives 1 *d-ot .2 would result in an increase in energy levels compared to existing conditions. Approximately of 3.8 (?) megawatts of elec{ricity would be required for buildout of the proposed projec{. Energy to power the residential, commercial, conference, and utility uses would be provided by the Mason County Public Utility District. The Mason County PUD has indicated that Commented [ks2l: Garth indicated on 2/26 that Steve Taylor would prcvidc a report from Mason County PUD. lnfo lrom that report will be inserted here. The Epo.t should indic.te availability and futuE infr.st.ucture nelds based on capacity. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.8-1 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources Commented [bl]: Th€ applicant has indicatsd that a report is cunontly being drafted with the PUD but will not be complete until after the scheduled issuan@ of tho DEIS (mid- July?). \Mll add any infomation her Egarding existing d6flcioncies or PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW For the wastewater pump stations, backup standby power would be eith€++e+iyedplgyrcl9d by the use of a truck mounted gasoline generator ang[er-a permanent onsite generatorg. Propane would continue to be utilized on site for cookinq in restaurants in Terrace 1 and at the Maritime Villaqe. for fireolace uses) Within both SEIS Alternatives, the proposed project includes geothermal exchange as an alternative energy source. Geothermal exchange would use the ambient temperatures in the ground to improve efficiency and operation cost of heating and cooling. Earth, groundwater, and pond water have more consistent temperatures and can exchange temperature better than the air; thus is more efficient. The earth will be used as a heat source in cold weather and a heat sink in warm weather. The reclaimed water reservoir would provide a medium for the exchange of heating and cooling for the geo-exchange mechanical systems. Under SEIS Alternative 1, on-site biodiesel co-generation is proposed. Reduced energy consumption would be achieved with the tri-generation of collecting the waste heat from the combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration unit and relaying this heat for pool and spa heating. Waste heat collected from the CHP cogeneration unit would contribute to heating in common areas, further reducing energy demand. This cogeneration unit is not part of SEIS Alternative 2. LEED ln the United States and in a number of other countries around the world, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is the recognized standard for measuring building sustainability. The LEED green building rating system - developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a Washington D.C.-based, nonprofit coalition of building industry leaders - is designed to promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being. LEED consists of a suite of rating systems for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, homes and neighborhoods. LEED is intended to provide building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. ln LEED 2009 (the third and most recent version of LEED) there are 100 possible base points distributed across five major credit categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, lndoor Environmental Quality, plus an additional six points for lnnovation in Design and an additional four points for Regional Priority. The goal of the LEED 2009 performance credit system is to allocate points "based on the potential environmental impacts and human benefits of each credit." LEED certification is obtained after submitting an application documenting compliance with the requirements of the rating system as well as paying registration and certification fees. While the applicant is not obligated to receive LEED certification for the proposed project, the applicant agrees to comply with the intent of LEED standards (see Appendix K - Nanative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED Standards). This narrative also includes the potential number of points awarded to the project per compliance with the LEED standards. Pleasant Hatbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.8-2 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW As noted above, LEED standards are grouped into the following five base categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, lndoor Environmental Quality, plus two extra categories: lnnovation in Design and Regional Priority. Appendix K lists each of the categories and subcategories for which potential points could be earned toward LEED certification and how the proposed project meets the intent of each of categories. Within the Sustainable Sites category, the project would have a potential of 25.5 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the prerequisite of Construction Activity Pollution Prevention. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Site Selection; Development Density and Community Connectivity; Alternative transportation (including public transportation access, bicycle storage and changing rooms, low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles, and parking capacity); Site Development - protect or restore habitat, and maximize open space; Stormwater Design - quality control; Heat lsland Effect - non roof and roof; and Light Pollution Reduciion. The only subcategory under Sustainable Sites for which this p@ect would not earn points is Brownfield Development, as this subcategory does not apply to this project. Within the Water Efficiency category, the project would have a potential of 10 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the prerequisite of Water Use Reduction. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Water Efficient Landscaping; lnnovate Water Technology; and Water Use Reduction (further increase water efficiency). Within the Energy and Atmosphere category, the project would have a potential of 25 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the three prerequisites of Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems, Minimum Energy Performance, and Fundamental Refrigerant Management. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Optimize Energy Performance, On-Site Renewable Energy, Enhanced Commissioning, Enhanced Refrigerant Management, Measurement and Verification, and Green Power. Within the Materials and Resources category, the project would have a potential of 25 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the prerequisite of Occupant Waste Reduction. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Waste Management; Recycled Content; Regional Materials, and Rapidly Renewable Materials. The two subcategories under Materials and Resources for which this project would not earn points are Building Reuse and Certified Wood. Within the lndoor Environmental Quality category, the project would have a potential of 14 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the two prerequisites of Minimum lndoor Air Quality Performance and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control. The project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring; lncreased Ventilation; Construction lndoor Air Quality Management Plan - During Construction and Before Occupancy; Low-Emitting Materials - Adhesives and Sealants, Paints and Coatings, Flooring Systems, Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products; lndoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control; Controllability of Systems - Lighting and Thermal Comfort; Thermal Comfort - Design; and Daylight and Views. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.8-3 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Within the two e)dra categories, lnnovation in Design and Regional Priority, the project would potentially earn 5 and 4 points, respectively in each category. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The energy and natural resources would generally remain as described under existing conditions. 3.8-3 Mltlgatlon teasures 2007 Ers As noted previously, energy and natural resource impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No energy and natural resource mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measure identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures To Be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate eleclrical power shall be obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District. 63 (x) Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and "Green Built" green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to commercial and residential dwelling, respectively, "promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being. o The Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED standards (Appendix K) addresses this condition. lmplementation of the measures noted in Appendix K fulfills this condition. SEIS With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.4.4 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in increased energy use. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.8-l 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.8-5 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.9 TRANSPORTATION This section of the SDEIS describes the existing transportation system on the site and in the vicinity, summarizes the analysis presented in lhe 2007 ElS, and evaluates how development under each of the alternatives could affect the transportation network. This section is based on a transportation technical memorandum (Appendix L) that was prepared on January 30, 2012 as an addendum to supplement the 2007 EIS transportation technical report (2007 EIS Appendix 6). 3.9-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ers Section 3.4 of the 2007 EIS describes the existing transportation system within the study area, including an inventory of existing roadway conditions, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, collision history, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and planned roadway improvements. Roadways U.S. Highway 101 (U.S.(?) Hwy '101) is a state rural arterialthat runs along the eastern-wgs'le1n boundary of a portion of the site. Black Point Road is local access street that intersects with US Hwy 101 and provides primary access to the site. Other roadways in the study area include SR 104, Center Road, Dosewallips Road, and Duckabush Road. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes for 2006 are presented in Appendix 6 of the 2007 ElS. Daily traffic volumes were obtained from WSDOT, and daily traffic counts on US Hwy 101 and Center Road were conducted prior to and during Labor Day Weekend 2006, including p.m. peak hour turning movement counts at all study intersections. At other locations, a two percent per year growth rate was used to forecast historical traffic volumes to estimate 2006 conditions. During the peak summer month of August, traffic volumes recorded on US HWY 101 (at the permanent WSDOT traffic recorder station 15 miles south of Black Point Road) were approximately one{hird higher than the annual average daily volumes. Levels of Service Levels of Service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or road segment. Appendix 6 of the 2007 EIS summarizes the delay range for each LOS at unsignalized intersections. LOS standards in Jefferson County are LOS C for rural roads and LOS D for all other roads. LOS on State Highways is LOS C for US HWY 101 and SR 104. Existing p.m.peak hour LOS at study intersections are summarized in Table 3-6 of the 2007 ElS. All intersections operated at LOS B or better. Detailed LOS summary worksheets were provided in Appendix 6 of the 2007 ElS. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-1 3.9 Transportation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Collision Historv Table 3-7 of the 2007 EIS summarizes historical collision data as provided by WSDOT for the 3- year period between January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005 at all study intersections. There were no fatal collisions within the project site vicinity in this 3-year period. There were no reported collisions at US HWY 101 and Center Road, US HWY 101 at Black Point Road, SR 104 Ramp at Center Road, and SR 104 at Center Road Ramp. All study intersections had an average annual collision rate equal to or less than 1.0 and a collision rate per MEV equal to or less than 0.88. None of the study intersections were considered to be high collision locations. Public Transportation The 2007 EIS indicated that Jefferson Transit Route '1 provides public transportation services in the area, with a stop on US HWY 101 at Black Point Road, adjaeeRlon to the project site. Route1 provides Monday to Saturday service to Brinnon, Quilcene, and the HadlocUlrondale/Chimacum Tri-Area. Service at US HWY 101 and Black Point Road is provided between 7:10 a.m. until 7:55 p.m. with stops every 2 to 3 hours. Saturday service is provided at the US HWY 101 and Black Point Road intersection from 8:55 a.m. until 7:10 p.m. with stops every 4 to 5 hours. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities US HWY 101 consists of 3- to 1O-foot paved shoulders. Black Point Road provides 1- to 3-foot grass/gravel shoulders which are generally inadequate to accommodate pedestrian or non motorized traffic. US H\ /Y 101 does accommodate significant summer bike travel, even though the highway does not have identified bike lanes. Riders on US HWY 101 are aware of its limitations in terms of nanow shoulders and site distances the length of Hood Canal. Planned Roadwav lmprovements bv Others Jefferson County's 2007-2012 Transportation lmprovement Program (TlP) identified no transportation-capacity improvement project that would be impacted by vehicular trips from the proposed project. sEts The existing roadway and traffic conditions have not changed substantially since the 2007 EIS to warrant additional traffic counts or data collection. While ongoing traffic counting programs have been completed by WSDOT and other public agencies within the study area of the proposed project, there have been no comprehensive plan updates, transportation studies, or traffic impact studies of other proposed development that would change the baseline data or assumptions of the original transportation impact analysis completed in 2007. The original baseline assumptions and forecasts remain very conservative for the SEIS analysis. 3.9-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-2 3.9 Transpoftation PRELIMINARY DR,AFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The 2007 EIS describes transportation impacts the proposed Pleasant Harbor development would have on the surrounding arterial network and critical intersections in the site vicinity. The discussion includes non-project related traffic forecasts, new trips generated by the proposed development, distribution and assignment of new project trips, traffic volume impacts, impacts on LOS at nearby significant intersections, public transportation services, non-motorized facilities, and site access, circulation, and safety issues. Non-Proiect Traffic Forecasts For the purpose of the traffic analysis in the 2007 ElS, year 2017 was selected as the build-out year based upon full completion and occupancy of the proposed Pleasant Harbor development. Existing traffic volumes were factored by 2 percent per year to estimate year 2017 baseline conditions without the proposed development alternatives. Proiect Trip Generation To evaluate a worst-case scenario, p.m.(P.M?) peak hour vehicle trip generation was considered assuming peak summer traffic conditions in combination with no reductions for seasonal occupancy factors. Appendix 6 of the 2007 EIS outlines the supporting documentation and trip generation assumptions related to the Preferred Alternative (Statesman MPR Alternative). Table 3-8 of the 2007 EIS summarizes estimated net trip generation by the proposed Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. An estimated total of approximately 4,100 daily and 363 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (186 entering and 177 exiting) would be generated at full build-out and occupancy of the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. Trip Distribution and Assiqnment Using standard engineering practices and guidelines, new vehicle trips generated by the proposed Pleasant Harbor development were distributed and assigned to the surrounding street system based on local traffic patterns and recent traffic studies conducted in the study area and approved by Jefferson County. Project trip distribution was assumed to follow these patterns from the proposed site: 35 percent to the east via SR 104 to Seattle and Tacoma. 3 percent to the west via Dosewallips Road and Duckabush Road. 25 percent to the north via US HWY 101 and SR 104 to the Olympic Peninsula, Port Townsend, and Whidbey lsland. 30 percent to the south via US HWY 101 to Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle. 7 percent localto Dosewallips State Park and Quilcene. Traffic Volume lmpacts Traffic volumes were estimated for daily and p.m.(P.M.?) peak hour conditions to the year 2017 without the proposed project and with the proposed project. Peak hour traffic impacts remained within approvable LOS limits at study intersections in 2017 without the project and under all development alternatives. Detailed traffic volume forecast estimates were provided in Attachment A of Appendix 6 of the 2007 EIS: Transportation lmpact Study. a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-3 3.9 Transportation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pub! ic Transportation lm pacts JeffersonTransitRoute1stopstheprojectsiteatthe intersection of US HWY 101 at Black Point Road, providing transit service fourtimes per day to the main entrance of the Pleasant Harbor properties. At the time of the 2007 ElS, the applicant proposed to purchase and maintain a van or small shuttle bus available for guests and tenants to utilize on an as-needed basis for use in group trip making, coordinated events, airport shuttle, and other miscellaneous traffic. The applicant also proposed to work with Jefferson Transit in scheduling and expanding service as necessary to the resort as well as considering joint opportunities to provide layover or transit service and facilities within the site. Non-motorized Transportation lmpacts The 2007 EIS noted that the applicant would be required to fully fund and construct associated frontage improvements onto US HWY 101 and Black Point Road to accommodate nonmotorized facility improvements such as sidewalks, improved shoulder widths, or paved pathways internal to the project and accommodations for bicycle traffic through the intersection with US HWY 101 and project frontages. The applicant proposed to work with Jefferson County in developing a nonmotorized circulation system within the site available to the public that would not impact County or State highways and would provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation between the two proposed main development districts (i.e., Black Point Properties and Maritime Village). lntersection Leve! of Service lmpacts ln Table 3-9 of the 2007 ElS, intersection LOS impacts during the p.m. peak hour were evaluated at study intersections in 2017 without the proposed project and under all development Alternatives. All stop-controlled movements at study intersections would operate at LOS C or better with and without the development Alternatives in 2017. All intersections would meet adopted local and state LOS standards. The 2007 EIS noted that a project-specific LOS evaluation update would be required at the time of the preliminary plat application to identify specific mitigation requirements, but the studies completed for the 2007 EIS show traffic at all levels and affected intersections operating well within acceptable limits and no significant capacity improvements were anticipated as a result of the project. The 2007 EIS also noted that significant right of way and intersection improvements would be required at the immediate vicinity of the project to accommodate left turns and the revised access to the master plan area, reducing the overall number of entry points onto US HWY 101. The 2007 EIS indicated that design of these sections and WSDOT approval for all work on State Right of Way would be required at the time of preliminary Plat approval. Safetv The 2007 EIS noted that as with the traffic volume data, traffic collision data will be reviewed in conjunction with the preliminary plat to assure the plat is approved based on the most current data. But Table 3-7 of the 2007 EIS showed no significant issues that need to be addressed during platting other than the standard road design and ingress and egress requirements common to plat review and approval. The 2007 EIS noted that caution would need to be exercised in connection with any development west of US HWY 101, particularly development Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-4 3.9 Transpoftation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW which would increase crossing movements as the intersection at Black Point road does have severe limits to accommodate crossing traffic. Alignment of entrances to any development west of US HWY 101 would have to be viewed by the County in the context of the planned increased traffic from the resort. Site Access and Circulation lssues The 2007 EIS noted that vehicular site access would be consolidated for the Maritime Village and Black Point Property at US HWY 101 and Black Point Road under the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. A right-only driveway from the Maritime Village onto US HWY 101 would also be provided. All other existing access connections onto US HWY 101 would be closed and removed. ln the 2007 EIS under the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative, the applicant proposed three new site access roadways onto Black Point Road for the Black Point Property and Maritime Village, including: 1. A private frontage road that parallels US HWY 101 between Black Point Road and the Maritime Village. Existing traffic associated with the State of Washington Boat Launch Pleasant Harbor would intersect this new frontage road in a consolidated access onto Black Point Road. 2. An emergency-only access into Black Point properties, located opposite the proposed private frontage road on Black Point Road, would also serve a maintenance facility and the proposed community center. 3. A main entry roadway into the resort on Black Point Road, approximately 0.7 miles from US HWY 101, that would serve all traffic to/from the Black Point resort property. The internal roadway within the development would provide adequate on-site, two-way circulation. The applicant would be required to fully fund and construct the necessary site driveways and associated improvements onto US HWY 101 and Black Point Road. As noted in the Section 3.4.2.1 of the 2007 ElS, Black Point Road was originally constructed in the late 1980s with a 12-inch Class B gravel base and two shots of bituminous surface treatment. Based upon increased traffic loads during construction and at full buildout and occupancy, the structural section and roadway do not meet current road standards for a collector and would be brought up to current standards during final plat development for the golf course. Access Management Standards Access management standards identified in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 468-52-040-2 - Highway Access Management - Access Control Classification System and Standard were evaluated in relation to the proposed action. US H\Mf 101 in the site vicinity is classified as a Class 2 facility under WDOT's access management standards. Based on proposed closure of all existing access connections into the Maritime Village area as proposed by the applicant in the 2007 ElS, the proposed private access connections would be located more than 660 feet away from other existing private access connections. Therefore it complies with minimum access management standards. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-5 3.9 Transportation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Marine Resort lnternal Access The internal circulation road between the Maritime Village and the golf course permits circulation without traversing US HWY 101. All traffic exiting on the one-way street north of the Maritime Village would be directed north bound only on US HWY 101 under the proposal. The 2007 EIS noted that the project level detailed designs for circulation must be approved by both Jefferson County and WSDOT. sEts A transportation technical memorandum addendum (Appendix L) was prepared on January 30, 2012 as an addendum to supplement the 2007 EIS transportation technical report (2007 EIS Appendix 6). This memorandum evaluates changes to vehicular site access assumptions and project trip generation under SDEIS either Alternatives 1 #ot .2 from those analyzed in the 2007 ElS, and the resultant changes in potential traffic impacts. ln general, the overall trip generation for SEIS either Alternativee I aaC-or .2 would generally remain the same as those alternatives evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The level of service (LOS) at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection would not change from the 2007 ElS, even with the potential reductions from implementation of a shuttle bus system. Site access and internal circulation would be slightly modified under the SEIS Alternatives. Changes to Proposed Circulation Svstem Modifications to the proposal subsequent to the 2007 FEIS consolidates all vehicular access for new land uses to the SRUS !-l!t{_101 and Black Point Road intersection. The existing roadway approach of Black Point Road onto US Hwy 101 would be shifted to the south to align with US Hwy 101 with a nearly 9O-degree intersection angle, providing optimal intersection geometry. lmmediately east of US Hwy 101 along Black Point Road, a new intersection would be constructed to provide access to the north and south portions of the site, provide access to a new transit stop/layover area, and serve as emergency vehicle/maintenance access to the main Golf Course Resort area (see Figure 2-8). Under SEIS either Alternativee 1 aa*or.2, a private frontage road (Marina Access Drive) would parallelUSHwy101betweenBlackPointRoadandthe@pland.A24-foot wide frontage road would be located approximatelv 300 feet east of US Hwy 101. Beyond the Maritime Village, the frontage roadway would be reduced to a minimum of 12 feet in width for pedestrian circulation, staff vehicles, emergency vehicles, and golf cart access to the Marina area. The primary access roadway onto Black Point Road would be located approximately one mile east of US Hwy 101 and would serve alltraffic to and from the Golf Course/Resort. A secondary access roadway onto Black Point Road would be located approximately 300 feet east of US Hwy 101 and would be gated and used for emergency vehicles and staff/maintenance access only. This access roadway would align with the Marina Access Drive into the Maritime Village. To accommodate transit access to the site by both Jefferson County and Mason County agencies, a transit layover and bus zone would be accommodated on-site within the southeast quadrant of the realigned US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-6 3.9 Transpoftation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The applicant proposes to purchase two shuttle buses to transport groups to/from the site and SeaTac Airport for conferences and other events. The shuttle buses would also be used for group excursions within Jefferson County and the Puget Sound area. Resort residents would also have the option of daily renting resort-provided electrical carts to travel between the Golf Course/Resort and the Maritime Village and other internal trips, which could also utilize the private frontage road paralleling US Hwy 101 (Marina Access Drive). Trip Generation The land use assumptions for e[hel Alternative 1 an4or 2 would generally remain the same as those evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The distribution of land uses on site changes slightly under the SEIS Alternatives; however, the overall trip generation and trip distribution and assignment of the proposal remains similar. Traffic Volumes The transportation technical memorandum (Appendix L) notes that the total project trips may be reduced based on the proposal for shuttle buses to transport people to/from Seattle-Tacoma Airport and for group excursion trips. lmplementation of the proposed shuttle bus system would decrease the overall level of trip making to/from the site by up to 260 trips per day or 65 p.m.