Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout065Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2O14 Prepared by Jefferson County Department of Community Development VOLUME { of 2 - CHAPTERS {-4 -,-d+afai -J r].i: E Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement Prepared by JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the Pleasant Harbor project has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington); and the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197-1 1, Washlngton Administrative Code). Jefferson County has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methodology and they have directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in preparatlon of this SEIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for an action; in its final form, it will accompany the Proposed Actiors and will be considered in making the final decisions on the proposal. Date of Draft Supplemental EIS lssuance ..........November 19,2014 Date Comments are Due on the Draft Supplemental EIS January 5,2014 SgurreOIYE Resource Center I Buildtng Pernlts & lnspcctlont I Dcvolopmont Rcvltw I Long Rtnge Planntng November t9,2Ol4 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (DSEl5) for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The proposal is located south of Brinnon, WA on the Black Point peninsula, on the western shores of the Hood Canal. The DSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-leveldevelopment. The following are alternatives evaluated within the DEIS Alternative 1, consists of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 33 acres of natural area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading; Alternative 2, consists of the golf course, 890 residential units, 52,650 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading; and a No Action Alternative. The 350 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, is not included in this analysis since it is being re-developed under an existing Binding Site Plan. On Novembe r 27 , 2007 , a programmatic Final EIS was issued in association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject 256 acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28, 2@8 with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental ElS. An optional scoping process was initiated by the County on October t3,2W9 with a Scoping Public Meeting held on October 28,2OO9, and Scoping Memo issued March 31., 2010. The issues identified throu8h the scoping process are addressed in the DSEIS. These include: earth, air quality- greenhouse gas emissions, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, tight and glare, aesthetics, and utilities, and transportation. For each environmental issue, an analysis is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Alternatives 1& 2 are reported. Where significant impacts are determined to potentially exist, options for possible mitigation are suggested. Wratten public comment on the DSEIS will be accepted for a 45-day comment period, starting on Wednesday, November t9,2014 and ending at 5;00 p.m. Monday, January 5,2014. Written comments should be addressed to: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner; Department of Community Developmenq 521 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368. Emailcomments may be sent to: dwiohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CO]IIIUUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Sfeet, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www,co.iefferson,wa.us/mmmunitvdevelooment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.iefferson.wa,us An Open House with subsequent Planning Commission meetinB has been scheduled to inform the public on the project, DSEIS and accept both written and oral comments on the DSEIS, development agreement and development regulations. lt willbe held on Wednesday, December 3,20L4, from 2:00 pm to 4pm for the Open House, and 5:30pm to 8:30pm for the Planning Commission meeting in the Brinnon Community Center, 306744 Highway 101, Brinnon, WA 98320 Following the public comment period, the County will prepare and issue a Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) that will include responses to the comments received during the public comment period and any additional analysis necessary to adequately evaluate the proposal. The Planning Commission will then hold a Public Hearing to take testimony on the FSEIS, Development Agreement and Development Regulations (Title 17, Article ll), The Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on the development regulations. The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission recommendation or hold a public hearing before approving those regulations. The BoCC must hold a public hearing before approving the development agreement. lnformation about the DSEIS may be obtained at the Department of Community Development (DCD) by contacting David Johnson between the weekday hours of 9am to 4:30pm located at 521 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98358 telephone (3601379-4465. This DSEIS and other information regarding this project also posted online at: Eto://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelooment/Brinnon MPR.htm. DigitalCDs are available for purchase at DCD. Hard copies are available for purchase from SOS Printing, 2319 Washington St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 L ffi CarlSmith Acting SEPA Responsible Official FACT SHEET PROJECT TITLE PROPOSED ACTIONS SEIS Required SEIS ALTERNATIVES Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Draft Supplemental 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 lvlaster Planned Resort (tUPR) approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) 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 (IVPR). The Jefferson County BoCC conditioned approval of the MPR Comprehensive Plan amendment to require project- level environmental review of the MPR proposal. Further conditions included programmatic environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement requirement to implement theproposal. Accordingly, a Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS) is being prepared (under Chapter 43.21C RCW) to supplement the programmatic Final EIS (FEIS) prepared for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that approved the MPR, adopted by the County in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. The project would be vested to the code that is current at the time of the Development Agreement signing (not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment). The environmental impacts of three alternatives are analyzed in this SEIS, including two project-level 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), 56,608 sq. ft. of commercial area, and resort related Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 I Fact Sheet 2007 Els 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. 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), that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, as detailed in the 2007 ElS. 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 the 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 lvlaritime 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 25r^,2007. Final EIS A 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 the addition of a new chapter (Chapter Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 il Fact Sheet MPR APPROVAL LOCATION PROPONENT/APPLICANT LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL 5), which included a summary of mitigation requirements, 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. 01- 0128-08. The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Canal, approximately 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. Hwy 101 to the west. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Carl Smith, Director and Acting SEPA Responsible Official Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4463 Unified Development Code amendment to add a section on the Pleasant Harbor lr/PR. Approval of a Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Applicant (originally the Statesman Group). LEAD AGENCY GONTACT David W. Johnson, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 37e-4465 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Jefferson County - Non Project Approvals a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 ilt Fact Sheet SEIS AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Loca! or County Permits - Project Leve! Approvals . Preliminaryltinal plat or Binding Site Plan for roads, utilities and other infrastructure.. Stormwaterpermit(s)for: - Preliminary site grading, cut and fill; - New roads and impervious surfaces; - Construction and operation of the resort properties; and - CriticalAreas protection and modification. . Class lV conversion Forest practice permit for predevelopment logging.. Shoreline permit for any development within 200 feet of the shoreline (close beach access to south and possible wetland mitigation for buffer work).o Building permits for construction.. Fuel containment and fire plan. State Permits o Wastewater treatment and upland disposal (Class A recycled water) facility permits from Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE).o Class A Water System approval by WDOE.. U.S. Hwy 101 right of way access permits for access to U.S. Hwy 101 from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).o Well closure approval by WDOE.. Construction period air quality permits from air quality authority.o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)general permits for clearing from WDOE.o Water quality certification, wetlands, by WDOE.. Water System Plan Approval by WDOH. SEIS Project Manager, Primary Author; Housing and Employment, Rural Character and Population, Aesthetics, Public Services and Consistency with BoCC Conditions. EA Engineering 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 Earth Craig A. Peck & Associates 1140240th Avenue E. Tacoma, WA 98446 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 ,v Fact Sheet Water Resources Bender Consulting 19920 South Elger Bay Road Camano lsland, 98282 PIants GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Fish and Wildlife GeoEngineers 1 101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 CriticalAreas GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Energy and Natural Resources Hargis 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 Transportation Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC PO Box 65254 Seattle, WA 98155 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Failsafe Canada lnc. 