(P.M?) peak hour trips, or a decrease of approximately six percent. lt should be noted that these potential reductions were not used in design support thresholds at US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road. Level of Service The level of service (LOS) at the US Hwy 't01 and Black Point Road intersection would not change from the 2007 ElS, even with the potential reductions from implementation of a shuttle bus system. The westbound approach would continue to operate at LOS B with a queue of one vehicle or less, and the southbound left approach would continue to operate at LOS A. Site Access Under either Alternative 1 or 2, stop-controlled entering/exiting movements at project site driveways onto US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road would operate at LOS B or better with little or no vehicular queuing (see Appendix L). Based on procedures and guidelines in WSDOT's Design Manual, a 1OO-foot southbound left- turn lane is warranted on US Hwy 101 approaching Black Point Road. See Appendix L for the results of this warrant analysis. SEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 include this intersection improvement. The potential for a northbound right-turn lane was also analyzed, considering typical evening commute periods.; A northbound 60-foot right-turn pocket with a 1OO-foot taper was warranted Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-7 3.9 Transportation The existing WDFW boat launch access is addressed differently under the two SEIS alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the WDFW boat launch would be relocated and interconnected with the proposed Maritime Village Access roadway at a new intersection east of US Hwy 1O1/Black Point Road. Under Alternative 2, the WDFW boat launch access to Pleasant Harbor on Black Point Road would be realigned east of its present location at a new intersection approximately 1,000 feet east of US Hwy 101 on Black Point Road. PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW based on the WSDOT Design Manual. SEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 include this intersection improvement. WDFW Drivewav Access to Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch As noted previously, the existing alignment of the WDFW driveway for the Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch does not provide adequate entering sight distance for safe egress onto Black Point Road. As such, two driveway access alternatives are considered as part of the SEIS Alternatives. Alternative 1 Under this alternative, the existing traffic and access driveway onto Black Point Road from the state (WDFW) Boat Launch would be realigned to intersect with the common frontage road to the Maritime Village north of Black Point Road as a "T-intersection" interior to the site. Under this access configuration, both traffic associated with the Maritime Village and the WDFW Boat Launch driveway would utilize a common new intersection constructed as part of the project east of US Hwy 101 on Black Point Road (see Figure 2-7). To construct this realignment of the WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch driveway, substantialfill material and topography changes would be required to construct this interior T-intersection. In addition, property transfer or stringent access easements across private property would be needed to allow for public access to occur within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort properties. This configuration would mix both project-generated traffic and WDFW boat launch traffic within a closely spaced intersection system, and potentially cause traffic congestion during peak use of the boat launch utilization. lnitially, WDFW representatives conceptually agreed that this access solution would be possible but not ideal. However, WDFW representatives have indicated that a better solution should be investigated.l Alternative 2 Under this alternative, the WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch access roadway would be realigned further east and intersect Black Point Road approximately 1,000 feet east of US Hwy 101 (see Figure 2-8). The new alignment would follow an old road grade within property managed by WDFW, and impacts to existing topography and public lands would be substantially less than under Alternative 1. This access roadway would serve only the WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch, and is preferred by WDFW representatives.2 Gonstruction lmpacts As noted in Chapter 2, the applicant proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort in two main stages. For each of these major construction stages, off-site vehicle trips would be generated impacting vicinity roadways and intersections over the course of the assumed 10-year buildout period. Completion of major roadway improvements at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection would be completed early in the construction period. During the course of each construction stage, three main types of traffic would be generated: I Personal electronic communication between Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant's engineer) and Penny Warren and John Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, March 18, 201 1 . 2 Personal electronic communication between Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant's engineer) and Penny Warren and John Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, August 19,2011. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-8 3.9 Transportation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW employee trips, transportation of construction materials and equipment, and miscellaneous trips generated by agency inspectors, related business trips, etc. Typical site preparation, utility development, grading and other earthworUwetland construction activities would involve between 20 and 40 employees/contractors on site on a typical weekday. However, during construction of specific buildings or infrastructure (e.9,, wastewater treatment plant), an additional 30 to 40 employees/contractors would be on site. During peak construction activities, ranges between 75 and 100 construction employees would be on site during periods in which intense construction activity is taking place, generating upwards of 250 daily vehicle trips. Transportation of materials and equipment would occur during short periods throughout the course of the day to accommodate specific equipment transfer or occur over several days to handle specific material transport needs. During these limited periods, larger trucks would be utilized and would typically be limited to less than 50 trips on any given day. Best management practices would be implemented by contractors during construction, including necessary on-site truck wash facilities or oversized load transport routing and operations. ln total, typical daily vehicle traffic generation related to construction activities are estimated to be up to 300 daily vehicle trips. This level is less than 10 percent of the total site buildout daily trip generation under the SEIS Alternatives, and therefore, would not represent a significant adverse traffic impact. Parkinq Demand Parking would be provided in a variety of structured and surface facilities at various locations throughout the development to meet the parking needs of each Alternative. Alternative 1 proposes 1,644 stalls, while Alternative 2 proposes 1,580 stalls. Table 3.9-1 Proposed Parking Capacity By Alternative Source.'Hamilton Architects and the Stafesman Corporation, April 2013. Demand for parking was estimated for each land use alternative (see Appendix L for approach and methodology). Table 9-2 below summarizes estimated peak parking demand by Alternative during peak weekday and weekend day use within the SEIS study area, exclusive of the marina area. Peak parking demand for the site as a whole would be less than the proposed supply under both either Alternativee 1 an4or 2. Table 3.9-2 PEAK DEMAND FOR PARKING STALLS BY ALTERNATIVE Proposed Supply Weekday Demand Weekend Demand Demand Surplus(t/ Deficit(:) Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(- Structured Parking Surface Parking Total Parkins Alternative 1 1,003 stalls 641 stalls 1,644 stalls Alternative 2 893 stalls (888?)687 stalls 1,580 stalls Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9 3.9-9 Transportation )Sr*plu#Defieit +218 stalls 1,308 stalls + 336 stallsAlternative 1 1,644 stalls 1,426 stalls 1,580 stalls 1,435 stalls -+145 stalls 1,33'1 stalls +249 stallsAlternative 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Source.' TENW,2012 and David Hamilton April2013. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. Transportation conditions would remain generally the same as described under existing conditions. 3.9-3 MitiAation Measures 2007 EIS The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. a a a Fully fund and construct associated improvements for Black Point Road to meet County standards from US HWY 101 to the project entrance. Provide adequate site distance to the east of the proposed main site driveways onto Black Point Road and the egress from Maritime Village in US HWY 101 to improve and maximize entering and exit sight distance. At the US HWY 101 and Black Point Road intersection, provide a southbound left-turn lane as part of project development in all scenarios except the no action alternative. With the Statesman proposal, the expansion of the existing T-intersection would also provide for a median refuge area for left turns from Black Point Road onto US HWY 101. Provide a northbound right-turn pocket or taper at US HWY 101 at the Black Point Road intersection under the Statesman proposal. Residents of the Maritime Village shall be given access to the golf course resort without traveling US HWY 101. A detailed traffic design to accommodate traffic on US HWY 101 returning to the resort must be developed, with further traffic analysis and design approval by WDOT and Jefferson County. Reconstruct the Black Point Road approach to US HWY 101 with adjacent left turning lanes, a widened approach onto US HWY 101, and an "entry treatment" on Black Point Road at US HWY 101. The proposed site access concept would also include a consolidated intersection onto Black Point Road with a realignment of the WDFW boat launch at Pleasant Harbor either in a combined or separate intersection. Provide all access roads and internal roads available for public use to County road standards. Private drives may be to a lesser standard approved by the Public Works Department and emergency service providers during the preliminary plat phase if desired by the applicant. Provide an internal pathway and circulation system within the site that would not impact County or State highways, would provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation between the two main development districts, and would allow US HWY 101 bicycle traffic bypass through the resort (i.e. Black Point properties and Maritime Village). a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-10 3.9 Transportation o Provide a van or small shuttle bus for guests and tenants to utilize on an as- needed basis for use in group trip making, coordinated events, airport shuttle, and other miscellaneous traffic. All such services shall be coordinated with Jefferson Transit to schedule expanded service as necessary to the resort as well as consider joint opportunities to provide layover or transit service and facilities within the site. BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. a 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for [...] transit prior to approval of the development agreement. o The developer has developed a draft MOU with Jefferson Transit to fulfill this condition. sErs All mitigation measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS either Alternatives 1 #ot.2. Additional mitigation measures proposed are listed below. Upon completion of major on-site construction activities, Black Point Road shall be upgraded to satisfy minimum County requirements for pavement conditions and width. This work is currently identified in Stage ll: Phase 2 of the proposed construction sequence. a o PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ln addition, the preliminary plat approval for the golf course portion of the resort should evaluate trip management plans as an alternative to simple roadway expansion. Such plans may include: ln addition to re-grading the adjacent topography on the east side of the existing site access roadway, guardrail, line of sight clearing, and an emergency-only zone shall be established within WSDOT right-of-way to provide for additional fire and emergency vehicle access purposes adjacent to US Hwy 101. A right-of-way permit shall be applied for by the applicant with WSDOT to make these proposed improvements. Develop construction documents in accordance with the WSDOT-approved Plan for Approval (PFA) channelization plan to implement the turn lane improvements, Black Point Road reconstruction/realignment, access consolidation, and other elements. To reduce off-site traffic impacts and reduce on-site circulation, the applicant has proposed the following: o A shuttle bus system for airport shuttle services and excursions to local destinations.o An on-site fleet of electric carts for internal travel within the Golf Course/Resort area, the Maritime Village, and the Marina area. o a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-11 3.9 Transpoftation PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW o An on-site layover and transit zone in the southeast corner of the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection to accommodate intercommunity transfers between Jefferson and Mason Transit systems as well as access to public transportation systems. 3.9-4 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. 3.9 Transportation Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.9-12 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.{O Air Quality This section of the SEIS describes existing air quality conditions on the site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emisslons Report (May 2012), included in Appendix M. 3.{ O-l Affected Environment 2007 Ets Air quality conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. Scientists have observed, however, an unprecedented increase in the rate of warming in the past 150 years. This recent warming has coincided with the !ndustrial Revolution, which resulted in widespread deforestation to accommodate development and agriculture, and an increase in the use of fossil fuels, which has released substantial amounts of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by both natural processes and human activities and trap heat in the atmosphere. The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. While research has shown that the earth's climate has natural warming and cooling cycles, evidence indicates that human activity has elevated the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally- occurring concentrations resulting in more heat being held within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists from 130 governments, has concluded that it is "very likely" - a probability listed at more than 90 percent - that human activities and fossil fuels explain most of the warming over the past 50 years.'1 ln 2007, IPCC predicted that under current human GHG emission trends, the following results could be realized within the next 100 years (the Sth Assessment Report by IPCC is scheduled to be issued in 2014):z . Global temperature increases between 1.1 - 6.4 degrees Celsius; . Potential sea level rise between 18 to 59 centimeters or 7 to 22 inches; . Reduction in snow cover and sea ice; 1 IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report. February 2,20072 IPCC, Summarv for Policvmakers, April 30, 2007. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-l 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Potential for more intense and frequent heat waves, tropical cycles and heavy precipitation; and, lmpacts to biodiversity, drinking water and food supplies. The Climate lmpacts Group (ClG) - a Washington-state based interdisciplinary research group that collaborates with federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies; organizations; and, businesses - studies impacts of natural climate variability and global climate change on the Pacific Northwest. ln 2009, CIG issued the Washington Climate Change lmpacts Assessmenf, which included climate change scenarios for Washington State and used those scenarios to assess the potential future impacts of climate change. Key findings for climate change impacts included: Average temperature would increase by 2" F by the 2020s, 3.2" F by the 2040s, and 5.3" F by the 2080s. The April 1 snowpack is project to decrease by 28 percent across the state by the 2020s,40 percent by the 2040s, and 59 percent by the 2080s. Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs. Requlatorv Context U nited Sfafes Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act and has established air quality standards for common pollutants. On September 22,2009, EPA released final regulations that require 29 categories of facilities to report their GHG emissions annually, starting in 2011. Facilities covered by these regulations include oil refineries, pulp and paper manufacturing, landfills, and a variety of other manufacturing and industrial sources of emissions. lndividual development projects, such as the Pleasant Harbor project, are not subject to these regulations. Westem Regional Climate Action lnitiative On February 26, 2007, the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington signed the Western Climate lnitiative (WCl) to develop regional strategies to address climate change. WCI is identifying, evaluating, and implementing collective and cooperative ways to reduce GHGs in the region. Subsequent to this original agreement, the Governors of Utah and Montana, as well as the Premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba joined the lnitiative. The WCI objectives include: setting an overall regional reduction goal for GHG emissions; developing a design to achieve the goal; and, participating in The Climate Registry, a multi-state registry to enable tracking, management and crediting for entities that reduce their GHG emissions. On September 23,2008, the WCI released their final design recommendations for a regional cap-andtrade program: This program would cover GHG emissions from electricity generation, industrial and commercial fossil fuel combustion, industrial process emissions, gas and diesel consumption for transportation, and residential fuel use. The first phase of the program, which will regulate electricity emissions and some industrial emission sources, began on Januayt, a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-2 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 2012. The program is anticipated to be fully implemented by 2015 and will cover nearly 90 percent of the GHG emissions in WCI states and provinces. Sfafe of Washington ln February of 2007, Executive Order No. 07-02 was signed by the Governor establishing goals for Washington regarding reductions in climate pollution, increases in jobs, and reductions in expenditures on imported fuel.3 This Executive Order established Washington's goals for reducing GHG emissions as follows: to reach 1990 levels by 2020,25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035, and 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This orderwas intended to address climate change, grow the clean energy economy, and move Washington toward energy independence. ln 2007, the Washington legislature passed SB 6001, which among other things adopted the Executive Order No. 07-02 goals into statute. ln 2008, the Washington Legislature built upon SB 6001 by passing E2SHB 2815, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill. While SB 6001 set targets to reduce emissions, the E2SHB 2815 made those firm requirements and directed the state to submit a comprehensive GHG reduction plan to the Legislature by December 1, 2008. As part of the plan, Ecology was mandated to develop a system for reporting and monitoring GHG emissions within the state and a design for a regional multi-sector, market-based system to reduce statewide GHG emissions. ln 2008,4 Ecology issued a memorandum stating that climate change and GHG emissions should be included in all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analyses and committed to providing further clarification and analysis tools. !n 2009, Executive Order 09-05 was signed ordering Washington state actions to reduce climate-changing GHG emissions, to increase transportation and fuel-conservation options for Washington residents, and protect the state's water supplies and coastal areas. The Executive Order directs state agencies to: develop a regional emissions reduction program; develop emission reduction strategies and industry emissions benchmarks to make sure 2020 reduction targets are met; work on low-carbon fuel standards or alternative requirements to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector; address rising sea levels and the risks to water supplies; and, increase transit options, such as buses, light rail, and ride-share programs, and, give Washington residents more choices for reducing the effect of transportation emissions. On June 1,2010, Ecology issued draft guidelines entitled, Guidance on Climate Change and SEPA. These draft guidelines included: guidance regarding the types of GHG emissions that should be calculated; a discussion of how to determine if emissions surpass a threshold of "significance"; and, a description of different types of mitigation measures. Guidance was also provided regarding the requirement to discuss the ability of a proposal to adapt to climate changes as a result of global warming. ln 201 1, Ecology narrowed the focus of the draft guidelines and in its place developed internal guidance for Ecology staff to use when Ecology is the lead agency or an agency with jurisdiction in Guidance for Ecology lncluding Greenhouse Gas Emrssions in SEPA Reviews and SEPA GHG Calculation lool. Ecology began using this guidance document in June 2011. 3 http :/,vww. gove rnor.wa. gov/execordersieo_07-02. pdf a Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals, April 30, 2008 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-3 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW On-site GHG Emissions Existing GHG emissions on the Pleasant Harbor site are limited due to the existing primarily vegetated and forested condition of the site. GHG emissions are currently associated with the existing single family residences and real estate office on the Maritime Village portion of the site (consisting primarily of GHG emissions associated with heating, power and vehicle operation). The rest of the site is not in current use. 3.10-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets As noted previously, air quality conditions and impacts (including GHG emissions) were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts This section focuses on the probable GHG emissions impacts that could result with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under silhel Alternatives 1 stend 2. New development under either Alternativee 1 aa*or -2 would feature a golf course community with commercial, residential, recreational, and open space uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. New development on the site would create related increases in energy demand and usage, as well as increases in GHG emissions. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under silhe1 Alternatives 1 an#9l_2 would occur gradually over the approximately 1O-year buildout of the site, and associated demands for energy and GHG emissions would also increase incrementally over that time period. See Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources, for more information on energy use. Alternative 2 A GHG emissions report was completed for this project which evaluated three scopes of emissions sources. Construction and operational emissions sources are accounted for under each scope. Scope 1 emissions are defined as direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the project. These can include emissions from fossil fuels burned onsite, emissions from owned or leased vehicles and other direct sources. Specific Scope 1 GHG emissions sources analyzed for the Pleasant Harbor project are described below in Table 3.10 1. Table 3.10-1 SCOPE I GHG EMISSION SOURCES CONSIRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Mobile Power Generation Combustion Power to run construction tools and equipment, and to provide providing heating and lighting Land Use Change - Deforestation Clearing and grading activities resulting in a one-time carbon loss event. Land Use Change - Below Grade Carbon Loss Removal of below grade (root to shoot) organic carbon stocks. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-4 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Source.' Pleasant M. Table 3.10-l contanued Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas May 2012. See Appendix Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 1 sources are estimated at 5483.62 tCO2e for construction sources and 1,096.80 tCO2e for operational sources.s With mitigation, it is estimated that GHG emissions could be reduced to approximately 4,743.10 tCO2e for construction and to 931.48 tCO2e for operational sources, representing a reduction of approximalely 14o/o and 15%, respectively. A variety of potential measures are available that could reduce scope 1 types of emissions including: the use of grid electricity, the preservation of riparian and buffer areas, best practices in construction, LEED construction standards, transplanting usable trees, selective reforestation, biosequestration, aerobic wastewater treatment, biosolid centrifuge, hybrid turf equipment, fertigation, nitrogen fertilizer reductions, organic fertilizer use, low GWP coolants and propellants, and emissions offsets. See Appendix M for additional details on emissions sources and potential GHG mitigation strategies. Scope 2 emissions include indirect GHG emissions resulting from the generation of electricity, heat, or steam generated off site, but purchased by the project (i.e. energy use). Table 3.10-2, below, describes construction and operational sources of Scope 2 emissions. 5 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. CONSIRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Land Use Change - Soil Organic Carbon Loss Emissions from movement and stockpiling of topsoil for use throughout the site (one{ime tillage event resulting in soil organic carbon release) OPERATIONAT SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Wastewater Methane (on-site)Methane created from orqanic constituents breakdown Combined Power Combustion Plant that would provide the 100% electrical redundancy required for the wastewater treatment plan. Backup Power Combustion Power to maintain critical base load electrical requirements of the site durinq power outaqes. Vehicle Fleet Combustion Bus and rental car vehicle emissions Golf Course Maintenance Combustion Equipment used for golf course operations, consisting of small horsepower off road diesel and gasoline combustion engines for material hauling, mowing, topdressing, edging, spraying and turf repair. Non-Combustion Fugitive Emissions Traditional refrigerants used in coolers, chillers, freezers, air conditions units and propellants used for fire suppression Fertilizer Application The unwanted chemical reaction that turns a portion of beneficial surface applied nitrogen fertilizer into the GHG, nitrous oxide. Cam pfire/Fireplace Combustion There are no plans for wood or gas burning fire or campfires however, campfires could be created occasionally for special or ceremonials events. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-5 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Table 3.10-2 SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSION SOURCES Source.' Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Repoft May 2012. See Appendix M. Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 2 sources are estimated at 172.93 tCO2e for construction sources and 8,146.25 tCO2e for operational sources.G With mitigation, GHG emissions could be reduced to 146.99 tCO2e for construction sources and 4,352.94 for operational sources tCO2e, representing a reduction of approximately 15o/o and 460/o, respectively. Strategies to reduce Scope 2 emissions during construction could include best construction practices and the purchase of renewable energy. Strategies to reduce emissions during operations could include the use of geothermal heating and cooling, dark sky exterior lighting, low flow plumbing fixtures and renewable energy purchases. See Appendix M for additional details on emissions sources and potential GHG mitigation strategies. Scope 3 emissions include indirect GHG emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by the project, but related to activities such as vendor supply chains, delivery seryices, outsourced activities, and employee travel and commuting time. Table 3.10-3, below, describes construction and operational sources of Scope 3 types of GHG emissions. Table 3.10-3 SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSION SOURCES 6 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Purchased Electricity Approximately 440MWh of grid electricity could be used each year durinq construction. OPERATIONAL SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Purchased Electricity Purchased electricity from the electrical grid would be one of the largest non-combustion operational emissions source. Peak electricity demand is estimated to reach nearlv 3MW CONSIRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Heavy Equipment Battery/Onsite Mining Combustions Fossil fuel use for heavy and medium duty equipment used to clear, grade and move usable materials around the site, and on-site mining of sand, gravel and stockpiling of materials used in later construction phases. Material Hauling Trip Emissions Emissions generated from heavy duty diesel trucks hauling materials for construction activities/supplies. Vehicle Trip Emissions Vehicular emissions from staff, construction workers, etc., travelling to and from the site. Organic Waste (Wood)Transportation of wood waste offsite (associated with clearing unimproved, forested areas of the site). Electricity T&D Losses Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can range from 0o/o to 15o/o OPERATIONAL SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Vehicular Emissions Vehicular emissions from individuals traveling to and from the site including staff, product & material shipping, contractor and visitor trips. LandfillWaste Emissions related to solid waste pickup for the site. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-G 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Source.' Pleasant Hafuor Marina and Golf Resoft: Greenhouse Gas Emission Repoft May 2012. See Appendix M. Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 3 sources are estimated at 9,673.66 tCO2e for construction sources and 26,459.72 tCO2e for operational sources.T With mitigation, Scope 3 GHG emissions could be reduced to 9,130.52 tCO2e for construction sources and 16,589.18 for operational sources tCO2e, representing a reduction of approximately 60/o and 37o/o, respectively. Strategies to reduce Scope 3 emissions during construction could include using raw material from the site (including wood chips, live redistributed trees, gravel and sand) to avoid transporting such materials to the site, providing a work camp for construction workers on the site, providing catering and rideshare for construction workers, and using locally sourced materials. Strategies that to reduce emissions during resort operations (some of which are part of the proposal) will include: the provision of on-site staff housing to reduce trips from commuting, locating amenities required for daily living located on the site, bus and rental car availability, intra-resort transportation via electric powered golf cars and shuttle services, public transit, video conferencing technology, bike rentals, rideshare program and incentives for offsite staff, organic waste diversion, recycling and composting. See Appendix M for additional details on emissions sources and potential GHG mitigation strategies. Table 3.10.4 below, summarizes estimated GHG emissions under Alternative 2 (the Greenhouse Gas Emissrbns Report only addresses Alternative 2). As demonstrated, the largest source of emissions is anticipated to occur from Scope 3, operational sources; that is, emissions related to transportation (vehicle trips to and from the site by staff, visitors, contractors and shipping). However, this emissions source also has great potential for mitigation with the provision of onsite staff housing, the availability of amenities onsite, and the use of busses to reduce trips. ALTERNATIVE 2 -'S+i-ilf;[ GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source Estimated GHG Emissions (tCO2e) Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions with Mitisation Scope 1 Construction Emissions 5,483.62 -740.53 Scope 1 Operational Emissions 1,096.80 -165.32 Scope 2 Construction Emissions 172.93 -25.94 Scope 2 Operational Emissions 8,146.25 -3,793.31 Scope 3 Construction Emissions 9,673.66 -543.14 Scope 3 Operational Emissions 26,459.72 -9,870.54 TOTAL 51,032.98 -'t5,138.78 Estimated Total Emissions with Mitigation 35,894.20 tCO2e Source,' Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf; Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. May 2012. See Appendix M. 7 lCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. Organic Waste Emissions related to organic waste created from landscapinq and qolf course maintenance. Electricity T&D Losses Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can ranqe from lYo to 15Yo. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-7 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Alternative 1 Due to the greater amount of excavation and grading associated with the golf course design under Alternative 1, GHG emissions would be greater than those accounted for under Alternative 2. Grading and excavation would result in somewhat higher construction emissions under Scope 1,2 and 3 sources. Operational emissions could be expected to be similar to those described for Alternative 2. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use. Greenhouse gas conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions. 3.{ O-4 Mitisation Measures 2007 Ers As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No air quality mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63(cc) Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods. o A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report has been completed to fulfill this condition (see Appendix M). This report only applies to Alternative 2. sEts The following other possible mitigation measures could be implemented with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under_gilhel Alternatives 1 and-qt_2 to further address potential GHG- related impacts. A variety of mitigation measures are available to reduce energy use, increase sustainable building design and reduce GHG emissions. Certain characteristics of the project as proposed under eilheg Alternatives 1 an*g!_2 would help to reduce GHG emissions including: the use of grid electricity; preservation of riparian and buffer areas; transplanting usable trees; selective reforestation; offsite trip reduction from a mixed-use contained resort with staff housing, onsite amenities, buses, and onsite electric a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-8 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW transportation; energy star appliances; low flow plumbing fixtures; provision of an onsite camp for construction workers; onsite catering and rideshares; recycling; composting and organic waste diversion; best construction practices; LEED construction standards; dark sky exterior lighting; and implementation of the Golf Course Best Management Practices Plan. Additional mitigation measures which could be implemented include the following o Renewable energy purchases. Using locally sourced materialso Emissions offsetso Waste heat recovery 3.10-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lm Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under silheg Alternatives 1 and-or 2 would result in increased energy usage and increased levels of GHG emissions, similar to any large development project. However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, no significant unavoidable adverse energy and GHG-related impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.10-9 3.10 Air Quality PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.11 HOUSING and EMPLOYMENT This section characterizes the existing and projected housing and employment conditions on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site. An analysis of potential impacts to these categories is also provided. Primary sources of information for this section include the 2010 US Census, the Washington Security Employment Department: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the American Community Survey (ACS), and the Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy (see Appendix N). 3.11-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ers Housinq The 2007 EIS noted that according to the 2000 Census there were 107 permanent residents on Black Point, representing approximately 57 full time dwelling units. The BSAP area of Jefferson County has a mixture of affordable, moderate income and estate-type housing and properties. Limited rental housing was observed to be available, as half the properties are seasonal or vacation residences that are not typically part of the rental market, and 80% of the remaining units are owner occupied. Emplovment Existing employment conditions on the site were not addressed in the 2007 EIS sEts Housinq S,fe Currently, within the site area there are two single family residences located at the north boundary of the generally forested area to the north of Black Point Road: Pleasant Harbor House, and a Bed & Breakfast. No other permanent housing uses are located on the site. Additional information concerning housing in Brinnon and Jefferson County is provided below, Camping uses on the Black Point camping ground were discontinued in 2007. Site Vicinity According to the 2010 US Census, there were approximately 17,767 total housing units in Jefferson County. The majority of this housing (over 5,000 units) is located in Port Townsend, the largest City in the County and the County seat. !n terms of occupied versus vacant housing units, Jefferson County has relatively high vacancy rate of approximalely 21 percent out of 17,767 total housing units, as shown by Table 3.11-1, below. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-l 3.11 Housing and Employment PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Table 3.11-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O Jefferson County TotalHousing Units 17,767 Occupied Housing Units 14,049 (79o/ol Vacant Housing Units 3,718 (21%) Source.' U.S. Census Bureau,2010 Census Demognphic Profiles Summary File. As shown by Table 3.11-2, there are 1,060 units in Brinnon (a Census Designated Place). The majority of the housing within the community is for seasonal, recreational or occasional use (approximately 55 percent). Table 3.11-2 BRINNON HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O Source.' US Census Bureau,2010 Demographic Summary File. Census Designated Place Summary. Emplovment S,te Currently, there are h,ve-11 full and part time employees based on the site, two primarily-te provide maintenance and security for the Black Point Campground. Site Vicinity There were approximately 7,700 non-farm jobs in Jefferson County in January 2013, including 5,610 in the private sector, and 2,090 in government (see Table 3.11-3).1 According to the U.S. 1 Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Brinnon Total Housing Units 1,060 419Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units 641 Vacant Housing Units for Rent 11 Vacant Housing Units Rented, not Occupied 1 Vacant Housing Units, for Sale Only 22 1Housing Units, Sold, notVacant Occupied Vacant Housing Units for Seasonal, Recreational or Occasiona! Use 578 Vacant Housing Units, Other 28 Homeowner Vacancy Rate 5.7 Rental Vacancy Rate 15.5 Owner Occupied Housing Units 360 Renter-Occupied Housing Units 59 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-2 3.11 Housing and Employment PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Census Bureau, the median household income in Jefferson County from 2007 to 2011 was estimated at $46,887, compared to $58,890 for Washington State.2 Table 3.11-3 JEFFERSON COUNTY, NON.FARM EMPLOYMENT, 2013 Tvpe of Emplovment Employees Total Nonfarm Employment 7,700 TotalPrivate 5,610 r3%) TotalGovernment 2,090 (27o/o) Secuity Department, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to recent employment statistics, Jefferson County has a higher unemployment rate as compared to the state of Washington as a whole, with 10.9 percent unemployment in January 2013, as compared to the state's rate of 8.5 percent. See Table 3.11-4 for details. Table 3.114 JEFFERSON COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE - RESIDENT LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Source.' Washington State Employment Security Department. Labor Market and Economic Analysis. 3.11-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers Housinq The 2007 EIS noted that because most of the construction crews were expected to live out of the area, the Applicant proposed to upgrade the existing RV facilities on a temporary basis (approved for 60 units) to provide temporary housing for construction workers. The Proposed Action under the 2007 EIS included 890 total residential units, with 739 in the Golf Course Resort area and 151 in the Marina/Maritime Village Area (total of 890 units). The creation of new permanent and seasonal jobs was noted to impose an added demand for affordable housing locally. To offset this demand, the applicant proposed 52 units of staff housing onsite (of the 890 total units). Much of the staff employment for the resort was anticipated to be seasonal or part time. Providing affordable units as part of the proposal addressed both the increased demand represented by the proposal and provided the infrastructure to support the higher densities necessary to address affordability. 2 U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Location Labor Force Percons Employed Pelsons Unemployed Unemployment Rate Washington State, January 2013 3,447,640 3,154,840 292,800 8.5o/o Jefferson County, January 2013 11,780 10,500 1,280 10.9Yo Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-3 3.11 Housing and Employment PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Emplovment The 2007 EIS noted that during construction, approximately 80 to 125 people would be employed onsite periodically through the five-year construction period. lt was expected that much of the work force would be from Jefferson County, though certain specialized skills may require workers from outside the immediate region. Upon completion, the Pleasant Harbor Resort was estimated to create 40 permanent new jobs and 50 seasonal positions, with these jobs representing a 30o/o direct increase in local employment. !t was also anticipated that seasonal employees would typically be students with the advantage to local students. SEIS ln comparison to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the total number of residential units proposed under either SEIS Alternativee 1 an*or 2 remains the same at 890 units, including 52 units for staff housing. However, to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR, the majority of this housing (670/o) would be for short-term visitors and 33% would be for permanent residents. Regarding employment, subsequent to publication of the 2007 EIS, a jobs report has been prepared and the number of permanent and seasonal positions associated with construction and operation of the resort has been revised up, as detailed below under the Employment section. Alternatives 1 an*or 2 ln general, employment and housing impacts would be similar under silhel Alternatives 1 an+g!: 2; betfeach alternativee would develop 890 residential units, and would provide comparable levels of retail/commercial space (49,772 sq. ft. under Alternative 1 and 52,650 sq. ft. under Alternative 2). Approval of the Proposed Actions would create the capacity for a range of resort- related, restaurant, retail, grounds keeping and security jobs onsite and additional employment and housing potential in the Brinnon subarea of Jefferson County. Actual impacts from the added employment and housing capacity from the proposed development would be generated incrementally as the site developed over the full buildout period. The discussion of employment and housing impacts, below, applies to bethgilhelAlternative 1 glanC Alternative 2. Housinq Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resorf would occur incrementally over time in response to market conditions; for purposes of environmental review it is assumed to take place over an approximately 1O-year timeframe. On average, it is estimated that up to 275 positions would be directly associated with construction of the facility at any one time. As noted in the 2007 ElS, the Applicant proposes to upgrade the existing RV facilities on a temporary basis (presently approved for 60 units) to provide some temporary housing for construction workers. Long-Term Housing Conditions Under either Alternative 1 an+or Alternative 2 2, 890 residential units would be provided on the site within duplexes,ultiplexes up to 16 units, and 4-story Terrace buildings. Of the total, 278 units (33%) would be would be for permanent residents, while 560 units (67%) would be for short- term use (i.e. time-shares, vacation rentals, 3.11 Housing and Employment Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW etc.). The addition of 890 residential units in the Brinnon subarea would represent an approximately 84 percent increase to the existing housing stock of 1,060 housing units. However, as noted above, the majority of new housing (560 units) would be for short-term use. Considering permanent housing only, the proposed 278 new permanent housing units would represent an approximately 26 percent increase in the existing housing stock. I nd i rect H o u sing Cond ition s Operation of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort would result in up to 191 new permanent employees at the site. Although staff housing would be provided on the site, employees on the site could result in some additional demand for housing in the area. Emplovment Con struction Em ployment Site preparation and construction of the Pleasant Harbor project would involve: demolition of certain existing buildings; removal of some existing vegetation; grading; construction of new site infrastructure including driveways and utilities; and, construction of a number of new buildings. This work would result in new temporary construction employment opportunities during the approximately 1O-year buildout period. Based on analysis conducted subsequent to 2007, it is now estimated that the construction project could directly employ up to 275 workers on the site annually.3 The actual number of construction jobs at any given time would vary depending on the nature and construction phase of the project. Construction jobs would be temporary and would be discontinued once construction of the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort was complete. O pe ration al Em ployment Based on analysis conducted subsequent to 2007, development of new employment-generating land uses could result in approximately 191 permanentemployees atthe Pleasant Harborsite. Actual amount of added employment from the proposed development would be generated incrementally as the site develops over the full buildout period. Table 3.11-5, below, details the types of jobs and total number of employees that could be expected upon completion of the resort. See Appendix _ for more information. Weuld aCCitienal eeaeenal empleyees be Table 3.11-5 NUMBER OF ETUPLOYEES PER JOB SECTOR Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy. 3 Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy Job Sector Emplovees Tourism and Leisure Employment 67 Hospitalitv 40 Restaurant and Food Services 26 Med-Spa/Grotto 22 Maintenance and Security 19 Environmental Standards and Safety Manaqement 17 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-s 3.11 Housing and Employment PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The new employment opportunities onsite could contribute to lowering the Jefferson County's unemployment rate (10.9% in January 2013), depending on a number of factors. Such could include where individuals reside at the time of hire (i.e. within the County or outside the County) and whether individuals are unemployed at the time of hire. I ndi rect Em ploy me nt I m p acts During construction of the Pleasant Harbor Resort it is possible that some nearby businesses (restaurants, retail, services, etc.) could experience an increase in business during ongoing construction phases. Permanent employees of the Resort would be anticipated to contribute to the overall economic activity of the area, including the potential to increase activity at area retail and restaurant businesses. As well, additional residents in various communities surrounding the site could result in increased spending in retail and service categories at local businesses. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. Limited additional employment could be added to the site in order to maintain and run the campground. Housing conditions would remain generally as described under existing conditions. 3.{ { -3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Because there is a limited rental housing market, it is proposed that the out-oftown construction crews may use the existing onsite 60-unit RV facility. This facility would be temporary and must be in place prior to commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the project. (Additional temporary housing could also include the B&B and Kaufman Home, see $3.5.9.) The creation of new permanent and seasonal jobs for resort staff will impose an added demand for affordable local housing, and to offset that demand, 52 units of new multi- family apartments are proposed to be built onsite. BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-6 3.11 Housing and Employment a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (e) Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and competitive in terms of pricing. 63 (aa) ln fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2). a 63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income (AM!). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing development. o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy (date?). This study did not include the salary level of the proposed jobs. The report is included as Appendix N. Of the 890 housing units proposed as part of the project, 52 units would be staff housing for resort employees. The affordability of the employee housing shall be negotiated in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.11-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-7 3.11 Housing and Employment PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.12 RURAL GHARAGTER and POPULATION This section of the SEIS describes existing rural character and population characteristics on the site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these characteristics. 3./12-1 Affected Environment 2007 EIS Population The 2007 EIS noted that according to the 2000 Census, there were 107 permanent residents on Black Point within 57 full time dwelling units, suggesting that the remaining 101 residential lots were for seasonal or recreational use. Rural Character The 2007 EIS describes the rural character of Hood Canal and notes that it includes a mixture of open spaces and more densely packed residential and tourist areas, including both public and private facilities. The Maritime Village and golf resort area were noted to occupy areas that have historically been tourist oriented, particularly during the summer. ln accordance with the provisions of the GMA, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goal LNG 18.0 states that "Rural character is defined by local rural lifestyle, opportunity to live and work in rural areas, local rural visual landscapes, resource productivity, environmental quality, and significant areas of open space." Subsequent Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies make it clear that significant amounts of open space and continued environmental quality are key components of preserving local rural character. Rural character is also to be preserved by not allowing the conversion of rural lands into suburban or urban densities or into uses inappropriate for a rural setting. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the rural setting also includes development for tourist and recreational facilities and provides the allowance of planned resorts, urban uses in otherwise rural settings. The Brinnon Subarea Plan confirmed that the Black Point Pleasant Harbor is an area of significant amenity and could accommodate a planned resort as part of the overall rural area development. The 2007 EIS also noted that zoning around the site is residential in the form of 5-, 10-, and 20- acre minimum lot sizes for future subdivision. With few exceptions, allowed uses in these residential zones are housing and those activities that can be conducted within a residential lot, such as home occupations or those rural scale activities serving the local or tourist population. Regarding density, the EIS noted that while the existing rural residential zoning is low density with large lots, there are pockets of residential development on and near Black Point that are more suburban in nature due to former platting regulations. Hood Canal residential development north and south of the site has residential densities that average 3.5 units per acre, northeast of Black Point, around Rhododendron Lane, residential density is approximately four units per acre, and adjacent to the southwest portion of the site there is a small subdivision with a seven-unit per acre density. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-1 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW sErs Population The Pleasant Harbor site is located within Brinnon, which is a Census Designated Place in Jefferson County. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Jefferson County is estimated at29,872. The County has experienced strong population growth since 2000. Over this 10 year period, Jefferson County's population increased by approximately 17 percentfrom 25,593 to 29,872. This is greater than Washington State's overall population increase of 14.09 percent for this same period.l According to the 2010 Census, the population of Brinnon is 797, which represents a relatively flat population rate as compared to the year 2000, when the population was 803. Rural Character The existing rural character conditions on and in the vicinity of the site have remained generally similar since issuance of the 2007 ElS. That is, the Brinnon Subarea Planning Area is generally characterized by low density residential development with a remote, rural character. The predominant land uses include forest resource lands and rural residential lands. There is also a small concentration of retail and commercial services in Brinnon, approximately 1.5 miles north of the site. The aerial photograph presented in Figure 3.12-1 indicates the general character of development density in the area. 3.12-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers Population The 2007 EIS indicated that during construction, an estimated 80 to 125 people would be employed onsite periodically through the five-year construction period, and that much of this work force would be found within the County. The 2007 EIS was based on the assumption that development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent residential units to the community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development's winter (or permanent population) was projected to be 200 to 300 people. During the peak summer season (June-September), a resort population of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated, when the resort was anticipated to operate at 85% occupancy. During the mid-season, (April, May and October), 50% resort occupancy was anticipated, and during the low season (November, December, January, February, March) 307o resort occupancy was expected. Rural Character The 2007 EIS noted that a key element of any allowed urban use in rural areas such as master planned resorts is that the resort and its facilities not allow the extension of urban or non rural uses outside the resort area. As such, local guidelines require: "All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistrict Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-2 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-3 3.12 Rural Character and Population boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR" (JCC 18.15.126(5)). The 2007 EIS noted that overall gross density for the proposal of 890 residential units on 256 acres would be approximately 3.5 units per acre. This density was noted to be less than but not dissimilar to some of the existing densities in the immediate area. The primary difference was observed to be that the residences proposed for the resort would be clustered into a number of townhouses or attached structures, rather than single family homes on individual lots. The EIS stated that rural character would be retained under the Proposed Action by scaling the size of residential structures consistent with local construction (less than 35 feet in height); clustering the more intense development internal to the project site and at the marina where dense activity already occurs and a suburban shoreline designation suggests higher levels of anticipated activity on the shoreline; locating the hotel and Maritime Village topographically so the buildings are set into the hill and do not project above the average tree height; retaining the buffer on the shoreline; locating the bulk of the housing away from local roads and out of site from U.S. HWY Hwv 101 except the node at Black Point Road; retaining a tree buffer along U.S. H\ASHwv 101 adjacent to the marina; and devoting more than half of the site to open space (including the golf course), wetlands, buffers and natural areas all of which would reduce the visual impact of the resort on the surrounding community and help retain the overall rural character of southern Jefferson County. sEts ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, while either Alternatives 1 an+or 2 include a golf course and the same total number of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action,---+{€wever, the distribution of the units are more consolidated under the SEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of clearing and impervious area. The layout of the golf course in Alternative 2 is also revised to reduce the amount of cut and fill necessary, preserve more natural vegetation, and more closely follow the existing topography. Additionally, to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR, the majority of the housing (67Yo) would be for short-term visitors, while 33% would be for permanent residents. ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, more housing for permanent residents is specified for either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and approximately 79,000 square feet ofcommercialuses.Under,theoverallsquarefootageof commercialuseshasbeenreducedto@Sq.ft'Redevelopmentfor maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, or as allowed under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Therefore, the site acreage for the SEIS has been reduced to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 ElS, with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area. Alternatives I and 2 ln general, rural character and population impacts would be similar under silhel Alternatives 1 an4or 2; both alternatives would develop the same number of residential units (890), and would provide comparable levels of recreational amenities (golf course etc.) and retail/commercial space (49,772 sq.ft. underAlternative 1 and 52,650 sq ft underAlternative 2). The discussion of rural character and population impacts, below, applies to beth-g[helAlternative 1 anC-gq Alternative 2. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-4 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Con stru ction Popu I ation Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Resod is anticipated to occur over an approximately 10- year timeframe. During this period, construction employment is anticipated to generate up to 175 positions at any one time. Depending on the selected contractor and any prevailing union practices, a portion of these positions may be filled by resident workers. Because of the short- term nature of construction employment, it is not anticipated that families or other household members would accompany temporary construction workers to the area. Additionally, because construction would be temporary, no permanent residents are anticipated to migrate to the area. Ope ration al Popu I ation Under silhgt Alternative 1 aa*9.2, additional permanent residents and temporary visitors would be added to the Pleasant Harbor site. As described in Section 3.11, Housing and Employment, 890 residential units would be provided on the site with 278 units (33%) for permanent residents, and 560 units (67%) for short term use (i.e. time-shares, vacation rentals, etc.). lt is assumed that two persons per household would reside in the 278 units for thepermanentpopulation,resultinginapermanentpopulationof556.W two (52) units of staff housing would also be provided. This housing can also be considered as permanent housing and it is expected that two people would reside in each unit year round, resulting in a permanent staff population of 104; thus, a total of 660 permanent residents would be expected on the site. The remaining 560 units are anticipated to accommodate temporary visitors to the site, with varying numbers of people occupying each unit, depending on the number of bedrooms, and the season of occupancy. Assuming an additional 660 individuals moved to Brinnon to reside in the Pleasant Harbor Resort on a permanent basis, this would result in a population increase of approximately 83 percent (from 797 to 1,457). Of the 660 permanent residents, 104 are assumed to be resort employees living in the 52 units of worker housing. The additional population in this area could increase general activity levels, as well as add to the population base utilizing basic public services (see Section 3.14, Public Services, for additional information). The remaining 560 units for short term/vacation use are assumed to have an average occupancy of 2.2 persons per units - resulting in a transient population of up to 1,232 persons, depending on the season. lt should be noted that the resort would be expected to operate at a fuller occupancy in the summer (85%), as was estimated for the 2007 ElS. Regarding the anticipated demographics, the resort is intended to be marketed to baby boomers (?) seeking an active community with a variety of recreational opportunities and amenities. Rural Character Development under e!!he1 Alternatives 1 @2 would allow for the transformation of the Pleasant Harbor site from a primarily vacant, former campground that is a largely vegetated and forested area to a new MPR development that would provide opportunities for a range of residential and recreational land uses and activities. The changes to the site are anticipated to occur gradually over the approximately 1O-year buildout period. In general, the relationship of the Pleasant Harbor MPR development under sllheg Alternatives 1 an4or 2 to sunounding uses would primarily be a function of the intensity of the new uses (such as the types of uses, density of the development, and levels of activity associated with the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-5 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW development), the intensity of surrounding uses, the proximity of new uses to surrounding uses, and the provision of buffers between new uses and surrounding uses. The Pleasant Harbor resort under_eilhCl Alternatives 1 and-or 2 would increase the density of development, and establish residential units, vacation units, and commercial and resort related recreational amenities on the site. Overall, gross density for the proposed 890 residential units on 231 acres is 3.85 residential units per acre (similar to the 3.5 dwelling units per acre in the 2007 EIS). These would large{y-be in multi-unit structures, as opposed to single family structures. Activity levels (i.e. noise, traffic, etc. associated with new activity) on the site would increase as a result of development under either Alternatives 1 atr+or 2 due to the increase in density and associated on-site population (residents and employees) and shortterm visitors. Development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in new residents living on the site and new residents and employees traveling to and from the site each day. As noted above, the proposed residential uses are anticipated to house approximately 556 permanent residents and resort operations are anticipated to employ approximately 190 people, 104 of whom are expected to live onsite in the 52-units of staff housing; resulting in a total of 660 permanent residents on the site. ln addition, the resort would also accommodate visitors for day trips and overnight stays (in 560 units). The increase in site population, site visitors and employees would result in increased activity levels, including pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic travelling to and from the Pleasant Harbor site and within the site. Vehicle access to the site would be provided primarily by Black Point Road and U.S. Highway Hwv 101. Activity levels and vehicle traffic noise on these roadways (as well as along other new internal roadways) would be anticipated to increase with development under eilhet Alternativee 1 an+or 2. However, the proposed development would also result in a higher internal trip capture rate (i.e. users would likely only travel to the site and park once), which would reduce the overall amount of vehicle trips. Resort residents would also have the option of daily renting resort-provided electrical carts to travel between the Golf Course/Resort and the Maritime Village and other internal trips, which could also utilize the privatefrontage road paralleling U.S Hwy 101 (MarinaAccess Drive). The use of shuttles and electrical carts would also serve to reduce the overall amount of vehicle trips (see Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix L for details on traffic). In general, the type, character, and pattern of land uses on the site would change substantially from a primarily vegetated/forested site with minimal existing uses (real estate office and two single family homes) to a denser, resort development. The rural character of surrounding land uses are intended to be preserved in a number of ways, including limiting the visibility of the resort from offsite viewers; preserving natural area and open space; limiting the heights of buildings; and, clustering the more intense development internal to the site Limited visibility of the site to offsite viewers would in part occur naturally as a result of the site's location on a peninsula (Black Point), and the site's topography. Limiting views i+are_also a feature of the MPR design with the preservation of vegetative buffers along certain site borders to screen the development from view (see Section 3.15, Aesthetics, for further details). As with the 2007 ElS, more intense development would be clustered internal to the site to limit impacts to views and perception of increased density from offsite land uses. Buildings would be low-rise, ranging from one to four stories under Alternative 1, and one to five stories under Alternative 2; the tallest buildings would be Golf Course Terraces and Conference Center/Spa Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-o 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW (fourandfivestories),whichwouldbelocatedintheportionof the Golf Course, and would net be antieipated te be visiblenrovide limited visual access to offsite viewers (eenfirm, see Figures 2-7 and 2-8 in Ghapter 2 for reference). The remainder of the residential buildings would be one to two stories in height. ln general, the Maritime Village would be the most visible portion of the site due to its proximity to Black Point Road and U.S. Highway Hwy 101. The largest building within the Maritime Village (Maritime Village Building) would be three stories in height. However, this structure would be built into the existing topography, with two stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories visible internal to the site. Approximately 33 acres of natural area (14 percent of the total 232 acre site) would be preserved under Alternative 1, and 80 acres (33 percent of the tolal 232 acre site) would be preserved under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 1, another 177 acres of the total site area would be in pervious area with landscaping, the golf course fairways and pedestrian trails, and 133 acres would be pervious under Alternative 2. The preservation of natural area together with open space on the site would further serve to limit offsite impacts to rural character. lndirect Impacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under silhg1 Alternativee 1 qanC-2 would contribute to the cumulative residential and employment growth, and intensification of land uses in Jefferson County and the Brinnon community. An increase in on-site resident, visitor and employment population would also contribute to a cumulative increase in vehicular traffic on surrounding roads. The increase in population, visitors and employment could also result in an increased demand for goods and services. While it is likely that a majority of this demand would be fulfilled by commercial/retail uses on the Pleasant Harbor site, a portion of this demand could also be fulfilled by surrounding businesses in the vicinity of the site. To the extent that area property owners perceive an opportunity for development based, in part, on new employees, visitors and residents associated with the Pleasant Harbor site, some new development in the area could be indirectly generated. Any development in the area generated indirectly by development of the Pleasant Harbor site would likely occur incrementally over time and would likely be limited due to the measures proposed to maintain the resort as a self- contained community (with amenities and commercial/retail onsite). Any new development in the site vicinity would also be controlled by existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan regulations, which would preserve the local rural character of the surrounding area. As a result, significant indirecUcumulative impacts would not be anticipated. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. Population and rural character conditions would remain generally as described under existing conditions, with some temporary, season visitors to the site for camping. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-7 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.12-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant sections of this SEIS, as applicable. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The key to the provision is that the Master Planned Resort not lead to suburban or urban level development in the surrounding area and that result is achieved through several techniques: a The retention of rural area zoning on the lands outside of the Master Planned Resort. The additional public services shall serve the urban levels of intensity within the Master Plan area, the RVC level services in the RVC area, and the rural development in the surrounding area, and allow extension of urban level sewer utilities only in the event of a health hazard. The purpose of the regulatory restriction is to prevent a fundamental change in the overall development patterns planned for the area. lncreasing the quality or quantity of services in such area as a result of the development is one of the economic benefits. A water facility may serve both urban and rural uses as a water system is preferable to individual exempt wells. The water system shall not be used to serve uses in the rural area in excess of that allowed by County codes for rural area development. The number of proposed residential units shall be no greater than 890 units, including both the resort residences and staff/affordable housing. The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fainrays, and the upper portion of the development. The proposal shall ensure retention of selected stands of significant trees along the bluff of the golf course to reduce the visibility of the site from the south. The proposal shall provide landscaping between US HWY 101 and the new access road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. With the exception of the Condo{el/conference center, with terrace lofts and the Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from higher grade elevations. The overall project approval shall address light and glare to reduce the projection of evening lights off the golf course and marina properties. (Reduction does not mean lights cannot be seen, but that through shielding and proper placement and orientation, the offsite impacts are minimized.) Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-8 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101 . o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, or as shown under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. The Maritime Village building is now proposed to be located north of the Black Point Road and U.S. Highway 101 intersection. The stand of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101and the Maritime Village no longer applies to the proposed site layout. sEls With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.12-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With the implementation of the proposed site design features and identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.12-9 3.12 Rural Character and Population PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.{3 CULTURAL and ARGHAEOLOGIGAL RESOURGES This section of the SEIS describes existing cultural and archaeological resources on the site, and evaluates how development under each of the alternatives could affect cultural resources. lnformation in this section is based on the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and I nadvertent Discovery Protocol (Appendix O). 3.{ 3-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that prior archaeological field investigations of the site area did not result in the identification of any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. However, background research and preliminary on-site reconnaissance suggested a high probability for pre-contact or ethnographic archaeological sites in the development areas. This determination was based on the nature of the onsite landforms and the proximity of the project to two ethnographic village sites. Those environments most likely to contain naturally buried archaeology, identified in collaboration with cultural resources staff of the Skokomish Tribe, were determined to be kettles, vantage points, and bluff edges. SEIS The potential for archaeological and cultural resources to be present on the site has generally remained the same as presented in the 2007 EIS; therefore, no changes to the discussion of existing conditions is warranted in this SEIS (see Section 3.9 and Appendix 8 of the 2007 EIS for a description of the existing archaeological conditions). 3.13-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS (Appendix 8) noted that ground disturbing activities associated with project development were anticipated to be extensive, and based on the environmental, cultural and archaeological background of the project area, the proposed development area is considered to have a high potential for archaeological deposits. Adverse impacts to buried archaeological deposits could be consequences of ground disturbing, excavation, earthmoving, and construction activities. The cultural resources report noted that assessment of preferred alternative project designs would be necessary in order to identify potential impacts to properties determined to have historical significance, and a complete archaeological and cultural survey was recommended to be completed following final project design and prior to any construction. The Final EIS stated that project-level work, and specifically land clearing and grading plans would be required to have a cultural resources monitoring program in place to coordinate review for potential artifacts or sites of cultural significance and a program of appropriate response should such sites be identified. The Final EIS indicated that discussions with the Tribes reflected in the Tribal comments continue to reflect the project proponent's planned approach. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.13-1 3.13 C u ltu ral an d Arc h aeol og i cal Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW sEts The potential for the project to result in impacts to cultural and archaeological resources remains generally as described in the 2007 ElS. Therefore, there is a possibility that prehistoric and historic archaeological resources could be present at the site. Excavation and grading activities are expected to be necessary for site development work (see Section 3.1, Earth, for details), and these activities have the potentialto encounter archaeological deposits. Due to the lower amount of excavation and grading associated with the golf course design under Alternative 2, the potential to encounter archaeological deposits would be less than under Alternative 1 and the Preferred Alternative identified in the 2007 ElS. To avoid potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources, periodic archaeological monitoring would be carried out during construction excavations and other below-fill, ground-disturbing project actions. Monitoring would occur at those locations within the site area that have previously been identified as high probability areas (i.e., kettles, vantage points, and bluff edge) until it could be determined with greater assurance that continual monitoring was not necessary. Monitoring results would be reviewed with Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation staff and tribal representatives prior to adjusting the monitoring schedule. See Appendix O for details of the monitoring plan. 3.{ 3-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternatives 1 an4or 2 Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Gonstruction The project proponent shall work with the Tribes and County to provide onsite monitoring during all construction to assure identification and management of any cultural resources identified. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal is a significant environmental and cultural area, and is proposed to be closed to resort use. BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to silhel Alternatives 1 an4or 2 Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 0) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.13-2 3.13 Cu ltural and Archaeological Resources a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW o Three tribes concurred with the Cultural Resource Management Plan for Archeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery; three other tribes did not comment. See Appendix O for copies of email correspondence. a 63 (k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor a document reflecting the developer's written understanding with and among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site integrity, provide procedures regarding future ground-disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to provide for community education opportunities. o See Appendix O for the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocol, and for correspondence with DAHP and local tribes. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.{3-4 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.13-3 3.13 Cultural and Archaeological Resources PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3,14 LIGHT and GLARE This section of the SEIS describes existing light and glare characteristics on the site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these characteristics. This section includes information contained in the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). 3.14-1 Affected Environment 2007 EIS Existing light and glare conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS sErs Site Under existing conditions, the Black Point Campground area of the project site is currently primarily comprised of existing vegetation and vacant buildings. The property is not actively in use therefore it produces no light. Limited glare may occasionally occur from stationary specular surfaces (i.e. windows on vacant buildings). The Marina area contains two single family homes, one of which is a bed and breakfast. Limited, rural residential light and glare conditions occur, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and mobile sources including roadway lighting along certain existing streets such as Black Point Road, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from the existing residences. Site Vicinitv ln the immediate vicinity of the site, development is generally limited to rural residential uses or is undeveloped and forested and produces limited light or glare. Light and glare conditions are typical of a rural residential area, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and mobile sources including roadway lighting along certain existing streets, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from existing single family residential housing. lmmediately north of the site, the Pleasant Harbor Marina contains 285 boat slips, a grocery store/convenience store/deli and office, restrooms, showers and laundry, and a swimming pool. Light and glare conditions are indicative of a rural area, and include residential light and glare, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and mobile sources including roadway lighting along certain existing streets, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from existing retail/commercial businesses. 3.14-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets Section 3.5.8, Aesthetics, of the 2007 EIS discussed the potential for light and glare to interfere with the character and enjoyment of the night sky, and to impact adjacent properties. The EIS stated that lighting in any MPR alternative will be required for both safety and security and that required lighting should be the minimum necessary, and shielded to eliminate glare onto Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.1+1 3.14 Light and Glare PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW adjacent properties both on and off site. The EIS stated that lights should be kept lower to the ground where possible and low wattage lamps should be used to reduce impacts to the night sky. The 2007 EIS also noted that overall project approval shall address light and glare to reduce the projection of evening lights off the golf course and marina properties. (Reduction does not mean lights cannot be seen, but that through shielding and proper placement and orientation, the offsite impacts are minimized.) sEts ln general, the potential for light and glare impacts from either SEIS Alternatives 1 and-or 2 remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 EIS, in that comparable levels of development are proposed (i.e. golf course, 890 residential units and commercial/retail development). However, as noted in Chapter 2, the site area has been reduced (the marina upland area is no longer part of the project), and less development is proposed in the marina upland area (the area to the north of Black Point Road). Following is a more extensive description of potential impacts. Alternatives 1 and 2 ln general, light emanates from both stationary sources (e.9., interior and exterior building lighting, street lighting, pedestrian-level lighting and illuminated signage) and mobile sources (e.9. light from headlights of vehicles operating on a project site and on adjacent streets). The principal source of glare associated with most development projects is from specular surfaces on building facades, and from vehicle headlights and glazing (and/or specular surfaces on vehicles), which may occasionally create glare as sunlight is reflected. Factors that may influence the amount and effects of light emitted include: the type of environment in which the project is located (e.9. urban, rural or suburban); topography, the existing light conditions in the site vicinity; the proximity of Intervening structures, landscaping and/or vegetation; and, the use of light fixtures to prevent light trespass. Factors influencing the amount of reflective solar glare that may occur include: weather (e.9., cloud cover); building height, width and orientation of the fagade; percentage of the fagade that is glazed or composed of specular material; reflectivity of the glass or specular surfaces; the design relationship between the glazed and non-glazed portions of the fagade (e.9., glass inset from the sash, horizontal and vertical modulation); the color and texture of building materials that comprise the fagade; and the proximity of other intervening structures, topography or significant landscaping The Pleasant Harbor project under both-elhelAlternatives 1 an+gr 2 would develop a largely undeveloped, rural site with an 18-hole golf course,890 residential units, and commercial development for resort-related amenities and services. Proposed development on the site would result in new permanent light and glare sources and would be produced from both stationary and mobile sources, particularly at night. Construction Certain temporary light and glare impacts could result during the construction process. For example, area lighting of the job site (to meet safety requirements) may be provided, which could potentially be noticeable in certain areas proximate to the site. Also, glare could reflect off construction vehicles and equipment, and construction-related vehicle headlights could at times Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Dralt EIS May 2013 3.1+2 3.14 Light and Glare PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW produce light and glare when accessing the site from area roadways. Given the temporary nature of construction, however, such potential impacts are not expected to be significant. Operation Following development, stationary sources of light produced by the prgect would include interior building lighting, exterior building lighting, street lighting, parking lot lighting, retail/commercial lighting, pedestrian pathway lighting, and lighting associated with the golf course and recreational amenities. Mobile sources would include light and glare from vehicle headlights associated with vehicles entering and exiting the site from area roadways, and entering, exiting and maneuvering within surface and underground parking areas. Under either Alternativee 1 aa*or .2, new sources of glare on the site would primarily include reflections from building fagades and windows, and reflections from vehicle traffic traveling to and from the site. Specific glare impacts would depend upon the amount of reflective surfaces (glass, metal, etc.) that are incorporated into building construction. ln general, the project would likely largely use low-reflectivity building glazing and building materials (such as wood), and as a result, significant glare-related impacts would not be anticipated. ln order to ameliorate potential impacts, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort would be designed to meet the guidelines for Dark Sky Lighting Standards. The Dark Sky Lighting Standards have three objectives: 1) To limit visible glare across fhe Resort and adjoining property, and to provide a guide for adequate lighting used for navigation within the Marina area and fo suggesf lighting policies that may be applied to the Resorf boundaries. 2) To protect the operation of the Resorf from deterioration by surrounding light pollution 3) Minimize the impact of aftificial lighting on the night environment while maintaining a degree of safety for visitors. Potential measures could be implemented as part of site design and development to minimize potential light impacts on surrounding uses, including: the use of lighting controls that regulate operation when sufficient daylight is available, choosing fixtures that are "dark sky" friendly, directing outdoor lights downward and/or shielding light fixtures, and directing lights away from adjacent properties and buildings. General guidelines that would be followed under either Alternatives 1 an+gr 2 to minimize potential light and glare impacts include the following: o lllumination would be to the minimum practical level.r The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical.o The duration of illumination would be as short as practicalfor Resident Safety.o lllumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light.. Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines) The project would also preserve portions of the site as natural area (i.e. open space which would be left in native conditions) which could help to limit the potential for light and glare impacts to occur off-site. A greater amount of natural area would be preserved under Alternative 2 (80 acres, 33 percent of total site area) as compared to Alternative 1 (33 acres, 14 percent of total site are). The preservation of more natural area under Alternative 2 could 3.14 Light and Glare Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.14-3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW provide a greater visual buffer at the site borders, and could possibly prevent more offsite light trespass than Alternative 1. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. Some additional light and glare could result from the resumption of camping uses on the Black_Ppoint Campground. Primarily, this would be associated with vehicle headlights maneuvering on and within the site, and limited and temporary lighting of campground sites at night. Light and glare conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions on the primarily forested area to the north of Black Point Road, which includes three structures near the northern site boundary. 3.,i14-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Els The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternatives 1 an+or 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction The overall project approval shall address light and glare to reduce the projection of evening lights off the golf course and marina properties. (Reduction does not mean lights cannot be seen, but that through shielding and proper placement and orientation, the offsite impacts are minimized.) BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternatives 1 an+el2 Mitisation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Gonstruction 63 (z) Statesman shall use the lnternational Dark Sky Association (lDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for "areas with intrinsically dark landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited. sErs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following mitigation measure would be implemented. a o Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.11-4 3.14 Light and Glare PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The lighting of the Pleasant Harbor Resort would be designed and implemented in accordance with the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Sfandards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). 3,14-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.1+5 3.14 Light and Glare PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.