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 GIare Michael Bornyk Signature Lighting Manufacturers Las Vegas, Nevada Water and Sewer System Craig A. Peck & Associates 11402 40th Avenue E. Tacoma, WA 98446 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 v Fact Sheet ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS LOCATION OF BACK. GROUND INFORMATION DATE OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS ISSUANCE November 19,2014 DATE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS COMMENTS ARE DUE DATE OF DRAFT SEIS OPEN HOUSE Consultares Engineering PO Box 608 lssaquah, WA 98027 H R Esvelt Engineering 6450 N.E. Brigham Road Bainbridge lsland, WA 98110 Earnings Analysis Wright Johnson, LLC 205 Worth Avenue, Suite 201 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Per WAC 197-11-620, this SEIS supplements the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort DEIS of September 2007, and the FEIS of 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 the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 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. January 5, 2015 An Open House with subsequent Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for December 3, 2014, to provide orientation, answer questions about the SEIS and the SEIS process, and allow opportunities for public comment. The Open House and Planning Commission meeting are scheduled for the following times and location: Date: December 3,2014 Time: 2:00 PM to 4:30 PM - Open House 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM - Planning Commission Mtg Place: Brinnon Community Center, 306144 Hwy 101, Brinnon, WA 98320 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 v,Fact Sheet AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT SEIS Copies or Notices of Availability 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: Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Ave., Port Hadlock Brinnon Fire Hall, 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon The SEIS can be reviewed and downloaded on Jefferson County's web site at: htto://www.co. iefferson.wa. us/commdeveloomenVbrinnon mpr.htm. Digital CDs can be purchased at the Department of Community Development and the Open House for $4.00. Hard copies can be ordered from SOS Printing, 2319 Washington St., Port Townsend. Any questions regarding obtaining a copy or viewing the SEIS should be directed to David Johnson at (360) 379- 4465 or dwiohnson@co.jefferson.wa. us. a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 vt,Fact Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUMEl-GHAPTERS{.4 Paqe FACT SHEET CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY 1.1 lntroduction...1.2 SEIS Alternati;;;1.3 Summary of Environmental lmpacts ...............1.4 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL and ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Background2.2 Environmentri'R;;i; P;;;;;;::::. . .............2.3 SiteDescription............2.4 Objectives of the Proposal .............2.5 Description of the Proposal and Alternatives2.6 Separate Actions2.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring lmplementation of Proposal CHAPTER 3 -AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-16 ..2-1 ..2-2 ..2-6 2-16 2-17 2-38 2-38 Earth........ Water Resources Plants Fish and Wildlife. Shellfish... Shorelines CriticalAreas Energy and Natural R;;r;;;; : : :. : :. : : : : : : : : :.... Transportation ............. Air Quality. Housing and Employment .......... Rural Character and Population Archaeological and Cultural Resources Light and G|are......... Aesthetics. Utilities. Public Services.... Relationship to Plans and Policies (BoCC Conditions) GHAPTER 4 - REFERENCES 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 vilt Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES 1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 3.2-1 3.9-1 3.9-2 3.9-3 3.1 0-1 3.10-2 3.10-3 3.10-4 3.11-1 3.11-2 3.1 1-3 3.11-4 Table 3.11-5 3.17-1 3.17-2 3.17-3 3.18-1 Paqe Summary Matrix 1-3 2007 EIS and SEIS Alternatives Comparison ......2-20 SEIS Action Alternatives Comparison -Residential and Commercial........2-22 Action Alternatives Comparison ........2-29 Annual Recharge to Aquifer under Alternatives 1 and 2 ......3.2-12 Proposed Parking Capacity by Alternative.............. ...............3.9-9 Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative. 3.9-10 Cumulative Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative. 3.9-10 Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources ...3.10-4 Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources ...3.10-6 Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources ...3.10-6 Alternative 2 - Estimated GHG Emissions ........3.10-7 Jefferson County Housing Characteristics, 2010................ .3.11-2 Brinnon Housing Characteristics, 2010 3.11-2 Jefferson County, Non-Farm Employment,2013 3.11-3 Jefferson County And Washington State - Resident Labor Force And Employment ................ 3.1 1-3 Number of Employees per Job Sector 3.11-6 Fire District #4 - Fire and EMS Calls 2008-2012.......... .......3.17-2 Brinnon School District Enrollment: 2008-2012. 3.17-9 Pleasant Harbor Estimated Student Generation - Alternatives 1 &2........-. 3.17-11 BoCC Conditions. ........3.19-2 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 tx Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Fiqure Paqe 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-B 2-9 3.'1-1 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 2007 EIS Site Boundary 2-4 2-7 2-8 2-9 Regional Map ........... Vicinity Map ................... SEIS Site Boundary....... Kettles Wetlands and Streams.. Alternative 1 Site Plan... Alternative 2 Site Plan... ,',',,.2-12 ',,,,,,2-14 ,',',,'2-18 .......2-19 .......2-37 ......3.14 ......3.2-5 ......3.2-6 Phasing Map Grading Plan Existing Drainage Basins Soil lnfi ltration.............. Alternative 1 - Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort Building and Completion ............ Alternative 2 - Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort 3.2-10 3.2-4 Building and Completion ....3.2-11 ....3.2-14 ......3.3-3 ......3.4-6 ....3.12-3 .. 3.1 8-1 5 3.2-5 3.3-1 3.4-1 3.12-1 3.1 8-1 Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage Basins........ Forested Subareas Wildlife Corridors Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity Zoning Map Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 x Table of Contents VOLUME 2 . APPENDIGES A. Distribution List B. SEIS Scoping Summary C. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 Data D. WDFW Road Realignment Memo E. Earth Reports. 2008 Geotechnical Report. Grading and Drainage Engineering Reportr SEIS Soil and Earth lmpacts and Mitigation F. Water Resources Reports Groundwater lmpact Addendum Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memos Groundwater Right Application Water Quality Draft Monitoring Plan Golf Course BMP Plan Neighborhood Water Program G. Plants Reports. Forestry Report. VegetationSupplementalAnalysis. Prescriptive Vegetation lvlanagement Plan H. Habitat Management Planl. WDFW Tunicate Monitoring PlanJ. Wetland Mitigation Report K. Energy and Natural Resources Reportse Electrical Load Memor Electrical Capacity Letter from Mason County PUD. Compliance with LEED StandardsL. Transportation lmpact Study M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report N. An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor [Vlaster Planned Resort (lvlPR) O. Cultural Resources. Proposed Plan forArchaeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocol. DAHP Response to Cultural Resources Plan. Skokomish Tribe Response to Cultural Resources PlanP. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards O. Utility Reports. GeneralWater Plan - Executive Summary. General Sewer Plan - Executive Summary R. Draft Memorandum of Understanding's (MOU's) MOU with Fire District #4 MOU with Jefferson County Sheriffs Office MOU with School District #46 MOU with Jefferson Healthcare MOU with Jefferson County RE: Housing Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 xt Table of Contents . MOU with Jefferson Transit Authority S. BoCC Conditionso Proposed Public Amenities. Draft Brinnon MPR Zoning Code and Proposed Zoning Map. Draft Development Agreement Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 xil Table of Contents 1 Ghapter { Summary GHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUGTION This chapter provides a summary of the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft Environmental lmpact Statement (SE/S,). lt briefly describes the Proposed Actions and alternatives; contains an overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Actions; and, provides a list of mitigation measures. Please see Ghapter 2 of this SEIS for a more detailed description of the Proposed Actions and alternatives. See Chapter 3 for a detailed presentation of the affected environment, significant impacts of the Proposed Actions, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 1.1.1 Background ln 2006 the Statesman Group of Companies (Statesmen) applied to Jefferson County for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a lVlaster Planned Resort (MPR) designation near Brinnon, Washington. A programmatic EIS was completed in 2007, which addressed probable significant impacts that could occur as a result of this amendment and land use changes. ln 2008, the approval of the Brinnon tvlPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment included 30 conditions of approval (Ordinance 07-0128-08), and a requirement for a project- level review of the proposal. Further conditions placed on the approval of the MPR included programmatic environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments, and of the draft Development Agreement requirement to implement the proposal. Per the 2008 conditions of approval, this SEIS provides a project-level review to supplement the programmatic environmental review completed within the 2007 ElS. Since 2008, the applicant (now Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The revisions also allow the MPR to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The new Brinnon MPR relocates the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline management area to a new location near U.S. Highway (Hwy) 101. The marina and marina uplands arca arc not subject to environmental review under this SEIS due to the redevelopment of this area under an existing Binding Site Plan (BSP) permit (ALA12-207). All other areas remain within the purview of this SEIS, and are described in detail in Chapter2. ln addition, the applicant has a tentative agreement with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to realign the upper portion of the WDFW boat launch access roadway further east. This could resolve existing issues with the proposed Maritime Village access roadway onto Black Point Road. ln order to analyze potential impacts of this road realignment, the WDFW property adjacent to the project site has been added to the SEIS site boundary, and is also described in Chapter 2. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 1-1 Summary 1.1.2 Organization of this SEIS The development alternatives presented in this SEIS address the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conditions of approval, and the SMP approved by Ecology and taken into effect by Jefferson County February 21, 2014 (JCC 18.25). As a result of the changes since the issuance of the 2007 ElS, this SEIS document has been formatted to clearly present both the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, and the new SEIS development alternatives. The new site information has been updated throughout the document where applicable. Chapter 2 provides a detailed comparison of the SEIS Alternatives and the 2007 EIS Proposed Action (see Table 2-1). Chapter 3 provides the Affected Environment, lmpacts, and Mitigation Measures from both the 2007 EIS and this SEIS for each element of the environment. 1.2 SEIS ALTERNATIVES The development alternatives set forth under this SEIS are summarized below and described in detail in Section 2.5 of this SEIS. The number of residential units proposed under the alternatives in this SEIS remains the same as under the 2007 ElS. The amount of commercial square footage currently proposed is approximately one-quarter less than that proposed under the 2007 ElS. 1.2.1 Alternative I Alternative 1 for the current Pleasant Harbor SEIS represents a modification to the site plan proposed in the 2007 ElS. This change reflects the BoCC conditions of approval, and is also in response to the new SMP (approved by Ecology and taken into effect by Jefferson County February 21,2014). The Alternative 1 modifications are generally related to a reduction in the amount of proposed impervious surfaces. This is achieved by consolidating residential units into fewer buildings. Revisions that relate to the SMP are focused on the relocation of the tr/aritime Village from the shoreline area to an upland area. Alternative 1 includes a golf course layout similar to the 2007 ElS, with gently sloping areas of play. The approximately 231-acre golf course resort would have 828 residential units (including 52 units for staff residences), tennis courts, swimming pools, a bocce ball court, parking, and other amenities. The Maritime Village would have 62 additional residential units, as well as over 13,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Under Alternative 1, the applicant is also intending to include a Tree-Top Adventure Course near the Maritime Village Building. This Adventure Course includes a Zip Line that would connect near the fvlaritime Village to a landing platform within the pool area of the marina. The overall project would include re- vegetating disturbed areas with specimens harvested from areas that would be regraded. The landscape design would also take into consideration the use of native vegetation and ornamental shrubs, perennials, and annuals. 1.2.2 Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative Alternative 2 ditfers from Alternative 1 through improvements to constructability that work to minimize the environmental impacts of the project. The primary modification is in the golf course and residential units design, which limits grading by more closely following existing topography. Revisions to the golf course layout and residential units also reduce the amount of disturbed area, decreases the amount of cut and fill needed by more than half, Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 1-2 Summary and preserves more natural vegetation. Revisions to the golf course design result in more angularfairways with varying orientations, and substantial elevation differences. Alternative 2 would include 822 residences within the golf resort, similar to Alternative 1, but the units would be located in such a fashion to reduce the built and impervious footprint of the site. The position and placement of buildings and recreational amenities under Alternative 2 is adjusted to ensure placement on undisturbed soil, and to work within existing site contours. The landscaping would include re-vegetation of disturbed areas using specimens harvested from areas that would be regraded. However, there would be significantly fewer disturbed areas under Alternative 2 when compared to Alternative 1. Native vegetation would also be used in select locations at the site. {.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following table (Table 1-l) presents the key probable significant environmental impacts for each element of the environment evaluated for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative '1. This summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Ghapter 3. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 1-3 Summary TABLE I.1 Altemativs I Alternative 2 3.1 Earth Construclion lmpacts Subsurfaco so,/s . Approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of earlhwork would occur on the site. . Approximately 930,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel would be extracted and available for processing from the east-cenlral portion of the Black Point Area: this extraction would not alter hvdroloqv. . Approximately 1 million cubic yards of earthwork would occur on the site. . Approximately 930,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel would be extracted and available for processing from the east-central portion of the Black Point Area; this extraction would not alter hydrology. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and geotechnical conditions would generally remain as describsd under existing mnditions as development occured within lhe existing topography. Erosion . Approximately 167-acres, or 67 percent of the land would be cleared of vegetation, and significant grading would be required. . Buffers would be established for protected areas, including slopes; however, slope instability would be possible if clearing and grading omurred either on slopes or close to the toe of slopes. Erosion could @ntribute to sediment in wetlands and streams. . Alternative 2 would require approximately 25 percenl less surface area disturban@ than Alternative 1 -. Buffers would be established for protected areas, including slopes; however, slope instability would be possible if clearing and grading occurred either on slopes or close to the toe of slopes. Erosion could contribute to sediment in wetlands and streams. . The site would continue lo develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and geotechnical @nditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions as development occured within the existing topography. Maritime Vatlage Area . Commercial and residential development would be consolidated into a 3- story building at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, and two 12-unit buildings; reducing impacts on the existing topography in the Marilime Village Area compared to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. . Structures would be built into the existinq slope. . Commercial and residential development would be mnsolidated into one 3- story building at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101 , furlher reducing impacts on the existing topography in the Maritime Village Area.. Slructures would be built into the existing slope. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and geotechnical conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions as development omured within the existing topography. Black Point Area . Earth conditions would be similar to those described in the 2007 ElS, and impacts as a result of site grading would be similar. . Alternative 2 was modified to improve mnstructability by refining development in the existing topographic conditions, resulting in the use of one half less fill when compared to Alternative 1. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and geotechnical conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions as development occurred within the existing topography. Water Rosources Surface Water . The two small non fish-bearing streams within the Maritime Village Area would be left in their native mndition, buffered, and all stormwater from new pollution generating surfaces would 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. The intermittent non fish-bearing stream within the WDFW{wned property north of Black Poinl Road is located downslope of the new WDFW boat acess roadway alignment, and would not be impacled by construction of the new roadway aliqnment. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to water resources would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge . Afler completion of the resort, aquifer recharge to the sea level aquifer would be approximately 822 acre-feet per year under Alternative 1, compared with 760 acre-feet under current conditions. An increase in recharge is due to a decrease in vegetation due to mnstruction of roads and buildings. lntiltration of precipitation would occur more quickly due to chanqes in the soil moisture associated with qolf course inioation. . This altemative would result in an aquifer recharge of approximately 804 acre- feel per year. This would be higher than curent conditions, but less than Alternative 1 due to the reduced amount of imperuious surfaces and increased vegetation under Alternative 2. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to ground water and aquiler recharge would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Octobet 2011 1-4 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1 Summary Alternative I Alternative 2 No Action Alternative Slormwater . Under Alternative 1, 87 percenl of the overall site would be retained as open space, with the golf course, natural areas, and buffers. Stormwater impacts would occur from an increase in the rate and volume of runoff from developed areas. Where development allows, frequent and small distributed bioretention facilities would be provided, and runoff from roof areas would be infiltrated near the structures producing the runoff. An overflow infiltration system would be designed around the perimeter of Kettle B, as well as a direct piped overflow conneclion to Kettle C for less frequent, larger rainfall events. The use of reuse water for irigation would be compuler controlled to prevent runoff. . To prevent runoff entering the Hood Canal in Basins 1, 2, and 12, embankments thal change the direction of surface flow would direct runoff away from Hood Canal into natural and created detention areas This moditiGtion addresses BoCC condition 63 (q). Maritime Village areas would continue to discharge directly to Pleasant Harbor/Hood Canal, and prevention of channel erosion due to an increase in runoff would be required. . The site would be designed to meet the recommendations of the currenl edilion of the WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington together with WDOE's adopted Low lmpact Developmenl Techni€l Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, January 2005. . lmpacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those discussed for Alternative '1. Under Alternative 2, 88 percent of the site would be retained as open space, and stormwater impacts would be similar to Alternative '1, except that parking areas would be paved with peruious pavements as much as possible under Alternative 2. Basins 16, 17, and '18 (including the Maritime Village and transit stop parking area) would have higher percentages ot change under Alternative 2 because of significantly higher percenlages of imperuious surface being constructed in those areas. . The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and stormwater impacts would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Pote nti al Con stru ction I m pacts . Stormwater impacts would be largely related to potentialwater erosion of disturbed and exposed soils. During construction, stormwaler management measures would be implemented to reduce potenlial impacts for sediment- laden water and wind-blown particles to leave the site. Grading activities could cause sedimsnt-laden waters to cross the property line without proper mitigation measures. To minimize this potential impact, detailed final designs would 6nsider redirection of runoff into different basins with belter permeability. . Similar to Alternative '1.. The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to water resour@s would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Potential Operational lmpacts . The replacement of existing surfaces and vegetalion with less permeable and imperuious surfaces would increase the runoff that enters lhe stomwater management facilities. With implementation of the proposed stormwaler control system, significant impacts from surface water runoff would not be anticipated. The replacement of naturally vegetated areas with nelvly landscaped areas would alter surface water runoff and infiltration. The proposed development would increase stormwater recharge into the groundwater by approximately 10 percent. New pollutant-generating imperyious surfaces would add additional pollulants to the sile from gasoline, oils, and other mechanical fluids. These pollutants have the potenlial to degrade the quality of water being infiltrated into the ground if not properly treated. . Similar to Alternative '1. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to water resources would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Plants Construction . Proposed development would disturb approximately 73 percent of the site and existing plant communities. These areas would be cleared of vegetation and new. maintained landscaoino would be orovided in oeruious areas. . Proposed development would disturb approximately 55 percent of the site and existing plant communities. These areas would be cleared of vegetation and new, maintained landscaping would be provided in peruious areas. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and plant and vegetation removal in areas of new development would be limited. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS October 2011 Chapter 1 Summary1.5 Alternatlve I Alternatlve 2 No Actlon Alternatlve . Approximately 2tacres of existing vegetation would be retained.. Approximately 56-acres ot existing vegetation would be retained. Marltlme Village Area . No new development other than a storage building approved on the BSP would occur outside of existing building footprints in the marina area. Moving the commercial development at the marina proposed in the 2007 EIS to a site at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101 would reduce the vegetative impact at the marina and retain the viable forest. The Maritime Village Area would be cleared of vegetation for buildinq and Darkino construction. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and plant and vegetation removal in areas of new development would be limited. Black Point Area . Designated vegetated areas would be undisturbed, and the 200-foot riparian butfer along the southern shoreline edge would be retained. Ouring construction viable trees within the proposed development areas that could be transplanted would be relocated temporarilv. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residenlial area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and plant and vegetation removal in areas of new development would be limited. Fish and Wildlife Fish . Proposed site development is not anticipated to increase pollutants in the harbor, and existing septic tanks, pumps, and drainfields would be replaced with a sewage treatment plant and water system. Treated water from this plant would be used as irrigation on the golf course. Waler quality would be monitored al existing monitoring stations, and the resort would be required to notify the County if any problems or changes in water quality occurred. Further, lhe resort would participate in rectifying any problems. As a result of the stormwater management and treatment, the net discharge of surface water runoff from the Maritime Village to the harbor is anticipated to be cleaner than current conditions. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to fish resources would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Wildlife . Wildlife is largely isolated from the site by U.S. Hwy '10'1, but some areas of temperate forests could allow for wildlife corridors. Wildlife resources would be protected through providing nalural areas from development and dislurbance. A trail leading from the beach to the top of the bluff along the shoreline buffer would be decommissioned and access to the shorelins from the site would not be permitted. Disturbed areas within the 2oo-foot buffer would be restored and planted with native vegetation. . Development construction may temporarily displace bald eagles during construclion, but the habitat they potentially use would remain undislurbed. Birds, mammals, and reptiles on the site could be lemporarily displaced or disturbed during construction, but there should not be significant impacts as designated vegetated areas would remain undisturbed during and afler construclion. Natural and undisturbed areas would allow wildlife to continue to utilize the site. Rainier elk are not curently found at the site and would be discouraged from site use through exclusionary fencing, as lhere is nol suitable habitat and elk have the polential to damaqe property. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to wildlife resources would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Threatened and Endangered Species . Although listed marine species may use the shoreline of the site, there are no known listed species in the upland portions of the project area. Marine species may include fish, mollusks, whales, and the Stellar sea lion. These species could be impacted by chanqes to the water quality from pollution . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue lo develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to lhreatened and endangered resources would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Pleasant Harbor Drafl Supplemental EIS Oclober 2011 1-6 Chaptet I Summary Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Alternative entering the Hood Canal. However, surface water runoff would be collected and treated on-site, then discharged to an on-site infllt.ation system. No dir6ct discharoe of oolf course faiMav runoff would enter Hood Canal. Shellfish . The 200-foot riparian buffer along the southern shoreline edge of the site would be retained, and public access would be restricted to maintain the natural 6ndition of the bluff. Vegetation clearing would increase the potential for runoff, but direct stormwater runoff to the Hood Canal from the golf course would not occur through the use of embankments that would direct surface flow into natural and created detention areas. The wastewater trealment system and proposed stormwater management system would imorove water oualitv. . Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, but less clearing would occur, resulting in a lower potential for runofi under Alternative 2. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to water quality and shellfish would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Shorelines . Redevelopment would be limited within existing building footprints, with the exception of the storage building approved in the BSP. The two small non fish-bearing streams south of the marina would be left in their native condition, buffered, and all stomwater from new sources would be captured and treated prior to discharge. Flows would be maintained and water qualily would nol be degraded. . The 200-foot riparian buffer along the southern shoreline edge would be retained, public ac@ss would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff, and residences would be set back no less than 30 feet from the steeo sloDe. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. And potential impacts to the shoreline environment would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Crltical Areas . Development would result in the loss of approximately 20,700 sq. ft. of wetland area associated with Wetland B. Soils would be covsred with approximately'100 feel of earth and an impermeable layer. The kettle and pond would be lilled and maintained for use in the water recycling system. Filling of Wetland B would create a large, deepwater hydrologic feature that could be used by watsrfowl and amphibians.. Kettle construction would require vegetation removal on the slopes and in the buffer of Wetland B. The filling oI Wetland B would result in the loss of habitat used primarily by birds, mammals, and reptiles. . To offset the fill of Wetland B, @mpensatory mitigation is proposed to be provided in another large kettle south ofWetland B. Development under Alternative 1 would retain Wetlands C and D, but developmenl would encroach on wetland buffer areas. Wetland buffer averaging would minimize impacts to wetland buffers. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to critical areas would generally remain as described under the 2007 Final ElS. Aqulfer Recharge fueas - lmpacls lo aquifer recharge areas are included in the analysis in the Water Resources saclion of lhls SE/S. Fish and Wildlife Conseryation Areas - lmpacts to fish and wildlife conseNation areas are included in the analysis in the Fish and Wildlife secfior} in this SEIS. Geologically Hazardous Areas - /mpacts to geologically hazardous areas are included in the analysis in the Eadh section in this SE/S. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemenaal EIS octobet 2014 1-7 Chapaer 1 Summary Wetlands Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Alternative Enorgy and Natural RG6ources Energy Use and Consumption . New development on the site would use energy, resulting in an increase in energy levels compared to existing mnditions. Approximately 19,337 kVA (about '15.46 MW) would be needed for a build out of the proposed prcject, requiring the construction of a new substation and associated distribution feeders. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue lo develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, and potential impacts to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher intensity development proposed under A,tematives I and 2. Propane and Gasoline Gsneration . Backup for the wastewater pump stations would be provided by the use of a truck mounted gasoline or diesel generator or permanent on-site generator. Additionally, propane would be used for outdoor cooking, and bio-fuel (vegetable oil) would be used in fireplaces in the villas and central areas of the Terace buildinqs. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, and potential impacts to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher inlensity development proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2. . Geothermal exchange would be used as an allernative energy source. The earth would bo used as a heat sour@ in cold wealher 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 svstsms. . Same as Alternative 'l . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, and potential impacls to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives I and 2. Biodiesel Co-Generation . Alternative 1 would include proposed on-site biodiesel co-generation. Waste heat from the combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration unit would be used to heat the pool, spa, and common areas, reducing enorgy consumption. . A cogeneration unit would not be included under Alternative 2.. The site would continue to develop as a single-Iamily residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, and potential impacts to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Altematives I and 2. LEED . The proposed project would have a potential of 25.5 points in the Sustainable Sites category; 10 potential points in Water Efficiency; 25 potential points in the Energy and Atmosphere category; 25 potential points in Materials and Resources; 14 potential points in lndoor Environmental Quality;5 potential points in lnnovation in Design; and 4 potential points in Reqional Prioritv. . Same as Atternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, and potential impacts to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternalives 1 and 2. Transportatlon Proposed Circulation System . A private frontage road (Marina Access Drive) would parallel U.S. Hwy 101 between Black Point Road and the marina upland. A primary access roadway on to Black Point Road approximately one mile east of U.S. Hwy 10'1 would seruice all traffic to and from lhe Golf Course/Resort. A secondary gated arcess road would be used for emergency vehicles and staff/mainlenance access only. A transit layover and bus zone would be accommodated on-site wjthin the southeast quadrant of the realigned U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road inlersection. The applicant also proposes to purchase two shuttles to transporl groups to/from the site and SeaTac Airport for conferences and other events, and for group excursions in the Puget Sound area. Site residents would also have the option to rent electrical carts for travel between the Golf Course/Resort and the Maritime Villaoe and the Marina. . Same as Alternative l, but under Alternative 2 that 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 U.S. Hwy l0'l on Black Point Road. . The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential transportation impacts would remain generally ths same as described in the 2007 Final Els. Pleasant Hatbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1 SummaryOctober 2011 1-8 Geothermal . Under Alternative 1, the WDFW boat launch would be reloGted and interconnected with the proposed Maritime Village Access roadway at a new intersection east of U.S. Hwv 1o1/Black Point Road. Trip Generation . Land use would remain generally the same as evaluated in the 2007 SEIS. Although the land use changes slightly under Alternative 1, ovsrall trip generalion and distribution and assignmgnt of the proposal remains similar . Same as Alternative 'l . The site would continue lo develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential transportation impacts would remain generally the same as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Level of Servico . The Level of Service (LOS) at U.S. Hwy 10'l and Black Point Road would not change from the 2007 ElS, even with potential reductions from the implementation of a shutlle 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. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on lhe underlying rural residential zoning and potenlial transportation impacts would remain generally the same as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Sile Access . Stop-controlled entering/exat movements at the prcject site drivewa!6 on to U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road would operate at LOS B or better with little or no vehicular queuing. Based on WSDOT'S Design Manual, a 100- foot soulhbound left-turn lane is wananted on U.S. Hwy 101 approaching Black Point Road, and Alternative 1 would include this improvement. A northbound 60-foot right-turn pocket with 1oo-foot taper was warranted and is included under Allernative 1 as well. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential transportation impacts would remain generally the same as described in the 2007 Final EIS. WDFW Driveway Access to Pleasant Harboi Boat Launch . Under Alternative 2, WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch access would be realigned further east to intersect Black Point Road approximately 1,000 feet east of U.S. Hwy 101. This would follow an old road grade wilhin WDFW- managod property: topography and lill impacts to public lands would be substantially less than under Alternalive '1. This access roadway would only serve the WDFW boat launch and is prefened by WDFW representatives. o The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential transportation impacts would remain generally the same as described in the 2007 Final EIS" . Under Alternative 1, existing traffic and access driveway onto Black Point Road from the 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. Traffic to the Maritime Village and the boat launch would use a common new intersection east of U.S. Hwy 101 on Black Point Road. Construction ol this intersection would require flll and topography changes. lt would require property transfer or stringent access easements on private property to allow public access to the Marina and Golf Resort properties. Mixing prcject-generated tmffic and WDFW boat launch traffic could cause congestion during peak use of the boat launch. Pleasanl Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS October 2014 Chapler 1 Summary1.9 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Alternative Altornative I Alternative 2 Construction lmpacts . The applicant proposes to complete the Marina and Golf Course/Resort in phases. During these construction phases, off-site vehicle trips would be generated, impacting vicinity roadways and intersection over lhe 1 0-year build out period. During @nstruction trips generated would include employee trips, transportation of construction materials and equipment, and miscellaneous trips. . Site preparation and earthwork mnstruction would require approximately 20-40 employees/contractors on-site during weekdays. Construction of infrastructure and specilic buildings would require an additional 30-40 employees/contraclors on-site. During peak construction this could require 75.100 employees, resulting in upwards of 250 vehicle trips. . Larger lrucks would be used and would be limited to less than 50 trips on any given day for the transportation of materials and equipment. BMPs would be implemented, including on-site truck wash facilities or oversize load transport routing. . ln total, typical estimated daily vehicle traffic generation related to construction would be up to 300 daily vehicle trips, which is less than 10 percent of the total site build out daily trip generation, resulting in no significant kaffic impacts. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacls would remain generally the same as described EIS. transportation I in the 2007 Final Parking Demand . A total of 1,536 parking spaces would be supplied under Alternative 'l, through a mix of surface parking and 'parkades" (structured parking below buildings). This parking supply is greater than the weekday demand ol 1,329 stalls and weekend demand of 'l,353 stalls. . With the cumulative impact of the parking demand from the marina, the entire site (including the marina) generales a weekday surplus of 207 stalls and a weekend surolus of 92 stalls. . A total of 1,550 parking spaces would be supplied under Alternative 2, through a mix of surface parking and "parkades" (structured parking below buildings). This parking suppty is greater than the weekday demand of 1,353 stalls and weekend demand of 1,389 stalls. . With the cumulative impact of the parking domand from the marina, the entire site (including the marina) generates a weekday surplus of 197 stalls and a weekend surplus of 70 stalls. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential parking impacts would remain generally the same as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Air Quality Construction e Due to the high amount of excavation and grading associated with the golf mu6e design under Alternative 1, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be greater than under Alternative 2. A GHG Emissions analysis was perfomed only for Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative. . Scope , Emrisslons: Construction could result in 5483.62 tooze total GHG emissions, reduced to 4,743.20 tCO2e with mitigation. Construction activities would result in additional emissions sources, including mobile power generation combustion, deforestation, below grade erbon loss, and soil organic carbon loss. r Scope 2 Ernlssionsr Construction could result in 172.93 tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 146.99 tCO2e with mitigation. Purchased energy could be used during construction, resulting in emissions. . Scope 3 Ern,ss,bnsi Construction could result in 9,673.66 tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 9,130.52 tCO2e with mitigation. Scope 3 emissions sources for conslruction include heavy equipment battery/on-site mining combuslion, material hauling trip emissions, vehicle trip emissions, organic waste (wood). and electricitv lransmission and distribution losses. . The site would continue to develop as a single-tamily residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts regarding construclion-related greenhouse gas emissions would be limited, as compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2. Operation . lmpacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.. Scopa 7 Emlssiors: Operation could result in 1,096.80 tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 931.48 tCO2e with mitigation. Combustion from combined power, backup power, vehicle fleet, golf course maintenance, non- combustion fugitive sources, and campfire/fireplaces could cause increased emissions. Waslewater melhane (on-site) and ferlilizer aDDlication would be . The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts regarding greenhouse gas emissions would be limited, as compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 'l and 2. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS October 2O11 Chapter 1 Summary1-10 No Action Alternative Alternative t Altematlve 2 additional emissions sources. . Scope 2 Emlsslons: Operation could result in 8,246.25 tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 4,352.94 tCO2e with mitigation. Purchased energy could be used during operation, resulting in emissions. . Scope 3 Emisslons: Operation could result in 26,459.72 tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 16,589.18 tCO2e with mitigation. Scope 3 emissions sources for operation include vehicular emissions, landfill waste, organic waste, and electricity transmission and distribution losses.. The estimated lotal emissions (construction and operation) with mitigation would be 35.894.20 tCO2e. Employment and Housing Housing Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions . Conslruction of the project would occur over lime in response to market conditions; the assumed timeframe in this SEIS is 10 years. lt is estimated that on average, up to 1 75 posilions could be associated with facility mnstruction per year. The applicant proposes to upgrade existing RV facilities on the site on a temporary basis to provide temporary housing for construclion workers. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying by approximately rural residential zoning, and housing stock could increase 30 new residenes. Lo ng-Te rm Hou s in g Concliti o n s . Under Alternative '1, 890 residential units would be provided on the site. Of the total, 278 (33o/") units would be for permanent residents, and 560 (67%) units would be for short-term use. The 890 units would represent an 84 percent increase to the existing housing stock, but would be largely for short-term use. Considering only the permanent housing, it would represent a 26 percent increase in the existing housing stock. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, and housing stock could increase by approximately 30 new residences. I nd ire ct Hou si n g Con dition s . Operation of the resort could result in up to 225 new employees, which could increase demand for housing in the area. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the undedying rural residential zoning, and housing stock could increase by approximately 30 new residences. Employment Con struction Em pl oyme nt . Site preparation and @nstruction activities would require new temporary construction employment opportunilies during the 1 o-year build out period. lt is now estimated that the project could generate up to '1,750 total jobs over the murse of the '1o-year buildout. The actual number would vary depending on the nature and construction phase of the project. Construction jobs would be temporary and would be dis@ntinued once conslruction was complete. lt is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of construction jobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor prcject could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and limited addilional employment could be added to the sito as allowed under the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) process. Ope ration al Employme nt . Development of the site could result in approximately 225 permanent employees at the Pleasant Harbor Site. Additional temporary employees could be hired seasonally during the summer months. Employment would be generated incrementally as the site develops over the build out period. Jobs would include opportunities in tourism and leisure, hospitality, restaurant and . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the undedying rural residential zoning and limited additional employment could be added to the site as allowed under the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) process. Pleasant Harbor Drafl Supplemental EIS October 2014 Chaptet I Summary1-11 No Action Alternative Altsrnatlve I Alternative 2 f@d seryie, med-spa/grotto, maintenance and security, and environmental standards and safety management. New employment could help to lower the county's unemployment rate, depending on several faclors. lt is estimated that approximately 99 percent of operational jobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. lndirect Employment lmpacts . During construction, it is possible that some nearby businesses 6uld experience an increase in business. Permanent employees of the resort are also anticipated to contribute to the overall economic activity in the area, particularly area retail and restaurant businesses. Additional residents in communities surround the site could result in increasod retail and seruice spending and loml businesses. . Same as Alternative 'l . The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and limited additional employment could be added to the site as allowed under lhe Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) process. Rural Character and Population Construction Population . Construction is anticipated to cover an approximately 10 year timeframe, and employment could generate up to approximately 1,750 jobs in total over the full buildout. However, these positions would be temporary in nature and no permanent residents are anticipated to migrate to the area. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potential impacts to population and rural character conditions would remain generally as described in lhe 2oo7 Final ElS, with an permanent population increase of approximately 1 5- 20 persons. Operation Population The proposed project would provide 890 residenlial units, wilh 278 for permanent residents, and 560 for short-tem use. With an assumed two pereons per household, the permanent resident population would be 556, and a pemanent staff population of 104 (wilhin the 52 staff units), resulting in 660 permanent residents. This would result in an 83 perc€nt increase in population in Brinnon- . Short{em units are assumed to have an average occupancy of 2.2 persons per unit, resulting in a transient population of 1,232 persons, with higher occupancy anticipated in th€ summer. . Same as Alternative 'l . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potential impacts to population and rural character conditions would remain generally as described in the 2OO7 Final ElS, with an permanent population increase of approximately 1 5- 20 persons. Runl Chamcter . Site would be transformed from a primarily vamnt, former campground that is largely vegetated and forested to a new MPR development with a range of residential and recreational uses and activities. The density of developmenl and commercial and recreational amenilies on the site would increase, to a density of 3.85 residential dwellings per acre.. ln general, the type, character, and patlern of land uses at the site would change substantially. The rural character of surrounding land uses would be preserved by limiting the visibility of the resort, preseruing natural areas and open space, limiting the height of development, and clustering more intense development in the interior of the site. Overall, approximately 33-acres of natural area (14 percent ofthe site) would be preserued, and an additional '177-acres would be peruious area with landscaping, golf course fairuays, and pedestrian trails. . Altemative 2 would have similar impacts to Alternative 1, but approximately 8o-acres (33 percent of the site) would be preserued, and an additional 133- acres would be pervious area with landscaping, golf course fairways, and pedestrian trails. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potsntial impacts to population and rural characler conditions would remain generally as described in the 2007 Final ElS, with an permanent population increase of approximately 1S 20 persons. lndirect lmpacts . New development would contribute to residenlial and employment groMh, as well as intensification of land uses in the community and county. The . Same as Alternative 'l . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potential impacts to population October 2014 1-12 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemen.3l EIS Chapter 1 Summary No Action Alternative Altsrnatlve I Alternative 2 development would also cumulatively increase vehicular traffic on surrounding roads, and the demand for goods and services. This could indirectly generate new developmsnt in lhe area. and rural character conditions would remain generally as described in the 2007 Final ElS, with an permanent population increase of approximately 15- 20 persons. Cultural and Archaeological Resources . Prehistoric and historic archaeological resources could be present at the site. To avoid potentially adveBe impacts to cultural resources, periodic archaeological monitoring would be carried out during construction excavations and below-fill, ground disturbing project actions. Monitoring results would be reviewed with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservalion staff, and tribal representatives prior to adjusting the monitorinq schedule. . Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 but the potential to enmunter archaeological deposits would be less due to the lower amount of ex€vation and grading associated with the golf course design. . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to cultural and archeological resources would remain generally as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Llght and Glare Construction . Temporary light and glare impacts could result from area lighting of the job site, glare reflecting off construction equipment, and vehicle headlights. These impacts would be temporary and are not anticipaled to be siqnificant. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Some additional light and glare could result from new residences constructed within the site. Operation . Following development, new sources of light on the site would include interior and exterior lighting, pedestrian pathway lighting, and lighting associated with the golf course and vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site. Measures to redue light pollution would be implemented, such as dark sky lighting standards, using high efficiency lighting standards, and reducing the amount and duration of illumination use. . Glare impacts would be associated with reflections from building facades and vehicular trafric. Because of the use of low-reflectivity building glazing and building materials, signifi€nt glare impacts are not anticipated. The preservalion of natural areas would also help limit potenlial light and glare imDacts off-site. . lmpacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to lhose under Alternative 1, but Alternative 2 would preserve a greater amounl of natural area, which could provide a greater visual bufler at sile borders, and could prevent more off-sile light trespass than under Alternative '1. . Some additional light and glare could result from new residences within the site. Primarily, this would be associated with vehicle headlights maneuvering on and within the site, and limited and temporary lighting of residences at night. Aesthetics Maritime Village Area . Under Alternative 1 the aesthetic character of this portion of the site would change from a rural area with mature vegetation and single-family homes, to a more densely developed site with larger building massing and scale, and surface parking lots. The largest building would be three stories in height. Slructures would be built into the existing topography. . Portions of the redeveloped area, including surface parking, would be visible from certain locations along Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Landscapinq would help soften the visual impact at this location. . Aesthetic impacts to the Maritime Village area would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, but the two smaller residential buildings proposed under Alternative 1 would not be included in Alternative 2. . The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and the aesthelic character of the Maritime Village area would generally be consistent with the surrounding atea. Black Point Area . Development of this portion of the site under Alternative 1 would extensively change the aesthetic character. The visual character of the site topography would be altered to creale large, gently graded sloping areas to accommodale lhe golf course design. Buildings within the Golf Course Resort area would range from one to four stories. . The existing aesthetic characler of the southern portion of this area would remain as under existing conditions, as no development would be located in proximily to the beach and bluffs, and a riparian buffer would preserue the . Aesthetic impacts would be similar but reduced when compared to Alternative 1 as the golf course layout requires less cut and fill, preseryes more vegetation, and more closely follows existing topography. The number of residential buildings is reduced, and landscaping includes re-vegetation of disturbed areas using healthy specimens from portions of the site cleared to be regarded. Buildings within the Golf Resort would range from one to five stories in height. Similarly to Alternative 1, the riparian buffer would be preserved and the existing aesthetic character of this area would remain under existino conditions. . The site would @ntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and lhe aesthetic character of the Black Point area would generally be consistent with the surrounding area. October 2011 1-13 Pleasant Harbot Drafa Supplemental EIS Chaptet I Summary Altomative 2 shoreline environment along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula. UtllitieB Construclion Water . A new water distribution system would be built under or near roadways to reduce lhe need for clearing and grading. Construction aclivities related to this system may include temporary seruice disruptions, noise, and dust during construclion and construction-related traffic impacts during materials delivery. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to utililies would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Sswer . A new sewer collection system would be built on easements or under or near roadways for efficient conveyance. Construction activitiss related to this system may include temporary seruice disruptions, noise, and dust during construction and construction-related lraffic impacts during materials delivery. . The sile would conlinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the undedying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Operation Water . A multi-purpose utility dishict is proposed to own, operate, and maintain the new water system. Water rights were granted by WDOE, and in addilion, an existing well would be rehabilitated and a new well would be drilled to provide capacity. . Water demand is anticipated to be approximately 30 million gallons annually, with average residential use reduced from 175 gpd/ERU to 70 9pd/ERU through the use of low flow plumbing fixtures. . Golf course irrigation and tire protection needs would be provided with rainwater and waler reuse from the sanitary sewer treatment plant. Water would be stored in the constructed Kettle B irrigation pond which would be reconfigured through mass grading to have a volume of 60 million gallons. . Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, but the Kettle B irrigation pond would not be resonflgured by mass grading, and would have a volume capacity of approximately '120 million gallons. . The site would continus to devslop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residenlial zoning and potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Sewer . The sewage collection system would have the capacity to treat 280,000 gallons of wastewater per day, which meets the Class A Reclaimed Water Permit requirements. The treatment plant would be located in the northwest comer of lhe site and would produce Class A effluent. This system could result in transportation impacts for waste sludge from the site to a processing facility near Shellon, and from the hauling of fuel for standby generalors and chemicals for the treatment process to the site. The operation of the new plant could increase noise levels, release of odors, and energy consumption. . Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 'l . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Telecommunications . CenturyLink would continue to serue the site with telephone and DSL internet seruice, with extensions from existing lines. . Same as Alternative I . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Solid Waste . The amount of solid waste generated at the site would substantially increase from existing uses. lt is assumed that the residential units could qenerate uD to 'l.364 tons of solid waste per vear, and mmmercial uses . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. October 2011 1-11 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter I Summary Alternative 1 . Same as Alternative 1. Alternative I Alternative 2 @uld generate approximately 45-51 tons of solid waste per year. A private service would pick up solid waste, and a composting and recycling program would be ulilized. Public Soruicos Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Conslruction . The Jefferson County Fire District No.4 would be involved in the review and inspection of permit applications for new development, and final on-site inspections. Fire department serui@ calls related to the inspection of the site and potential conslruction-related accidenls and iniuries. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on lhe underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to fire and EMS seruices would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Opention . New development would result in an increase in the number of calls for fire and emergency medical seruices at the site. Based on Jefferson County's goal for Brinnon, 0.83 fire units and 0.33 EMS units could be required for the permanent site population. An MOU is being negotiated to address potential impacts from increased demand for seruices until the Property Value Assessment is reflected in the Resort's tax Davmenls. . Same as Alternative 1 . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to fire and EMS seruices would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Police Services Construction . Construction activities could result in an increased demand for police services during the 10 year construction period due to trespassing, construction sile theft, vandalism, and faffic incidents due to construclion traffic. By securing lhe site and using on-site security staff and systems, impacts would be shortlem and would nol be substantial. Existing stafting and eouiDment are anticiDated to be sufficienl durino the build out oeriod. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would mntinue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to sheriff seruices would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Operation . Potential increases in on-site population and employment would be incremental, and would therefore create an incremental increase in demand for police service through increasing annual call volumes to the Jefferson County Sheriff s office. The Resort would use security staff round the clock and security systems. Significant impacts to the Jefferson County Sheriffs Oflice are not anlicipated. . Same as Alternative '1.. The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to sheriff seruices would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Public Schools . Residential development would generate addltional student enrollment and demand in the Brinnon School District, which would occur incrementally as the site is developed. The eslimated increase in the student population would be 24 students in grades K-8, and 20 high school sludents, for a total of 44 additional students. The execution of an MOA would contribute to explorinq wavs to increase revenue lo the Dlstrict's budqet. . Same as Alternative 1.. The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to public schools would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Health Seruices . The increase in permanent residents, resort visitors, and staff could result in increased demand for health Gre seruices. Services could be related to accidental injury or unanticipated illness, though permanenl residents and employees would have other needs that require doctors visits. The resort would provide clinic space on-site, and train select resort stafl as first responders. With these measures, significant impacts to health care seruies would not be anticipated. . Same as Alternalive 1 r The site would conlinue to develop as a single-family residenlial area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts to health seruices would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemenlal EIS Oclober 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-15 1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPAGTS The following list highlights the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this SEIS. The current list is in addition to those mitigation measures identified in the 2007 ElS, and the conditions imposed by the Jefferson County BoCC as part of the 2008 approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Pleasant Harbor Resort MPR. Where a 2007 EIS mitigation measure or BoCC condition has already been completed, a brief explanation of how the measure or condition was addressed is included (see Section 3.18 for a full explanation of how each BoCC condition has been fulfilled). Similarly, i'f a 2007 EIS mitigation measure or BoCC condition no longer applies due to a change in the proposed site plan, it is also noted. This list is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of mitigation measures within each element that is contained in Chapter 3. EARTH 2007 Ets No mitigation measures were specifically proposed relating to topography and soils in the 2007 Ets. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. hl iti q ati o n lvl e a s u re s Co m p I eted 63 (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. o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Mlarina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation included field investigations and a groundwater modeling program to assess potential impacts to the aquifer that could result from stormwater infiltration within the proposed development. Results from these studies indicatethe proposed development would increase groundwater recharge by approximately 10 percent; this is largely due to removal of existing vegetation that currently allows rainfall to evaporate and transpire by the vegetative cover. a 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. o The water rights were granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15, 2010. The existing on-site 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-16 a a 63 (q) Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Alarina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E) was completed and infiltration rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are illustrated in Appendix B of that report. SE'S ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, these additional mitigation measures could be implemented. . A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site will be required. Construction activities shall be completed in accordance with the recommendations in the 2008 Geotechnical Report (Appendix E) for erosion control, site drainage, and earthwork and in accordance with the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinances. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts Both development alternatives would permanently alter the site's natural topography as described in Section 3.1-1. Alternative 2 would have less impact due to the lower area of site stripping and quantity of cut and fill. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, significant impacts to earth would not be anticipated. WATER RESOURGES 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. The stormwater mitigation measures listed in Section 3.5.3, Shellfish, would also apply. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction . 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. o Stormwater management plans for clearing and grading and for construction and operation phases must be approved and systems in place prior to land disturbing activities to assure control of the stormwater as provided above. The golf course project approval shall require the adoption of best management practices for the management of stormwater on-site and the reuse of water as irrigation water, with a condition that the system demonstrate no direct discharge to Hood Canal of any stormwater from impervious or golf course surfaces, and that the grass management program include specific BMPs to assure proper management of all elements of the golf course management system consistent with best available technology for management in aquifer sensitive areas or its substantial equivalent. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter I Summary1-17 a a a a Approval of any permits for the marina redevelopment area shall be conditioned upon the approval of a stormwater management plan that intercepts and treats all stormwater from existing or new impervious surfaces to Puget Sound water quality management standards prior to discharge, and that the Maritime Village has a plan and facilities in place to deal with any upland upset that may threaten pollutant discharge to Pleasant Harbor. The Project Engineer shall be responsible for ensuring that State and County stormwater management standards are met. Clearing, grading, implementation of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and construction of roads and stormwater management facilities shall be conducted under the supervision of the Project Engineer. The Project Engineer shall submit weekly reports to Jefferson County while construction is in progress. Preliminary plat approval for the golf course resort that requires water use in excess of current approved water rights. Preliminary plat approval shall require a hydrogeological report demonstrating that the additional water use does not pose a threat of saltwater intrusion to existing wells or sources of water supply. A hydrogeological report is required for each construction or development phase to demonstrate compliance with this condition. Adequate and sustainable fire flow will be provided by the Class A water system. The Class A water system will provide this level of service at all times. Construction site stormwater runoff for the project is to be regulated at the state level by WDOE through the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and at the local level by the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Code (JCC 18.25.070). A Construction General Stormwater Permit (NPDES) is required for all development activities where more than one acre will be disturbed, and stormwater will be discharged to surface water or to storm drains that discharge to surface water. The project will require a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). a a a a a a Low lmpact Development - all water on the site will be collected and either used appropriately on-site, routed to the storage ponds, or infiltrated to the groundwater aquifer - a zerc discharge criterion, except at the Maritime Village where zero discharge to the Harbor cannot be achieved because oftopography. The project will develop susceptibility ratings for the site and develop adaptive management procedures to maintain groundwater quality and quantity. Groundwater and water quality monitoring will be performed at monitoring wells installed along the bluff and interior of the project site. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-18 a Mitiqation Measures Completed . 63 (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. o The 2012 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix F) includes a model and methodology with local rainfall data and associated runoff projections and potential impacts on Hood Canal. 63 (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. o The 2012 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix F) includes an analysis of the interconnection between stormwater, water storage, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and wetlands. 63 (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. o 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 were confirmed by the WDOE in 2010 (Appendix F). 63 (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. o 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 (Appendix F). 