{5 AESTHETICS This section characterizes the existing and future aesthetic conditions on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site. 3.{ 5-{ Affected Environment 2007 Els The 2007 EIS discussed aesthetic character in Section 3.8, Rural character and Population, and noted that aesthetics refers to the visual components of rural character: rural landscape and open space. The local rural landscape was observed to have a predominance of natural open spaces over the built environment, although the RV campground was marginally visible from the south as one travels north on U.S. HIAE!!vq1101 and from portions of the subdivisions at the mouth of the Duckabush River, to the wesUsouthwest of the site. SEIS The existing aesthetic character of the project site has generally remained as described in the 2007 Ers. Views to the Site Views of the Pleasant Harbor site are primarily available from area roadways, including U.S. HighwafHry1O1 and portions of Black Point Road. Views of the site along U.S. Hightva|-![{ 101 mainly include existing forested areas and vegetation on the site. Views of the site from these roadways are generally limited to areas immediately adjacent to the roadways due to the presence of existing trees and vegetation, as well as topographic conditions on the Pleasant Harbor site. At the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, a small real estate office, unpaved surface parking and an unpaved vehicle turn-around area are visible. Views of the southern portion of the site are also possible to boaters on Hood Canal. 3.15-2 Impacts 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS acknowledged that the proposal would add complexity and intensity to the Black Point area, including visual elements, densities and land uses. The onsite visual landscape was anticipated to change, but a significant amount of the proposal was to be in some form of open space. The golf course itself would be open space and the areas between the fairways would be preserved, planted and maintained with native trees and understory. Forested open spaces were to be dedicated along the bluff of the Black Point Peninsula and wetland areas were to be preserved and enhanced as necessary. The EIS stated that portions of the subdivisions at the mouth of the Duckabush River had the greatest potential for visual impact to the rural landscape. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.15-l 3.15 Aesfhetics PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW sEts As described in Chapter 2, two possible site alternatives are evaluated in this SEIS. This analysis describes how the alternatives could affect the existing visual character associated with the site. While both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 include a golf course and the same total number of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the distribution of the units are more consolidated under the SEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of impervious area. As well, the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina is no longer part of the project site; structures within the Marina would be renovated or replaced, as a separate action within the existing Binding Site Plan permit. Alternative 1 Development of the Pleasant Harbor Resorf would extensively change the aesthetic character of the Black Point campground portion of the site from a largely undeveloped, vegetated area with camping sites and a network of roads, to a developed resort area containing 52 buildings with 828 units of multifamily housing, a golf course, surface and underground parking, and resort oriented commercial space and recreational amenities. Significant clearing of vegetation, demolition of existing structures, and grading would be required in areas of the Black Point campground not designated as sensitive or protected. Landscaping would include re-vegetating disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be cleared. Approximately 33 acres of natural area (14 percent of the lotal232 acre site) would be preserved under Alternative 1. The Black Point campground area of the site is presently characterized by several relatively flat terraces, interspersed with steep slopes and a series of kettles or depressions, which are currently a significant natural visual feature of the site. Under Alternative 1, the visual character of the site topography would be altered to create large, gentle graded sloping areas to accommodate the golf course design. As well, Kettle B would be reconfigured by mass grading to collect and retain site runoff. Tota! site grading under Alternative 1 would be approximately 2.2 million cubic yards (the same as the 2007 EIS ), compared to approximately 1 million cubic yards under Alternative 2. Buildings within the Golf Resort area would range from one to four stories in height and would be in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled roof elements. The main building at the Golf Resort would be the Golf Terrace and Conference Center/Spa; at four stories in height (48 feet), this would be the tallest building within the development. The southern portion of the Black_Ppoint Campground area (along Hood Canal) is a steep bluff (100+ feet high) and contains a narrow beach fronting the shellfish beaches on the Duckabush River delta with a small path leading from the top of the bluff to the beach. No development is located in proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. Under Alternative 1, a riparian buffer would be preserved along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve the 2OO-foot-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. The existing aesthetic character of this area of the site would, therefore, remain as under existing conditions. The setback would also serve to provide a visual screen between the resort development and Hood Canalto the south. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.15-2 3.15 Aesthetics PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural area containing mature vegetation and several single family homes, to a more densely developed site with a larger building massing and scale and surface parking lots. New residential units and commercial space would be located in three new buildings, while two existing buildings would be retained (Bed & Breakfast and Harbor House). The largest structure within the Maritime Village (Maritime Village Building) would be three stories in height. The structure would be built into the existing topography, with two stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories visible internal to the site. The proposed architectural concept for the buildings within the Maritime Village area is a Cape Cod waterfront style incorporating some stone and cedar accents. ln general, portions of the redeveloped resort (primarily the Maritime Village area and the Maritime Village building) would be visible from certain locations along Black Point Road, and to motorists on U.S. Hwy 101. This is one of two major changes that would occur. The other principal visual changewould occuratthe intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, where surface parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would replace current views of a real estate office, unpaved surface parking and a vehicle turn-around s1ss. As-r#-Parking lot landscaping would be provided in compliance County Code requirements (JCC 18.30.130[6]), which would help to soften to the visual impact at this location. Alternative 2 ln terms of total development, the Pleasant Harbor_Marina and Go!! Resod under Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 as both alternatives include a golf course and the same total number of residential units (890). However, aesthetic impacts would be reduced under Alternative 2 because the golf course layout requires less cut and fill (1 million cubic yards), preserves more natural vegetation, and more closely follows the existing topography. As well, to reduce the built area within the Golf Resort under Alternative 2, the total number of buildings is reduced to 36, as compared to 52 buildings under Alternative 1. The landscaping proposal under Alternative 2 includes re-vegetation of disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be regraded, but the amount of disturbed areas would be significantly reduced as compared to Alternative 1. Approximately 80 acres of natural area (33 percent of the total site acreage) would be preserved. Buildings within the Golf Resort area would range from one to five stories in height and would be in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled roof elements. The main building at the Golf Resort would be the Golf Terrace and Conference Center/Spa; at five stories in height (70 feet), this would be the tallest building within the development (this is one story taller than the building under Alternative 1). As with Alternative 1, a riparian buffer would be preserved along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula and the existing aesthetic character of this area of the site would remain as under existing conditions. Under Alternative 2, Kettle B would not be significantly reconfigured by mass grading as would occur under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have a total water volume of 60 million gallons, whereas under Alternative 2, Kettle B would have double that capacity at 123 million gallons. The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural area containing mature vegetation and several single family homes, to a more densely Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.15-3 3.15 Aesthetics PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW developed site with a larger building massing and scale and surface parking lots, generally as described for Alternative 1. New residential units and commercial space would be located in three new buildings, while two existing buildings would be retained (Bed & Breakfast and Harbor House). The principal visual changes would occur with the visibility of portions of the Maritime Village area, and at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101 , as described for Alternative 1, where surface parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would replace views of the real estate office, unpaved surface parking and a vehicle turn-around. Summarv Although the visual character and views of the Pleasant Harbor site would extensively change under either Alternatives 1 an*or 2, whether these changes would be perceived as a negative impact would depend on the individual viewer. For example, some viewers could perceive the change in character of the site from a generally forested/vegetated former campground area to a mixed-use development as a negative impact, while others could perceive this change as a positive condition. On an overall basis, positive or negative perceptions of the aesthetic character and views of the site would likely be defined by the quality and consistency of building design, landscaping, and open space areas. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The aesthetic character of the site would generally remain as described under existing conditions. 3.{5-3 Mitisation Measures 2007 EIS The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to eithg Alternatives 1 gan42. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fairways, and the upper portion of the development. The proposal shall ensure retention of selected stands of significant trees along the bluff of the golf course to reduce the visibility of the site from the south. The proposal shall provide landscaping between U.S. H\AfHwv_1O1 and the new access road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from higher grade elevations. a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.15-4 3.15 Aesfhetrcs a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. H+ghway_llylllOl and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Flighwafllylll0l and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101 . o Nete that the marina and marina uplands area is ne lenger part ef the MPR site arear+ne-I'ne marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is ne*subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. The strip of mature trees between U.S. Highuray Hwv101 andthe@ is no lonoer to be con sidered 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and publicviews." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9,the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. o a a 63 (v) !n keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings. SEIS With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.15-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under silhel Alternatives 1 an4or 2 would change the aesthetic character of the site from its existing, primarily vegetated/forested condition to a new development featuring a golf course, residential, commercial and open space uses. Development of the site would also result in an increase in light and glare on the site and in the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.15-5 3.15 Aesthetics PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW surrounding area. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.15-o 3.15 Aesthetics PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.{6 UTILITIES This section of the SEIS describes the existing status of utilities that are provided to the Pleasant Harbor site, and evaluates the impacts of added demand on such services/utilities from development of the site under the EIS alternatives. Utilities evaluated in this section include water, sewer telecommunications and solid waste. Stormwater management is discussed and analyzed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, and electricity is address in Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources. The discussion is based on the Water and Sewer Sysfems Engineering Repoft (December 2011) prepared by Craig A. Peck & Associates (see Appendix Q). The resort would be self-sufficient with respect to water and sewer utilities. consistent with Growth Manaoement Act requirements for master planned development outside of a desionated Urban Growth Area. GMA condition should be cited in this section to clarifv. 3.{6-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ets Section 3.3, Water Resources, of the 2007 EIS noted that the offsite Black Point subdivisions were served by a public water system and onsite sewage disposal systems on individual lots (septic tanks and drainfields). lt was also noted that Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op serves the Black Point area, and has significant water rights. No additional description of existing, onsite sewer or water, conditions was provided. Telecommunications and solid waste were not addressed in the 2007 ElS. sEts Water The water system infrastructure within the Pleasant Harbor site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. The existing water system is private, no public system serves the site. Water Supplv - Three wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. Two additional wells north of Black Point Road serve the site area; one well provides water to the Bed & Breakfast and another well serves as backup water supply for the Pleasant Harbor House and Marina. Another well at the north end of the marina property serves as primary water supply to the Pleasant Harbor House and the marina area outside the site boundary. Two remaining wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula. a a a Water Storaqe - One storage tank currently serves the site: a wood stave tank on top of the hill in the southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground. A metal storage tank outside of the site boundary located in the marina upland area serves the marina area. Water Distribution - A water distribution system is present within the Black Point campground to provide water directly to campsites in the north central area, the lodge Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-1 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW building, restroom building, pool, storage building area and park entrance buildings. This system is not currently fully functional. A limited extent water distribution system is located within the marina upland area immediately northwest of the site boundary. Sanitarv Sewer The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site is private (no public system serves the site) and consists of gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor House has its own septic tank, pump tank, and pump. The forcemain discharges into the gravity collection system within the marina (within the BSP area, outside of the site area) and flows through the marina septic tank, pump tank, pumps, and into thedrainfield across U.S. Hwy 101. The Bed and Breakfast is served by its own septic system. There are several septic systems throughout the Black Point campground area that are currently not in use. These include systems near the restroom buildings, lodge building and entrance building. Telecommunications Centurylink is the communication provider in the area for telephone and DSL internet service. CenturyLink is the only DSL option in the area and is currently not available to new DSL customers. HughesNet is a rural satellite internet service provider in the area. Solid Waste Solid waste in Jefferson County is managed by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. A municipal solid waste transfer station is located at the County's closed landfill outside of Port Townsend, approximately 40 miles to the north of the Pleasant Harbor site, and a rural drop box site is located in Quilcene for South Jefferson County residents, approximately 12 miles north of the site. ln 2012, ovet 19,000 tons of municipal solid waste were collected through these two facilities. County waste is trucked from collection locations to a facility in Tacoma, and then trans-loaded to railcars to the Roosevelt regional landfill in Klickitat County. The Department of Public Works contracts with Skookum Educational Programs to collect and process the county's recyclables at seven sites for free recycling; one recycling collection station is located in Brinnon at the Dosewallips State Park.1 The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan identifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard of 4.20 pounds of solid waste and 0.80 pounds of recycling waste per person per day.2 Currently, solid waste generation on the Pleasant Harbor site is limited to the existing single family residences (B&B and Harbor House) and the real estate office on the Maritime Village portion of the site. There-i+e,9urrently_Mg[gyg_pfovide_ n+garbage collection service to the site; residente/ernpleyees transpert their ewn garbage te the Quileene drep bex (Please 3.16-2 lmpacts 1 Jefferson County Department of Public Works: http://jeffersoncountysolidwaste.com/3-recycling-services/ 2 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities Element. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-2 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW New development on the lpleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf courses uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related increases in demand on water and sewer systems. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout period. ln general, water and sewer impacts would be similar under get+gilhelAlternatives 1 en+el2 due to the similar levels of development proposed under both alternatives (i.e. golf course, 890 residential units and approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial space). 2007 Ers Water The 2007 EIS Proposed Action was noted to result in two sources of water demand: potable water demand for resort operations and irrigation, and nonpotable uses of water for operation and maintenance of the golf course and marina. Maximum annual water utilization was anticipated to reach 137 acre feet. The water supply approach for the development was based on an integrated use of groundwater (wells), rainwater harvesting, and treatment and reuse of wastewater (reclaimed water). Groundwater wells would serve as the potable water supply source for the resort. Water for other uses, such as for toilet flush and inigation was to come from stored reclaimed water and from stormwater runoff and rainwater collected from the site. The existing kettles were to be used for water storage (110 million gallons) by grading and lining the bottoms of the kettles. The estimated daily potable water demand was approximately 87,300 gpd total, from 62,300 gallons per day (gpd) at 70 gpd per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for residential uses and 25,000 gpd for commercial uses. The EIS noted that total conventional water storage requirements were approximately 189,530 gallons for an average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU. Sewer The 2007 EIS noted that an onsite waste treatment and disposal system would be used for the Pleasant Harbor site in order to avoid wastewater discharge to Hood Canal or the harbor. Several alternatives capable of creating water that could be recycled and reused on the site were presented in the 2007 ElS, including sequencing batch reactor, membrane bioreactor, and recirculating biofilter (see 2007 DEIS Section 3.1.1.1for more information). The EIS noted that all residential and commercial wastewater collected within the development was to be treated to a Class A reuse standard and reused onsite for nonpotable purposes. Telecommunications and Solid Waste Telecommunications and solid waste were not addressed in the 2007 EIS sEls ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, utility demands (water, sewer, telecommunications and garbage) would be similar, except that the existing Marina is no longer part of the proposal. Water is proposed to be supplied from the same sources identified in the 2007 ElS, including an integrated use of groundwater (wells), rainwater harvesting and treatment and reuse of Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-3 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW wastewater, and a new water distribution system would need to be constructed. Rainwater harvestino and treatment for domestic consumption is not a part of this proposal. As well, the daily potable water demand has been calculated at 175IERU gpd, versus 70 gpd/ERU in the 2007 EIS_All wastewater within the development under the SEIS Alternatives is proposed to be treated to a Class A reuse standard and reused onsite for nonpotable purposes, as was the case with the 2007 ElS. A waste treatment and disposal system has been selected for the proposal, as detailed below; the 2007 EIS noted that several options were available. Water Construction A new water distribution system would be required to be built throughout the site under Alternatives 1 and p12. The new system would be constructed under or near new roadways to reduce the need for clearing and grading (see Figures _ and J. ln some locations, the water system could cross golf fairways to reduce overall length or to provide for looped connections to improve flow rate and pressure. The water distribution system would be within easements. Construction activities related to installation of the distribution mains may include temporary disruptions in service to some onsite areas; noise and dust during construction; and construction-related traffic to deliver pipe and other materials to the site. Note: Do noise and dust durinq construction and construction-related traffic need to be addressed in Mitioation Measures section. For example. approximatelv how manv construction-related tri os. tvoes of veh . duration. to occur in phases or one time? Operation Under Alternatives 1 and p1 2, a multi-purpose utility district is proposed to own, operate and maintain the new water system. System user fees would be paid to the district to cover the ongoing costs of the system. Those costs would be expected to increase over time concurrent with the costs of supplies and labor. Domestic water on the Pleasant Harbor site would be provided under water rights granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15,2010. The water right provides the right to withdraw 254 acre-feet per year, including 121 acre-feet per year for domestic and commercial use, 105 acre-feet per year for irrigation use, and 28 acre-feet per year for Fire Smart Program. The existing onsite wellwithin the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated, and a second well would be drilled in one of two potential locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. A below-grade 260,000-gallon water storage tank would be constructed on the property near the main conference center (Terrace 1) to the northwest of Kettle B. Development of the site would be expected to generate an annual potable water supply demand of at least 93 acre-feet per year, or approximately 30 million gallons. This is based on an Average Daily Demand of 175 gpd/ERU and the expected seasonal residential occupancy. The current water right of 131 acre-feet per yearfor municipal (potable) uses is sufficient to provide this amount. Potable residential water use is projected to be approximately 132,000 gpd during periods of maximum occupancy (85 percent) and _ gpd for commercial uses. Average daily potable water use is anticipated to be reduced from 175 gpd/ERU to approximately 70 gpd/ERU with the use of low flow plumbing fixtures. This represents a more conservative water demand in comparison to the 2007 ElS, which estimated average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU, with maximum daily demand up to 140 gpd/ERU. The 175 gpd/ERU Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-4 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW used in this SDEIS is in compliance with a Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) condition placed on the project (condition 63 [0]) requiring all calculations for water to be based on the standard of 175 gpd. The quality of water would be consistent with Washington State Department of Health Standards (see Section3.2, Water Quality, for more information). The above referenced water demand does not include golf course irrigation or fire protection, which would be provided with rainwater and water reuse from the sanitary sewer treatment plant that would be stored in the Kettle B irrigation pond, when completed. During initial phases of development (i.e. before the Kettle B pond is completed), fire protection in some areas would require potable water use, but during later phases, fire protection and irrigation water will be provided from the irrigation system. Kettle B would be partially filled and lined with synthetic liners to receive site stormwater runoff along with Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment plant for irrigation and fire protection. Kettle C, which would be reconstructed as a new created wetland, would also receive site runoff if Kettle B reached capacity. The Kettle B irrigation pond would accommodate recycled water from the wastewater treatment plant and surface runoff water collected from annual precipitation. After construction of the irrigation pond, reclaimed water would be used for irrigation of the golf course, percolation from infiltration fields to groundwater for aquifer recharge, and irrigation within the naturally vegetated areas of the resort for a Fire-Smart Preservation program. Recycled non-potable water pressure transmission piping system throughout the resort would be used for firefighting and landscaping irrigation. Under Alternative 2, the existinq shape of Kettle B would not be reconfigured by mass grading as would occur under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have been reshaped to a smaller overall area with a total water volume of 60 million gallons, whereas under Alternative 2, Kettle B would retain much of its current overall shape to have double that capacity at 120 million gallons. This is similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, which would have reconfigured the kettle to have a 110 million gallon capacity. Sewer The Pleasant Harbor site has no existing centralized sewage collection or treatmentinfrastructure.Constructionofanew,private@systemandwastewater treatment plant would be required to serve the development proposed under be*h=1thql Alternatives 1 anC-or 2.; The collection svstem would consist ofas-urelles-a new gravity sewer system and/or individual building sewer pump station and force mains connected to the gravity sewer system. An on-site wastewater treatment plant is proposed capable of producing Class A reclaimed water for irrigation and fire protection. The plant would be designed to treat 280r0OO ? gallons per day. The proiected volume of sewaoe to be qenerated by Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would be the same. Construction lmpacts The new sewer distribution system would be constructed within easements located under or adjacent to roadways or across golf course fairways for efficient conveyance. The existing septic and pump tanks and subsurface drainfields would be decommissioned in place or removed. Construction activities related to installation of the collection and conveyance system may include temporary disruptions in service to some customers; noise and dust during the construction phase; and construction-related traffic to deliver pipe and other materials to the construction sites (see Appendix Q for details). Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-s 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Note: Do noise and dust durino construction and construction-related traffic need to be addressed in Mitioation Measures section. For example. approximatelv how manv construction-related trips. tvoes of vehicles. duration, to occur in ohases or one time? Construction of a-!he gravity_portions of the collection system would likely have a longer duration than construction of a-!he pump station and forcemain oortions of the system because gravity sewers are deeper than forcemains. Deeper pipelines require longer excavation and backfill periods of time and also are more likely to encounter difficult construction conditions including large glacially deposited rocks. Construction of the wastewater treatment plant would begin as Phase 1 of the project and would be completed prior to occupancy of any proposed building within the project (see Chapter 2 for more information on phasing). NOTE: Do we need to add information about the phased implementation of the treatment plant prior to full buildout? Operational lmpacts As noted above, in order to serve the development proposed under s[heI Alternativee 1 an*ct 2, a new wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment plant would be built to convey and treat sewage on the site. The collection system would include four pump stations and the treatment plant would have the capacity to treat e80p0+[gallons of wastewater per day to meet the State of Washington requirements for a Class A Reclaimed Water Permit. Wastewater flow and loading projections were based on the projected build-out population. The per capita loading projections are inclusive of residential, commercial, and public facility land uses, and are based on 175 gpd per ERU, until lower wastewater flows of approximately 75 gpd/ERU can be verified through the proposed use of very low flow fixtures and water conservation measures. The wastewater treatment plant would be located in the northwest corner of the site, and would utilize a nutrient removal activated sludge process with clarifiers and filtration to produce Class A effluent. Effluent use during initial phases of development would 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. Operation of the new wastewater collection system, conveyance system, and treatment plant on the site as proposed could result in transportation impacts for waste sludge from the site to a processing facility, fuel for standby generators, and chemicals for the treatment processes. Waste sludge would be hauled by tanker trucks along US Highway 101 to the treatment facility near Shelton. Fuel and chemicals would be hauled to the site. Operation of a new wastewater treatment plant on the site would also result in increased noise levels, release of odors, and energy consumption (see Appendix Q for greater detail). Creation of a multi-purpose utility district is proposed to own, operate, and maintain the new wastewater treatment and conveyance systems. System user fees would be paid to the district to cover the ongoing costs of the system. Those costs would be expected to increase over time concurrent with the costs of supplies and labor. Note: ls it advisable to include approximate costs to inform the Board of County Commissioners and prospective purchasers? Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-G 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Telecommunications Centurylink would continue to serve the site for telephone and DSL internet service, with extensions from existing lines. Solid Waste Under the-either Alternatives 1 aa*or .2, the amount of solid waste generated from uses on the Pleasant Harbor site would substantially increase as compared to existing conditions where- under the site is largely unused. For purposes of this EIS analysis, it is assumed that the 890 residential units could generate up to approximately 2.72 mrllion tons of solid waste per year; and that commercial/retail uses would generate approximately _ tons of solid waste per year. This is based on the assumption that each residential unit would be occupied by two persons, with each person generating 4.2 pounds of solid waste per day (County LOS standard). This is a very conservative assumption, as occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor Resort is anticipated to fluctuate seasonally, with highest occupancy in the summer (85%). lt is assumed that _ would pick up solid waste and that a composting and recycling program would be utilized to help reduce the solid waste stream. PIease confirm the solid waste generation assumption, or have solid waste calculations been made? No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. No new water distribution system would be built. Portions of the existing water distribution would need to be repaired and replaced to return it to an operational condition for the campground use. The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system would remain as described under existing conditions. (Question: What would become of the Water Rioht that has been acquired for the development if the No Action Alternative were selected over either of the build alternatives?) 3.{6-3 llitigation Measures 2007 Ers Mitisation Measures Completed Any project approval for the resort shall contain a condition that the applicant demonstrates entitlement to sufficient water rights to serve the approved phase from WDOE (water rights, transfer, and/or rainwater harvesting rights and use conditions) prior to preliminary plat approval and construction of any facilities on the property. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Any project approval for the golf course area will require construction and operation permits for a wastewater treatment system for the project by WDOE and an operational plan in place as a condition of final plat approval and construction of any structures for occupancy or residency. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-7 3.16 Utilities a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Any project approval for the Maritime Village remodel and upgrade shall include a demonstration that existing facilities can adequately serve the remodel areas. No additional residential units would be approved until the sewer system is installed and operating. (Question: Does the "Maritime Villaqe remodel and uporade" refer to resort improvements not covered by the existing ndino Site Plan? lf not. this work is outside the scope of the SEIS. isn't it?) BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 an4qr 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. 63 (n) Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health, and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development. 63 (0) Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) for the development using a standard ot 175 gallons per day (gpd). The goal of the development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on the standard of 175 gpd. a o o a a sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measures would apply: Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction Water All proposed water system improvements would be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable local and State regulations, including: Jefferson County, Washington State Department of Health, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4. Actual domestic water service requirements will be determined at the time of specific land use applications, based on population projections, and fixture counts. The fire flow requirements will be based on number of hydrants, building types and sprinkler usage. Water meters will be installed at each building or at another connection point using water and pipe/meter sizes to be determined on the basis of domestic fire flow volumes and fire flow needs. Fire flow will be provided by the project irrigation/fire flow system following completions and filling of the inigation pond in Kettle B. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-8 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The district would notify existing customers in advance of potential temporary disruptions to service during new water main construction. Over the course of the projected 1O-year development of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort and the extension of fiber optic cabling throughout the project, it may be possible that technologies could be implemented to more closely monitor the infiltration of re-use water and stormwater runoff and better control distribution of these resources. Note: Mitioation Measures have not addressed all construction impacts identified above (paoe 4). Sewer The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort would comply with all applicable wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse criteria set forth by the multi-purpose utility district, County, and State in permit conditions. a o a Note: Mitiqation Measures have not addressed all construction impacts identified above (paqe 6). 3.{6-4 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would result in increased demand for utilities. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.16-9 3.16 Utilities PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.17 Public Services This section of the SDEIS describes existing fire, police, school and healthcare services, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these public services. 3.17.1 FIRE and EMERGENGY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) 3.17.1-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that the Pleasant Harbor site is located within Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4, which provides both fire protection and EMS. District #4 serves approximately 131 square miles and operates out of three fire stations, located as detailed below. o Fire Station 41 - Headquarters - 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon WAo Fire Station 42 - Duckabush Fire Station - 51 Shorewood Drive, Brinnon, WA. Fire Station 43 - Maury Anderson Station -341 Beemill Road, Brinnon, WA Station 42, located approximately within a mile of the site (to the west), is the closest station to Pleasant Harbor. The EIS stated that on average, EMS calls accounted for approximately two- thirds of the annual call volume, and that call volumes in the Brinnon/Black Point area increase significantly in the summer, when more people are in the area to stay at their summer homes, take extended vacations on local properties, and visit State parks and other recreation amenities. The 2007 EIS noted that District #4 crews must bring their own water when responding to a fire anywhere in the district, which results in a limited water supply for fighting fires, and potential fire truck maneuverability and access issues on narrow, steep roads. Also, the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina complex was noted to pose a particular challenge for District #4 firefighters because of the narrow, steep access road. sErs The existing status of fire service providers has generally remained similar to that presented in the 2007 EIS (see 2007 FEIS Section 3.5 for a description of the existing status of these services). Updated fire and EMS call information is provided in below Table 3.17-1 for Fire District #4. As shown, calls for service have declined since 2010, and the majority of calls continue to be for EMS. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Table 3.17-1 FIRE DISTRICT #4 - FIRE AND EMS CALLS 2008.2012 EMS Calls Fire/Rescue Calls Total Calls 2008 146 82 228 2009 171 93 264 2010 146 103 249 2011 155 65 220 2012 44 29 73 Source; B ri n n o n F i re D epa rtm e nt: hltp l/ b ri n n o nf i re. o rg/. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a goal of having 1.25lire units and 0.5 EMS units in service per 1 ,000 population. 3.17.1-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related increases in demand for fire and EMS services. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent residential units to the community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development's winter or permanent population was projected to increase by 200 to 300 people, which would translate into a few additional calls for service, but was determined to be well within the capacity of the existing facilities and services and anticipated growth. During the summer, a resort population of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated to strain existing personnel and services and equipment. Accordingly, the 2007 EIS identified measures (outlined in Section 3.17.14, below) to mitigate impacts to fire and EMS services. sEts Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to fire and EMS services under silheI SDEIS Alternatives 1 @2 would be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and resort with 890 residential units and approximately 79,000 square feet of commercial uses located on the Black Point campground and the upland portion of the marina area. Under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2@, the number of total residential units remains the same (and consequently the number of people on the site potentially creating service demands would be anticipated to be similar), but the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced to from 73,000 sq. ft. under the 2007 EIS to @ square feet_in Alternativ . As well, the site acreage has been reduced to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 ElS, with the elimination of the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.1 ln general, new development under s!!he1 SEIS Alternatives 1 aa*or.2 would result in associated increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the site, which would result in related increases in demand for fire and EMS services. As noted for the 2007 ElS, demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at a fuller capacity, with at least 85 percent occupancy. Construction lmpacts During the development and construction process for the Pleasant Harbor site under eilhe1 Alternatives 1 afl+or 2, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4 would be involved in the review and inspection of permit applications for new development infrastructure on the site. The District would also conduct final on-site inspections for new development to ensure that construction complies with applicable fire safety standards. Fire Department service calls related to inspection of specific construction projects onsite and to respond to potential construction- related accidents and injuries would increase as a result of new development and construction. Site preparation and construction of new infrastructure and buildings could also increase the risk of a medical emergency or accidental fire. Operational lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under silhe1 Alternativee 1 an*ql2 would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout of the site and associated demands on fire and EMS services would increase incrementally over that time period. Under eilheI Alternatives 1 or#\890 residential units would be provided onsite, including 560 short term tourist residential units and 278 long term units. The 278 permanent units, plus 52 units for staff housing could result in a permanent onsite population of 660 (including 104 employees). As well, additional visitors, both overnight and day trip, would be on the site, adding to general activity levels. New development under silheg Alternatives 1 an+or 2 would, therefore, result in an increase in on- site residents, visitors and employees as compared to existing conditions. lt is anticipated that the increased on-site population (both permanent and temporary) would result in an increase in the number of calls for fire and emergency medical service from the Pleasant Harbor site; demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at peak capacity. Based on historic calls for service over the last five years (see Table 3.17-1), it would be expected that the majority of the calls generated from new development on the Pleasant Harbor site would be EMS calls. As noted previously, Jefferson County's goal for Brinnon is to maintain 1.25 fire units and 0.5 EMS units per 1,000 population. Accordingly, 0.83 fire units and 0.33 EMS units could be required for the permanent site population of 660 residents and employees. An MOU is being negotiated with the Brinnon Fire Department to address potential impacts resulting from increased demand for services. The MOU currently states that the Resort shall provide to the Department the sum of $10,000.00 per quarter commencing 45 days before the anticipated start of construction or demolition in order to offset the cost of providing EMS and fire responses during the construction time period. This amount will continue until the increase in Property Value Assessment is reflected in the Resort's tax payments and the Resort has paid their property taxes for the year of the increase. Such financial contributions would be expected to 1 Structures within the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina would be renovated or replaced, as a separate action within the existing Binding Site Plan permit. This project under the existing BSP does not require additional SEPA review and is not evaluated in the SDEIS. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Senzices3.17-3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW help offset potential increases in calls for service as related to the new Pleasant Harbor resort development. Proposed new development under silhel Alternatives 1 and-or 2 would be constructed in compliance with applicable codes, including the Uniform Fire Code and the lnternational Building Code, as adopted by the Jefferson County Code. Adequate fire flow to serve the proposed development would be provided as required by these codes (see Section 3.16, Utilities). Specific requirements regarding emergency access to structures would also be adhered to, as required by the Fire Code. 3.17.1-3 Mitigation Meaguree 2007 Els Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durins Construction Any preliminary plat for the development of a portion of the resort shall require the following Ensure the onsite water system will provide for adequate sustainable fire flowa a a All resort buildings to include internal sprinkler systems with FDC connections lncorporate Firewise site design standards in the layout of the proposed resort, as appropriate and approved by the local fire authority. All subsurface parking will have to provide fire systems, including air handling, water, and emergency access and egress. lnstall hydrants, two portable fire pumps with hoses and related fire suppression equipment at the marina and maintenance area as approved by the local fire authority. Develop an "emergency action plan" with the Fire District in conjunction with predevelopment, development, and operation to assure clear lines of responsibility and response in the event of any incident requiring emergency response. Any development of the existing marina complex as part of an MPR shall include improving emergency vehicle access to this portion of the resort. Through a memorandum of agreement with District #4, provide the equipment necessary to mount rescue and fire fighting operations on any structure over 18 feet from ground level, including but not limited to the Condotel/Conference Center Building. Enter into an "action plan" with the local fire authority at Districltt4 to assure coordinated control of additional services necessary to achieve an adequate level of service to the resort. Provide a back-up electrical power supply to the resort to ensure continued operation of emergency systems and water supply during any outage. a a a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-4 a PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Comply with the provisions of a memorandum of agreement with local service providers to address service equipment and personnel needs created by the resort, taking into consideration increased tax revenues from the resort activity. Enter into a memorandum of understanding with the local fire authority to address the following issues: a "Firewise" design standards "Emergency action plan" for predevelopment and operational service for each phase of development Provide necessary facilities to mount rescue and fire fighting operations in all phases of the resort "Action plan" for coordinated control and additional services BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63(c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement, Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson County Fire District #4, DBA Brinnon Fire Department. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.17.1-4 Sion ifica ntU ble Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under eilhe1 Alternatives 1 an+el_2 would result in increased demand for fire and EMS services from new uses and population. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. 3.17.2 POLTGE SERVTCES 3.17.2-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that police protection to the site is provided by the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office, which serves all of the unincorporated areas in the County. The Sheriff's Office a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW is located at the Justice Center in Port Hadlock and also maintains an office at the Courthouse in Port Townsend, a substation in Clearwater, and an annex in Quilcene. The Brinnon/Black Point area is in the Sheriff's Patrol District 35. The 2007 EIS noted that deputies were dispatched to the Brinnon/Black Point area from the Justice Center in Port Hadlock or the Quilcene annex. The 2007 EIS noted that calls in the 55 District primarily related to traffic violations, DUI arrests and burglaries. sEts The existing status of police service providers (Jefferson County Sheriff's Office) has generally remained similar to that presented in the 2007 EIS (see FEIS Section 3.5 for a description of the existing status of these services), except that the Quilcene sub-station has been closed due to budget cuts. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a proposed Level of Service (LOS) of 244.5 sq. ft. of dedicated sheriff administrative space per 1,000 population. The Capital Facilities Element states that the proposed LOS would not require any additional space by the end of the planning period (2010), and no capacity projects are required. 3.17.2-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related increases in demand for police services. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that the population on-site would increase as a result of the Proposed Action, and similar to fire and EMS, associated increases in the need for police services would be generated. The resort is located at the southern end of the County and coordination to address the need for additional services was determined to be important. lt was determined that police staffing and facilities would be adequate to serve the increase in site population anticipated under the Proposed Action. sEts Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to police services under silheg SDEIS Alternativee 1 an49l 2 would be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and resort with 890 residential units and approximately 79,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses located on the Black Point campground and the upland portion of the marina area. Under the current proposal, the number of total residential units remains the same, although the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced from73,000sq.ftunderthe2007ElSto@squarefeet-forA.!!ernatjve2.ln general, new development under silheg SDEIS Alternatives 1 anC-et_2 would result in associated increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the site, which could result in related increases in demand for police services. As Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17-6 3.17 Public Services PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW noted for the 2007 ElS, demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at full capacity. 3,17,2-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction a Project Level: Permit approval for both the marina and the golf resort shall address security-related issues, and shall include specific mitigation which may include: Controlled access at the entry and exit points of the resort and docks. Onsite security and surveillance systems for the protection of resort guests, residents, and property coordinated with local service providers to assure appropriate communication and control systems are in place. Community level: Explore the use of a development agreement or other assurance to provide a mechanism for the County to provide some public safety funding to the Brinnon area from the revenues received from the resort to assure that the funds will not be diverted to the more populous north county. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-7 Construction Construction activities associated with the Pleasant Harbor Go/f Resorf could result in an increased demand for police services during the 10-year construction period. Service calls could increase during construction due to trespassing, construction site theft, vandalism and traffic incidents due to construction traffic. The construction site would be secured to prevent trespassing, vandalism and to avoid accidents involving the public. As well, the Resort's existing security staff and security systems would be maintained and increased as needed. With the implementation of these measures, overall construction impacts on police services would be short-term and would not be substantial. Existing staffing and equipment are expected to be sufficient to handle increased calls for services associated with construction activities over the buildout period. Operation Potential increases in on-site population and employment associated with new development under either Alternatives 1 an+or 2 would be incremental and could result in associated incremental increases in demand for police services. lt is anticipated that annual call volumes to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office could increase under be+hg[helAlternatives 1 an4or 2. ln order to reduce potential impacts to the Jefferson County Sherriff's Office, the Resort would maintain security staff sufficient to provide twenty four hour a day, seven day a week service to the site including roving patrol, video systems, intrusion systems and gated entry, as necessary. Consistent with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LOS guidelines, a 500 sq. ft. "public service room" would be provided on the resort for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Otfice, if the Sheriff indicates that the space would be useful (see Appendix R). The public service room would be exclusively for county law enforcement use. With the provision of onsite law enforcement room and implementation of onsite security measures, significant impacts to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office would not be anticipated. PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemen slruction a 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson County Sheriff. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.17.2-4 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse I mpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under silhe1 Alternatives 1 aR+gI_2 would result in increased demand for police services from new uses and population. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. 3.17.3 PUBLIC SGHOOLS 3.17.3-'l AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that the Pleasant Harbor site is located within Brinnon School District #46, which serves grades K through 8; students of high school age have a choice of schools in adjacent districts. District enrollment in 2000 totaled 74 students. Enrollment declined to a low of between 30 and 40 students in 2005, and increased to 56 students in the 2OO5I2OOO school year, and 49 students in 2006/2007. The Brinonn Subarea Plan identifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard of 23 students per classroom. With four regular classrooms and two portables, the school can accommodate up to 138 students based on the established LOS standard. The EIS noted that Brinnon School district #46 experienced excess capacity from 2000 to 2006. sEts School enrollment in the Brinnon School District has declined since publication of the 2007 EIS Table 3.17-2 details the student population for the years 2008 to 2012. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Seryices3.17-8 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Table 3.17-2 BRINNON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 2008-2012 Date Student Enrollment 2006 56 2007 49 2008 31 2009 29 2010 33 2011 38 2012 35 Source; State of WA Office of Superintendent of Public lnstruction Besides declining enrollment and increased excess capacity, existing school conditions have generally remained as described in the 2007 ElS. 3.17.3-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in the permanent on-site population and employment could result in new students to the area school district. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. 2007 Els The 2007 EIS concluded that the construction phase of the project would not result in additional school age children in the area, since the construction crew camp would be temporary quarters, and most families would be expected to attend school in their home districts. As the permanent population increased (both staff and permanent residents), some increase in school age population was anticipated, though minor. While staff increases were noted to be great in the summer, this staff was anticipated to be primarily single adults or families without children. The longer term resort families were predicted to be largely over the age of 55, and therefore to have limited children of school age, particularly K-8. Therefore, the EIS estimated a potential annual increase of 5 to 10 students in grades K-8, and one to two students in high school. The EIS stated that specific mitigation agreements with the School were to be addressed as part of the preliminary plat process for the golf course. sEts ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, the specific number of housing units that would be devoted to permanent residents versus short term visitors has been defined for either SDEIS Alternatives 1 an4or 2. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-9 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Residential development and associated increases in the on-site population under silhel Alternatives 1 anC-or 2 would generate some additional student enrollment in the Brinnon School District. lt is assumed that only permanent residents of the site would potentially have children that could be enrolled in the Brinnon School District, as the rest of the site units would be occupied by temporary, short-term visitors. Under either Alternatives 1 anC-or 2, 52 staff housing units and 276 resort units would be reserved for permanent use. The remaining 562 units would be for seasonal/occasional use. lncreases in on-site population and associated student generation would occur incrementally as the Pleasant Harbor site develops over the full buildout period and would be accompanied by subsequent increases in demand for public school services. For the purposes of this SEIS analysis, potential impacts to public schools were projected for the development of the Pleasant Harbor site based on the projected population for the site under_eilhel Alternatives 1 anC-or 2. The 2010 US Census indicates that approximately 6.8 percent of the Brinnon population is school-age children (ages 5 to 19 years), including approximately 1.4 percent between the ages of 5 and 9 years old (elementary school), approximately 2.3 percent between the ages of 10 and 14 years old (middle school/junior high), and 3.1 percent between the ages of 15 to 19 years (high school). This percentage was used in conjunction with the projected permanent population for the Pleasant Harbor site to estimate the potential number of students that could be generated from permanent onsite residential development under either Alternatives 1 or*d-2. Table 3.17-3 summarizes the potential students that could be generated from development of the Pleasant Harbor site at buildout. Table 3.17-3 PLEASANTHARBoR,-=rtrlHil=r?3t'ff -'cENERArroN Potential Permanent Site Population Grades K{ Studentsl High School Students3 Total Students Alternatives 1 & 2 660 24 20 44 Source.' 2010 US Census and EA Engineering, 2013. 1 Approximately 3.7 percent of the total population (2010 US Census) 2 Approximately 3.1 percent of the total population (2010 US Census) As noted previously, the Brinnon School District only accommodates students in grades K-8. Based on existing school capacity and current enrollment data (see Table 3.17-2), the Brinnon School District currently has excess capacity that could accommodate an additional 24 students in grades K-8. Development under either Alternatives 1 aad-qt '2 also includes execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Brinnon School District that would contribute to exploring ways to increase revenue to the District's budget. lmplementation of this MOA would help to offset any potential impacts resulting from increased student population as a result of resort development. lt should also be noted that the student generation estimate presented in Table 3.17-l is very conservative, because permanent housing associated with the resort is likely to be marketed to an older/retirement age demographic - an age cohort__In'terestilg choice of words for the averaqe reader) with minimal potential to generate K-12 students. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Servrces3.17-10 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.14-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers Estimates for planning purposes are that the project will increase the Brinnon School District by 5-10 students and the adjacent districtfor high school by 1-2 students in any given year. Specific mitigation agreements with the School will be addressed as part of the preliminary plat process for the golf course. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be !mplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Brinnon School District #46. SEIS With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.17.3-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under silhe1 Alternativee 1 and-or 2 would result in new students to the area school district. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. 3,17.4 HEALTH SERVICES 3.17.4-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that the Brinnon Black Point area does not currently have a medical facility. The area is served by Jefferson General Hospital in Port Townsend and Mason General Hospital in Shelton. A medical clinic was also established in Quilcene, supported by Jefferson General Hospital. a a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-11 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW sEts Health care service conditions have generally remained the same as described in the 2007 ElS. 3.17.4-2 lmpacts 2007 Els The 2007 EIS noted that the proposal included 500+ sq. ft. of clinic space in the development of the Maritime Village for a certified nurse and/or a general practitioner. Selected staff would also be provided with basic emergency medical training. SEIS Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to health care services under either SDEIS Alternativee 1 an+or 2 would likely be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action in that the same number of residential units are proposed (890), which would likely result in similar numbers of people on-site. However, the number of units devoted to a permanent residential population has been specified for the SDEIS, and the permanent population would be likely to make more regular use of health care services in the vicinity. !n general, new development under either SEIS Alternativee 1 af,+gl_2 would result in associated increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the site, which could result in related increases in demand for health care services. lt is anticipated that health care service needs would primarily be related to accidental injury or unanticipated illness. However, permanent residents of the site, as well as employees, would also have basic and specialty health care needs which would require doctor visits. ln order to provide health care services in proximity to site residents and visitors, as well as to reduce the increased demand on Jefferson Healthcare, approximately 500 sq. ft. of clinic space would be provided on site for a certified nurse and/or general practitioner that would be staffed and equipped by Pleasant Harbor resort. ln addition, select resort staff would receive training to the level of first responder with ongoing training in CPR, AED, Oxygen Administration and First Aid. With the implementation of these measures, significant impacts to health care services would not be anticipated. 3.17.4-3 Mitiqation Measures 2007 Ers Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Gonstruction Project-specific mitigation shall be addressed in the public services memorandum of understanding (MOU), which shall address reasonable site needs and the means of providing and paying for services. The MOU shall be in place prior to issuance of building permits for development of resort facilities. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Servrces3.17-12 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson HealthCare. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson HealthCare. sErs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.17.4-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under gilhelAlternatives 1 anC-or 2 would result in increased demand for health care services from new uses and population. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.17 Public Services3.17-13 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.18 FISCAL ANALYSIS A fiscal and economic analysis is not required to be nor traditionally included within the scope of an ElS. The scope of this SEIS, however, does include a fiscal analysis. The fiscal analysis of the SEIS includes the tax revenue that the proposed project would generate as well as the economic impact to the community and region. The Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy.-Wlgne, '!p'1;2. (Appendix S) and Economic lmpact of Developing the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resod April 2012 (Appendix S) form the basis for this section. 3.'18-'l Affected Environment 2007 Ets A fiscal analysis was not included in the 2007 EIS sErs Existing employment data is included in Section 3.11.1, Employment and Housing, of this SEIS. 3.18-2 lmpacts 2007 Els A fiscal analysis was not included in the 2007 EIS SEIS The Job Creation and Value Added to the National Economy study (Appendix S) provides an analysis of the economic impact of the Pleasant Harbor Project on the region. The impacts were calculated through a combination of primary and secondary data sources applied to economic modeling methods, including IMPLAN input-output software and specific spreadsheet models developed by Edwards Economics, LLC. The study assumed a7-year buildout period. Residential/resort developments like the Pleasant Harbor proposal have significant economic impact through construction expenditures, tax generation, and "spillover" effects. The Pleasant Harbor project would also attract tourism dollars from outside the region in addition to the new residents added to the area. The economic impacts of the Pleasant Harbor proposal can be loosely divided into the immediate area of the development (the regional economy) and the expenditure-impacts on the national economy. A measure of the spillover benefits on the immediate area include increased total household income (from a combination of more households and more earning power), which hleads to more sales for businesses in nearby areas. At the regional economic level, there are multiplier effects of spending on the project itself, consumer expenditures within the local economy, and subsequent tax generation from both. Spending on construction of housing, Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.18-1 3.18 Fiscal Analysis PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW for example, leads to income for construction firms, their suppliers and their employees, who, in turn, spend the majority of their income within the region. Employment According to the (C€te?June. 2012) study, the most conservative method to measure the economic impact of the Pleasant Harbor project is to focus on the economic impact of construction and new permanent job creation as a result of the proposal. Over the buildout of the Pleasant Harbor project, the total employment, including direct, indirect, and induced employment, would be approximately 6,000 jobs. The direct annual employment from construction would be 275 jobs, and the direct annual permanent employment would be 185 jobs. The total employee compensation (direct, indirect, induced) from construction would be approximately $2S+ million. The 2012 Economic lmpact Study (Appendix S) provides a detailed breakdown of employment and output by project phase. Tax Revenue The tax impacts of the proposed project would occur mainly in the form of property and sales tax. The total annual property tax of the Pleasant Harbor resort projects (assuming $305 million assessment) is approximately $3.05 million dollars. The annual sales tax impact would be approximately $ZO million (2010 dollars), assuming the assessment upon completion is $300 million. The majority of the impact would be a result of construction expenditures and associated payroll spending. Direct commerce for the resort would be approximately $94 million annually. The new golf course at Pleasant Harbor should expect approximately 55,000 rounds per year at $60 per round, producing $3.3 million annually in green fees and $429,000 in sales tax. New residents moving into the atea, based on new housing availability, would generate approximately $4,884 each per year in sales tax collection. lndirect business taxes would also occur during construction and employment. The total indirect business tax from construction is estimated at approximately $25.4 million dollars. Totalcommerce Based on data from the applicant, with multiplier effects, the total direct commerce from the proposed project at completion would be $94,073,312 million annually. The proposed development would increase the visitor numbers through golf, new marina operations, and retail, and would increase the retail capture rate for Jefferson County from visitors on the water. Using the IMPLAN Regional Purchasing Coefficient, Jefferson County would capture approximately $20.8 million of the total. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would not be further developed at this time. Campground use of the Black Point Peninsula property could resume under the existing Conditional Use permit. The economic climate would generally remain as described under existing conditions. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.18-2 3.18 Fiscal Analysis PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.{ 8-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets As noted previously, economic impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No economic/fiscal mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. BoGG Gonditions No BoCC conditions specifically relating to fiscal or economic impacts were proposed. Conditions relating to employment are located in Section 3.1 1 of this SEIS. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions associated with employment (Section 3.11.3, Employment and Housing), no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.184 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.18-3 3.18 Fiscal Analysis PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 3.{9 BoGG Gonditions This section of the SEIS provides a background of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner (BoCC) conditions placed on the MPR proposal as presented in the 2007 ElS, as well as the status of compliance with each of the BoCC conditions. Since publication of the 2007 ElS, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). This section also includes a programmatic review of the consistency of the proposal with the preliminary zoning regulations for the Brinnon MPR and the preliminary development agreement for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. BoGG Gonditions Background The Statesman Group of Companies (Statesman) 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. ln September 2007, Jefferson County completed a programmatic-level EIS that addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and MPR approval for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort project. The MPR proposal represented a change in land use for the project site, from rural to urban, and proposed 890 units of housing, an 18-hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina and at the golf course. ln 2008, the Jefferson County BoCC conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (BMPR) Comprehensive Plan Amendment with 30 conditions, as well as requiring project-level review of the BMPR proposal (including environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement required to implement the proposal). Accordingly, this Supplemental Draft Environmental lmpact Statement (SDEIS) prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW provides project-level environmental review to supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 ElS. The project proposal as reflected in this SEIS has been modified in a number of ways since the 2007 EIS in order to respond to and comply with the BoCC conditions. The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a master plan for a golf course resort on the Black Point campground and the marina area. Since 2008, the applicant has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new SMP buffer of 150 feet. The SEIS Alternatives have been drafted to conform to the conditions and the SMP buffer, and reduce the potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed Master Plan. While get+eithelAlternative 1 an+or Alternative 2 include a golf course and the same total number of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the distribution of the units are more consolidated under the SEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of impervious area. The layout of the golf course in Alternative 2 is also revised to reduce the amount of cut and fill necessary, preserve more natural vegetation, and more closely follow the existing topography. As well, relocates the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline management area to a new location near U.S. Hwy 101. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-1 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Redevelopment of the marina area is permitted under an existing Binding Site Plan (BSP) which allows for re-modeling or completion of previously approved structures within the ex{strng-lhejl building footprints. As a result, a portion of the Maritime Village is no longer included as a part of the site and the overall site area analyzed in this SEIS is less than that analyzed in the 2007 EIS. Gompliance with BoGG Gonditions Table 3.19-1, below, outlines all thirty BoCC conditions and explains howthese have been met, or are proposed to be met, by the Applicant. Several of these conditions that have yet to be finalized or would be addressed in the Development Agreement between the County and the Applicant. Table 3.19-1 BoCC CONDITIONS BoCC #Description Notes Status a Any analysis of environmental impacts is to be based on science and data pertinent to the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoff projections, and potential impacts on Hood Canal. The analysis of environmental impacts contained in the SEIS is based on site specific data, including rainfall projections, runoff projections and potential impacts to Hood Canal. See SDEIS Section 3.2, Water Resources, and Appendix F for more information. Fulfilled b All applications will be given an automatic SEPA threshold determination of Determination of Sig nificance (DS) at the project level except where the SEPA- responsible official determines that the application results in only minor construction. The proposal was given a Determination of Significance on October 14,2009, and this project-level Supplemental EIS was prepared. Fulfilled c The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development ag reement. Such agreements will be MOU's have been negotiated with Brinnon School District #46, Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4, Jefferson County Sherriffs Office, Jefferson Transit, Jefferson Healthcare, and Jefferson County (housing). No MOU has been negotiated for parks and recreation; however, public amenities are proposed within the development (see Conditions 63d below). The MOU's have yet to Partially fulfilled Draft MOU's have been negotiated, but need to be signed by the Applicant. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-2 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoGG #Description Notes Status encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owne/s Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. be signed by the Applicant. The marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. As the upland marina area is no longer a part of the proposal, no agreements have been negotiated with the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club or the Slip owner's Association. d A list of required amenities shall be in the development agreement along with conditions for public access A list of amenities that would be provided as part of the proposal is summarized in Chapter 2 of this SEIS, with a detailed list in Appendix T. Public access conditions shall be included in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. Will be addressed in the Development Agreement e Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and competitive in terms of pricing. This condition shall be negotiated in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. Will be addressed in the Development Agreement f Statesman will prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from within Jefferson County. This condition shall be negotiated in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. Will be addressed in the Development Agreement g The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income (AMl). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 30o/o of A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy (date?). The report is included in this SEIS as Appendix N. Of the 890 housing units proposed as part of the project, 52 Partially fulfilled The study did not include the salary level of the proposed jobs. The affordability of the employee housing shall be Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-3 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoGG #Description Notes Status household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportionalto the number of jobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMI. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing development. units would be staff housing for resort employees. negotiated in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. h The possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved. The2012 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix E) includes an analysis of the interconnection between stormwater, water storage, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and wetlands. The SEIS identifies the retention and enhancement of the wetland contained within Kettle C. See Section 3.2, Water Resources, for a summary of this analysis. Fulfilled i Any study done at the project level pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) shall include a distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the impacts to the hydrology and hydrogeology of the MPR location of the developer's intention to use one of the existing kettles for water storage. Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a second scientist mutually chosen by the developer and the county. The developer will bear the financial cost of these reports. An aquifer test was conducted by the Subsurface Group in 2008 and subsequent analysis by the Pacific Groundwater Group was performed in 2009. These analyses, which are incorporated into this SEIS, were confirmed by the Department of Ecology in 2010 (Appendix F). See Section 3.2, Water Resources, for a summary of these analyses. Fulfilled J Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource. Six tribes were consulted regarding the proposed Cultural Resource Management Plan and three tribes concurred. See Appendix O for copies of email correspondence. Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.194 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCC #Description Notes Status k As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor a document reflecting the developer's written understanding with and among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site integrity, provide procedures regarding future ground- disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to provide for community education opportunities. To avoid potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources, periodic archaeological monitoring would be carried out during construction excavations and other below-fill, ground-disturbing project actions. Monitoring would occur at those locations within the site area that have previously been identified as high probability areas (i.e., kettles, vantage points, and bluff edge) until it could be determined with greater assurance that continual monitoring would not be necessary. Monitoring results would be reviewed with Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation staff and tribal representatives prior to adjusting the monitoring schedule. See Appendix O of this SEIS for details of the monitoring plan. Partially fulfilled the monitoring plan, along with the letters of concurrence, shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor. A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and localtribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.9., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 1Q1, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce A Habitat Management Plan was completed January 27, 2012 by GeoEngineers. See Appendix H and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife, of this SEIS for additional detail. Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-5 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCG #Description Notes Status the dangers to predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to humans. m No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. Water rights have been negotiated and a permit received from Department of Ecology (G2- 30436). An adequate water supply has been determined to be available. See Section 3.16, Utilities, of this SEIS for additional detail. Fulfilled n Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health, and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development. Water rights permit G2-30436 granted for (3) wells on the Pleasant Harbor site - (1) year round domestic & commercial, (2) summer irrigation - total of 300 gallons per minute. See Section 3.16, Utilities, of this SEIS for additional detail. Fulfilled o Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) for the development using a standard of 175 gallons per-day (gpd). The goal of the development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on the standard of 175 gpd. Water quantity issues are addressed in this SEIS in Section 3.16, Utilities, and water quality in Section 3.2, Water Resources. Refer to Appendix F of this SEIS for additional detail on Water Resources. The water rights approval based is on 175 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. See page 8 of the DOE report for reference that is contained in Appendix F of this SEIS. Fulfilled p An NWP shall be established that requires Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for A Neighborhood Water Policy was drafted and reviewed on January 2011, but is not yet finalized (SEIS Appendix F). The NWP shall be finalized prior to approval of the development agreement. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-6 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCC #Description Notes Status neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for additional recharge wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause mounding. q Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero discharge into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and installing stormwater management infrastructures and techniques that allow no stormwater run-off into Hood Canal, Statesman shall prepare a soil study of the soils present at the MPR location. Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. Marina discharge shall be treated by a system that reduces contamination to the greatest possible extent. The soil study has been completed (Subsurface Group, LLC. November 21, 2008) and the infiltration rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are presented in the 2012 Grading and Drainage Report (SEIS Appendix E). No stormwater from the golf course fairways would discharge to Hood Canal. See Section 3.2, Water Resources, of this SEIS for additional detail. Fulfilled I A County-based comprehensive water q uality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site- specific action, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman, that will include regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring A draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan was completed by the applicant and reviewed by the Jefferson County Water Quality Department in June 2011 (SEIS Appendix F). The draft Plan requires finalization and approval Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-7 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCC #Description Notes Status regime S The developer must ensure that naturalgreenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as naturalforest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101. 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 additional3530 feet wide in places) in a conservation easement. A conservation easement for this area and wetland buffers shall be negotiated in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. The Maritime Village building is now proposed to be located north of the Black Point Road and U.S. Highway 101 intersection. The stand of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village no longer applies to the proposed site layout. Fulfilled t The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. An lnvasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the Department of Fish and Wildlife was drafted in October 2010 (SEIS Appendix l). See Section 3.5, Shellfish, of this SEIS for additional detail This agreement shall be finalized prior to ? Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-8 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCG #Description Notes Status u In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 1 8. 1 5. 1 35(1 ),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9,the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. 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 additional3$30 feet wide in places) in a conservation easement. The proposal includes landscaping throughout the site, including reuse of healthy trees and shrubs. See Section 3.3, Plants, of this SEIS for additional detail regarding retention of existing trees and vegetation and transplanting of viable trees and vegetation within the development. Fulfilled V In keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with specialemphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like qreenbelts ln orderto blend into the terrain, the largest structure within the Maritime Village area (Maritime Village Building. no lonqer located at the marina but near Black Point Road) would be built into the existing topography, with two stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories visible internal to the site. Areas of disturbance would include Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-9 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCC #Description Notes Status between the buildings.transplanted healthy vegetation from the site, as well as native and low water consumption plants. See Sections 3.3, Plants, and 3.15, Aesthetics, of this SEIS for additional detail. w Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (i.e., 10 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh)) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery proiects. An individual tree survey has not been completed for health and size, but during construction, viable trees within proposed development areas that can be transplanted would be relocated on a temporary basis to an on-site nursery located in the western edge of the development. These trees would be irrigated and cultivated until replanting is possible within designated areas of the development. See Section 3.3, Plants, for additional detail. lndividual treeswill be inventoried to account for size and health prior to constructionfor viability of transplanting. x Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and "Green Built" green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to commercial and residential dwellings respectively, "promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings, and improving occupant health and well- being." The Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the Intent of LEED standards is provided in Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources, and Appendix K of this SEIS and addresses this condition. Fulfilled v There shall be included as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of a golf course The Golf Course Development Best Management Practices (SEIS Appendix F) are intended to comply with the Jefferson Fulfilled. The development agreement will address the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-10 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW BoCG #Description Notes Status within the MPR that requires the developer to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this information will be made available to the public. County Code Chapter 18.20, Part 190 Performance and Use- Specific Standards for golf courses. maintenance of the golf course chemical application log. z Statesman shall use the lnternational Dark Sky Association (lDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for "areas with intrinsically dark landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited. General guidelines that would be followed to minimize potential light and glare impacts include the following. . lllumination would be to the minimum practical level.o The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical.o The duration of illumination would be as short as practical for Resident Safety.. lllumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light.o Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines). See Section 3.14, Light and Glare, of this SElSfor further information. Fulfilled aa ln fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65% to 35olo of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123.(2). Alternatives 1 and 2 include 890 units, including 52 units for staff housing, are proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2. To meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR, the majority of this housing (670/o) would be for short- term visitors and 33% would be for permanent residents. See Section 3.11, Housing and Employment, of this SEIS for additional detail. Fulfilled bb Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from A report is currently being drafted with the Mason County PUD but will not be complete until after the The Applicant in conjunction with Mason County Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-11 3.19 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status the Mason County Public Utility District. scheduled issuance of this Draft SEIS. This report will address the demand, capacity and availability of electric power from the PUD. See Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources, for additional detail. PUD will complete the report on the capacity of infrastructure to serve the energy demands of the project. cc Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through seq uestration and/or other acceptable methods. A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report was prepared for the SDEIS by Failsafe Canada (May 2012) that reviewed and analyzed the source GHG emissions for the first five year construction period of development, as well as the annual emission profile when in full operation, of the project under Alternative 2. The report is included in this SDEIS as Appendix M. Numerous potential mitigation measures are identified and detailed in Section 3.10, Air Quality/GHG and Appendix M of this SEIS. Fulfilled dd Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students. This condition shall be negotiated in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. Will be addressed in the Development Agreement PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Prelimin ary Zoning Regulations Jefferson County has drafted a preliminary set of draft zoning regulations for the Brinnon MPR designation, labeled the Brinnon MPR code (JCC 17.60-17.80, Appendix T). The zoning regulations would be adopted prior to approval of the preliminary plat for the Pleasant Harbor Golf Course Resort. The zoning regulations set a cap of 890 residential units and 125,000 square feet of commercial and conference space. Alternatives 1 and 2 of this SEIS include the maximum number of residential units allowed under this proposed zoning (890 units), but propose significantly less than the 125,000 square feet of commercial/conference space allowed under the preliminary zoning (49,772 sq. ft. under Alternative 1 and 52,650 sq. ft. under Alternative 2). Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-12 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The MPR-Brinnon code is divided into three zones: the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR), the Open Space Reserve zone (MPR-OSR), and the Marina Village zone (MPR-MV). See Figure 3.19-1 for a delineation of these zones. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-13 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR), which permits residential and recreational facilities, as well as commercial amenities and services associated with the resort and the surrounding community. The permitted uses in this zone (JCC 17.65.020) include: hotels; conference and drinking/eating establishments; staff/service apartments; resort-related gallery and retail uses; resort-related indoor and outdoor recreation facilities (including swimming, tennis, spa, amphitheaters, pools, and playgrounds); multi-family dwellings (both long-term and shortterm resort recreational housing); golf course uses; and wastewater treatment, public water supply, and other public facilities. The uses proposed by the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort within the Black Point area (generally the MPR-GR zone) include all of the permitted uses within this zone. The maximum height for the buildings within the MPR-GR zone is 75 feet (not including underground or imbedded parking). The tallest buildings proposed within the Pleasant Harbor site are the Golf Terrace buildings, which are approximately 48 feet (4 stories) under Alternative 1 and 70 feet (5 stories) under Alternative 2. All structures over 50 feet in height must be set back 100 feet from the MPR boundary lines. The tallest Golf Terrace building is proposed to be located 300 feet from the northern property line. The uses and heights proposed within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort comply with the standards for the MPR-GR zone. The purpose of the Open Space Reserve zone (MPR-OSR) is to provide a natural buffer between the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The JCC indicates that this zone shall consist of a tract of land located south of the MPR-GR zone and extend landward 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as measured under the Shoreline Management Act or 25 feet from the top of the bank as measured under Chapter 18.22 JCC, whichever is greater. The MPR-OSR zone permits restoration and maintenance of existing development intrusions (roads and campsites) and passive recreation. The Pleasant Harbor Resort proposal includes a 200 foot buffer within this zone, which would be restored and planted with native vegetation, consistent with the purpose of this zone. The trail is this area would also be decommissioned and access to the shoreline would not be permitted, even though the MPR- OSR zone would allow passive recreation (JCC 17.70.020(2)). The Marina Village zone (MPR-MV) allows residential facilities, mixed use amenities and services associated with the marina portion of the resort and surrounding community, and provides the central support to the marina operations. The permitted uses in this zone (JCC 17.75.020) include: marina and overwater structures; Marina Village related upland mixed use, commercial and service facilities, including restaurant and shops, as well as marine service facilities and marina office; yacht club and recreational facilities; structures providing long and shortterm resort housing; trails, parks, pools, hot tub, open space, and playgrounds; and public facilities. The uses proposed in the Maritime Village area of the proposal include Marina Village related upland mixed use, short-term housing, commercial and service facilities, open space, trails and recreational facilities. The marina area that is outside of the SEIS site but within the MPR-MV zone would include marina and overwater structures, commercial and service facilities including marina service facilities and marina office, a yacht club, trails, pool and hot tub, all within the footprints of existing structures. The maximum building height in this zone is 55 feet. The tallest building proposed in this zone is the Maritime Village building at 39 feet under Alternative 1 and less than 53 feet under Alternative 2. All structures over 30 feet in height shall be set back at least 20 feet from the external property lines and comply with the setback requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The bulk of the Maritime Village building would be approximately 140 feet from U.S. Highway 101, but the northern portion would angle closer to the property line within 47 to 67 feet under Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not include any development within the SMP buffer, and development under the existing binding site plan only allows redevelopment of structures within existing Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-14 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW footprints. The uses and heights proposed within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort comply with the standards for the MPR-MV zone. The existing MPR regulations (JCC 18.15.123) include general allowed uses within MPRs, and are consistent with the permitted uses noted in the three zones in the Brinnon MPR outlined above. The existing MPR regulations noted that short-term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units. As noted in Section 3.11, Employment and Housing, the Pleasant Harbor proposal meets this requirement. It is anticipated that the preliminary zoning regulations would be completed prior to issuance of the Final SEIS for review by the Planning Commission. The Board of County Commissioners would adopt the MPR-Brinnon zoning regulations subsequent to a Planning Commission recommendation. Preliminary Development Agreement A development agreement is required for master planned resorts as prescribed under JCC 18.15.126(2). The development agreement sets forth development standards specific to the master planned resort, including, but not limited to: (a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes; (b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant; (c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans; (d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable), visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on-site recreational facil ities, and on-site retai l/com mercial services; (e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and (f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and RCW 36.708.170(3). A preliminary development agreement between the applicant and Jefferson County was drafted in April of 2011 (SEIS Appendix T). This development agreement will be revised subsequent to issuance of this SEIS and per any modifications to the preliminary zoning regulations. The development agreement references the preliminary zoning regulations regarding permitted land uses and density standards, and the existing Jefferson County Code for other development regulations including the stormwater code, the critical areas code, the land division code, and the Shoreline Master Program. Water and sewer service for the Pleasant Harbor MPR would be required to be in conformance with the water and sewer technical reports prepared for this SEIS (see SEIS Appendix Q), and associated county and state requirements. These two sections of the preliminary agreement would need to be revised subsequent to issuance of this SEIS to reflect the proposed water and sewer plans for the resort. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-15 3.19 BoCC Conditions PRELIMINARY DR,AFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW The development agreement also addresses the public services: police, fire and emergency medical service, schools, and transit. The provision of these services shall be consistent with the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the appropriate agencies. These MOUs are contained with the SEIS appendices, and are currently in draft form (see SEIS Appendix R). These MOUs would need to be finalized and signed by both parties prior to approval of the development agreement. Phasing of the Pleasant Harbor resort is outlined in the preliminary development agreement and is broken down into two major stages. The first stage focuses development within the Maritime Village area and begins the development of infrastructure within the Black Point area (the wastewater treatment plant, the underground storage tank, and the construction materials processing area). The second stage includes the development of the Black Point area, beginning with grading of the site and construction of the golf course and the Golf Terrace and Conference Center, followed by development beginning in the northwestern portion of the Black Point area and finishing in the southeastern portion of the site. The details of the proposed phasing is provided in the preliminary development agreement, but would likely be revisited prior to approval to assure consistency with current plans. For example, it has been proposed that the staff housing may be shifted from Stage !l to Stage I to provide housing for construction workers. The term of the development agreement would be twenty years from the effective date of the agreement. The proposed buildout period is seven years, providing significantly flexibility for buildout of the proposed project. Compliance with the BoCC conditions, as outlined in the previous subsection, would require that several issues be addressed within the development agreement. Such items include, but are not limited to, public amenities (Condition 63d), local employment (Condition 63e and 63dd), sourcing of local materials (Condition 63e), and affordability of staff housing (Condition 63f). Additional policies and monitoring plans including, but not limited to, the Neighborhood Water Policy (Condition 63p), Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Condition 63r), and the Golf Course chemical application log (Condition 63y) could also be included in the development agreement. The preliminary development agreement would be completed subsequent to issuance of the Final SEIS in order to include pertinent mitigation measures from the SEIS. Approval of the development agreement would occur prior to preliminary plat approval. Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS May 2013 3.19-16 3.19 BoCC Conditions Appendix D Memo on WDFW Area Appendix D WDFW Road Realignment Memo Preparing description to include: Overall length, condition, and grades of existing Overall length, width, and grades of proposed Quantity of clearing for proposed Quantity of grading for proposed Approximate acreage of total WDFW parcel Expect completion 6.7 .'13 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS 1 WDFW Road Realignment Memo Wahjanoa Mdailol I[98-a WII,DItrE May 3,2013 Craig A. Peck & Associated 1140220fr Ave. E. Tacoma, Washington 98446 Re:Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch Access Road Relocation Dear Mr. Peck: The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have reviewed your request to relocate a portion of the road currently used to access our Pleasant Harbor public boat launch. It is our understanding the road would be moved approximately 1,200 ft. to the Northeast along Black Point Road and constructed entirely on WDFW property. The proposed new alignmeirt will be roughly 900 ft. in length and will reoonn€ct to the existing access road at the first large turn on the existing road as you ascend. The entire cost of constructing the relocated access road to WDFW standards would be the responsibility of your client, who we understand is interested in developing the adjacent property. WDFW agre€s in principal to this access road being relocated, but only after further review and approval of the final location and design. All construction will need to meet departrnent specifications as well as all Jefferson County public road construction requiremeirts. The project proponent will also be required to obtain all permits need to construct the new road and driveway offBlack Point Road. WDFW will not vacate or abandon any portion of the existing access road until the new access road has been constructed to acceptable standards and approved by our engineers. If you have any questions conceming this matter please do not hesitate to call. I can be reached at360-249-1207. Supervisor Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES May 23,2013 Mr. Craig A. Peck, PE @ Peck Associates e-mai! peckassoc@comcast.net RE: Gritical Areas Assessment Proposed WDFW Boat Launch Access Roadway Pleasant Harbor, Jefferson County Dear Mr. Peck, Following your request Habitat Technologies has completed a critica! areas assessment along the corridor for the proposed new roadway alignment associated with the WDFW Boat Launch facility within Pleasant Harbor, Jefferson County. The onsite assessment and evaluation of critical areas (i.e. wetlands, surface water drainages, critical habitats) within and immediately adjacent to the new roadway alignment was completed following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987 Manual) with the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2010 Supplement); the guidance provided for the Washington Sfafe Wetlands ldentification and Delineation Manual (Wash Manual); the State of Washington Department of Natura! Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules WAC 222-16-030); and the Jefferson County Code. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located within a rural area immediately east of Highway 101 in southeastern Jefferson County. The existing paved roadway to the WDFW Boat Launch at the upper end of Pleasant Harbor is accessed from Black Point Road. However, as defined by the project team the connection of this access roadway to Black Point Road presents a public safety issue. As such, a new access roadway connection to Black Point Road is proposed approximately 800 feet to the east of the existing connection. The new access roadway would be approximately 400 feet in length and would reconnect at a safe transition to the existing access roadway. The new access roadway would be constructed within a forested hillside area that has been impacted by prior forest harvest actions and the placement of an existing buried domestic water line. The new access roadway would not require any modification to a culvert associated with an intermittent stream corridor within the retained portion of the existing access roadway. wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife - mitigation and permitting solutions 13049 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253-845-5119 fax 253-841-1942 habitattech@qwestoffice.net CRITERIA FOR CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFICATION Wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats. ln genera! terms, wetlands are Iands where the extent and duration of saturation with water is the primary factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands are generally defined within land use regulations as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (1987 Manual). Wetlands exhibit three essential characteristics, all of which must be present for an area to meet the established criteria within the 1987 Manual. These essential characteristics are: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plants that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils. 2. Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. 3. Wetland Hydrology: Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally. A stream (aquatic area) is generally defined as a location where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is typically an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but not limited to, bedrock channels, grave! beds, sand and silt beds, and defined channel swales. A stream need not contain water year-round. A stream typically does not include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water run-off devices, or other artificial watercourses unless the constructed watercourse conveys a stream which naturally occurred prior to the construction of such watercourse. A "critical habitat area" is generally defined as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the listed species, at the time it is listed and on which are found those physical or biologica! features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. STUDY METHODS Habitat Technologies completed an onsite assessment on May 20,2013. The objective of this evaluation was to define and delineate potential critical areas (wetlands, drainage corridors, and critical habitats) that may be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Onsite activities were completed in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the 1987 Manual with 2010 Supplement, guidance provided for the Wash. Manua!, the Jefferson County Code, and the WDNR Forest Practice Rules. 2 13049 FIELD OBSERVATION The project site was accessed via existing paved roadways - Black Point Road and the WDFW Boat Launch roadway. Plant Communities The project site was located within a somewhat mature, second grovrrth coniferous forest. Except within areas of somewhat recent clearing particularly at the eastern end of the proposed new access roadway, the forest plant community provided a 100o/o forest canopy. Observed tree species included Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), red alder (Alnus rubra), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana\, and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). The understory was dominated by a wide varie$ of sapling trees, shrubs, herbs, and ferns. Observed understory species included vine maple (Acer circinatum), kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), Oregon grape (Berberis neruosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), rhododendron (Menziesia ferruginea), lndian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), rose (Rosa spp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), hawthorne (Crataegus spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), red huckleberry (Vaccinium paruifolium), common lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), bedstraw (Galium spp.), geranium (Geranium spp.), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum\, and trillium (Trillium ovatum). The area of somewhat recent clearing at the eastern end of the proposed new access roadway was dominated by a dense thicket of Scots broom (Cyfisus scoparrus) intermixed with Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, and sapling red alder. o Hydrology Hydrology patterns through the project site and within the adjacent parcels had been altered by prior land use actions and the development of the existing boat launch roadway. No area along the proposed new access roadway exhibited field indicators of the seasonal ponding of surface water or the concentrated flow of seasonal surface water. The area appeared to drain moderately well and well and did not exhibit seasona! hydrology patterns typical of wetland or stream areas. The construction of Black Point Road appeared to have crossed a topographic swale just to the east of the present connection of the existing boat launch roadway to Black Point Road. The construction of Black Point Road included the placement of a 24-inch concrete culvert to convey seasonal surface water within this topographic swale to the north under both Black Point Road and the existing boat launch roadway. The existing culvert outlet onto a quarry rock pad directly to the north of the existing boat launch 3 1 3049 roadway. However, onsite assessment did not identify a defined surface water drainage channel upslope of the existing culvert (south of Black Point Road) or downslope of the existing culvert (north of the existing boat launch roadway) (see CV1 and CV2 on field map). An isolated, moderately deep depression was located to the north of the outlet of the culvert under the existing boat launch roadway. This depression appeared to have been created or modified by prior excavation of gravelly materials. This depression appeared to drain moderately well to well and did not exhibit field indicators typically associated with wetland hydrology patterns (see Spbl on field map). a Soils As defined at representative sample locations throughout the project site the soil exhibited a surface profile of gravelly loam often with a duff layer a few inches thick. The subsoilwas dominated by gravelly loam to gravelly, sandy loam. The soilappeared to drain moderately well to well and did not exhibit field indicators of "hydric" soil characteristics such as a depleted soil matrix color, concentrated redoximorphic features, or a high percentage of organics in the surface soil. Existing Stream Downslope of New Access Roadwaya The assessment of the proposed new roadway corridor also included a review of the stream corridor located downslope along the existing roadway leading to the boat launch. This stream corridor appeared to originate in the forested hillside to the west of Highway 101. From Highway 101 to the existing culverts under the existing boat launch roadway the stream exhibited a channel gradient greater than 25o/o and a width at the ordinary high water mark of five (5) to fifteen (15) feet in width. The channel substrate was dominated by large cobble well mixed with small and moderately sized bounders. This reach of the stream did not appear to provide direct fish habitats. ln addition, the culverts associated with the existing boat launch roadway were best defined as impassable to the upstream movement of fish. Downstream of the existing boat launch roadway to the culvert leading into the intertidal area of Pleasant Harbor the stream exhibited a channel gradient generally greater than 20o/o and a width at the ordinary high water mark of four (4) to fifteen (15) feet in width. The channel substrate continued to be dominated by large cobble well mixed with small and moderately sized boulders. The channel was dominated by long riffle segments with very limited small pools formed by large boulders and instream debris. The majority of this reach of the stream did not appear to provide direct fish habitats. ln particular, spawning gravels suitable for anadromous salmonids (genies Oncorhynchus) were absent throughout the majority of this stream. Only very limited, small pockets of suitable spawning gravels were present at the very lower end of the stream channel - directly upstream of the culvert leading into the intertidal area of Pleasant Harbor. 4 13049 This stream was dry on May 20,2013 and exhibits an intermittent flow pattern. CONCLUSION The Se/ected Development Action for the project site focuses on the development of an alternative new access roadway connection of the existing boat launch roadway to BIack Point Road. As defined by onsite assessment there were no identified critical areas (i.e. wetlands, streams, critica! habitats) within or immediately adjacent to the project site. STANDARD OF CARE This critical areas assessment has been completed by Habitat Technologies for use by Mr. Craig Peck. Prior to extensive site planning the findings documented in this report may be reviewed and verified by the appropriate permitting and resource personnel. Habitat Technologies has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the nature of the work accomplished. No other warranties are expressed or implied. Habitat Technologies is not responsible for design costs incurred before this document is approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agencies. Thank you for allowing Habitat Technologies the opportunity to assist with your project planning. Please contact us with any questions or need for additional assistance or information. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming, PWS Habitat Technologies 5 13049 FIGURES 6 13049 PHOTOS 7 1 3049 The area at the start of the new roadway corridor immediately north of Black Point Road had been modified by prior clearing actions and is presently dominated dense Scots broom. 8 1 3049 The new roadway corridor is dominated by an upland forest area. {s'}a r'- j ,t . -."' I C 'r/ r-v t iri, ....:r .. N j JF"{' .rrttr 4 ,t*-.?.rff',;t't, I L 1r-,t ', .l'-.113 tli{f'{.L -/t i--:.'i&$ t ) T :E! 1t l/ I ? .- ,,I 7\r t Nt" An existing water line corridor is also present in the area of the proposed new The stream channel upslope of the existing roadway corridor in dominated by large cobble and boulders. This area does not provide direct fish habitats. I 13049 \' '' 1'l t lrl.' r( \ 'r^*J,; l4 +. lr ^l -\''r t l.t -: I JJ ?) tt Y@ .7 t\ d'- 't roadway. .i, i a \\P L,r {'.t' *05 20 2013.t d The culverts under the existing roadway are impassible to the upstream movement of fish. The stream downstream of the culverts under the existing roadway is also dominated by cobble and boulders and provide very limited fish habitat. 10 13049 r I '!--> J I { I tlr s -*5'Gs'l l- * b -r #; ...\frr hf,4 .? .4 20 a0 \f The culvert associated with Black Point Road and the existing boat launch roadwa does not exhibit a defined channel. The culvert at the upper end of Pleasant Harbor has been modified to allow fish passage into the stream during high tidal cycles. 11 1 3049 Li ,t &, I l'.: i:r I ' \ J 1tr0 ;I $r- ti.. ';*t \ i tf- * :,!- :E F, Proposed New Road Existing Water Lines Culvert Crossing HABITAT TEGHNOLOGIES Field Map Not from Survery r-+" I a Spb"1 I C W1 \#2 \,,\/3 R1 iv,, aiu aL *\.\'8 100 Feet CV1