63 (0 A County-based comprehensive water quality 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 off-site sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring regime. o A draft Water Quality lvlonitoring Plan was completed by the applicant and reviewed by the Jefferson County Water Quality Department in August 2014 (Appendix F). a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-19 a Mitioation Atleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (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 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. o A draft Neighborhood Water Policy has been drafted by the applicant and reviewed by Jefferson County Health and WDOE (Appendix F). The NWP shall be finalized prior to approval of the Development Agreement. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following additional water resources mitigation measures could be implemented. . There are some areas within the site that have slow to moderate rates of infiltration. Until the actual allowable rate of infiltration of the soil at each facility can be determined, the facilities may need to be sized to retain water to allow for a slower release. The stormwater design team will work closely with the wetlands biologist to develop a stormwater management system that will minimize hydrologic alterations to existing wetlands. Surface ponding in existing kettles and depressed areas and subsurface infiltration beds designed under some roads and parking areas would be constructed using soils processed on the site with suitable rates of permeability to infiltrate stormwater to the aquifer. Measures such as rainwater harvesting (i.e., collecting and storing stormwater for beneficial use, such as irrigation, fire flow, etc.), and drought-tolerant landscaping could minimize requirements for irrigation with potable water. Although rainwater harvesting may not be economical on a large scale, it is a measure that could be implemented on case-by-case basis. Measures to reduce the amount of stormwater to be infiltrated could include increasing evaporation and transpiration by introducing vegetation that requires significant quantities of water to survive, and/or by reducing the amount of new impervious surface proposed. Certain areas of the site not planned for development could be reserved for maintaining or adding vegetation to maximize evapotranspiration. Reduction of roadway width to the minimum acceptable to Jefferson County and the local fire district would reduce runoff quantities. a a a a a Periodic monitoring of groundwater levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance in select wells will be conducted to monitor potential seawater intrusion. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the conversion of existing a primarily vegetated area to new impervious and maintained landscape/golf course areas that would affect stormwater and groundwater characteristics. However, with implementation Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-20 of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to water resources would be anticipated. PLANTS 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation. BoCC Conditions The following plant mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M itiq ati o n tvl e a su re s Co m p I eted 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 A/lanagement 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. a a Atlitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction 63 (s) The developer will ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 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. Hwy 101 and the lvlaritime 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-21 a 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 18.15.135t11121161), 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. o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln 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-like greenbelts between the buildings. o The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-way while providing adequate visual access from the highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after removing invasive plant species. The building architecture will share similar features to those at the marina and within the golf resort. 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. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measures for plants would also 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). Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With proposed development under either Alternative 1 or 2, large areas of existing vegetation would be retained (11 percent to 26 percent). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to plants would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-22 FISH AND WILDLIFE 2007 Els The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Com pleted . 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. o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resort Habitat hlanagement Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this requirement. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction r 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 afea. . The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. o The site contains several intermittent or seasonal stream channels (Type "Np" or "Ns" 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 Np or Ns streams require a SO-foot buffer of native vegetation. The Proposal will comply with this requirement. Additionally, the creation of a complete and modern treatment system for stormwater on the developed portion of the marina site should result in an improvement in water quality discharge. o The last sentence of this mitigation measure no longer applies under this SEIS. Redevelopment within the marina area is addressed under an existing Binding Site Plan Permit. As well, the JCC 18.15.315 code reference should be JCC 18.22.270, and streams require a 50 to 7S-foot buffer of native vegetation. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation o 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 Washington State Department of Health (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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-23 BoCC Conditions The following fish and wildlife mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitioation Measures Com pleted a 63 (l) A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the public interest in consultation with the WDFW 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. Hwy 101, 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 Resoft Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this condition. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following fish and wildlife mitigation measures would also apply: Mitioation Measures to be lmolemented Prior to and Durino 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. a a a a a lnstead of the JCC 1S0-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 off-site 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. An effort will be made to retain trees that have a 10-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 d uring construction. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-24 . An exclusion fence will be installed to prevent elk from entering the Black Point property if they cross U.S. Hwy 101. Significant U navoidable 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 on-site (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 to fish and wildlife would be anticipated. SHELLFISH 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction . Construction period NPDES general permits will need to be obtained and conditions followed to control stormwater during construction to assure no otfsite 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 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 on-site before discharge, including the golf course side, where irrigation and stormwater shall be captured treated, retained, and infiltrated on-site with no off-site discharge. o Clarification: Stormwater from pollution-generating impervious surfaces will be treated on-site before discharge. No direct runoff specifically from the golf course fainivays will be discharged to Hood Canal. Runoff from areas other than the fairways that discharge to adjoining properties will be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that complies with State requirements. 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. a a a a a o Clarification: The stormwater management system for all phases shall capture, treat (where/when applicable), and infiltrate or store for reuse all stormwater from Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-25 a impervious surfaces of the improved golf course areas. Golf cart paved paths are pollution generating surfaces that require treatment, but they will occur in areas where runoff to off-site locations like the wetland on the east side and Pleasant Harbor on the north side require discharge of runoff. o 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. lvlitiqation Aleasures to be lmplemented Durinq Operation Ma ri n a M itig ation Me asu res All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated to the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington 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 Project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines 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. 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 a a a a a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-26 a 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 Mlitigation 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. BoCC Conditions The following shellfish mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. l/litio ation Me asu re s Com p leted . 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. 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 WDFW was drafted in October 2010 (Appendix l). This agreement shall be finalized prior to the BoCC signing of the Development Agreement. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for shellfish would be necessary. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shellfish would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-27 a SHORELINES 2007 Els The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction . Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor. o 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 County standards before discharge. All surface water runoff from new pollution-generating surfaces in the golf course area shall be captured and treated in accordance with adopted County stormwater manuals. Zero discharge to Hood Canal from the developed golf course area is required. BoCC Conditions Mitiqation Aleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 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. Hwy 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. Hwy 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 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 a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-28 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 Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the StvlP. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional shoreline mitigation measures would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shorelines would be anticipated. CRITIGAL AREAS 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation ileasures Completed 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 on-site. 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 overall wetland area function and value. a a a o The 2012Welland Mitigation Plan (Appendix J)fulfills this mitigation measure 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 commencement of any grading on-site. 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-29 a o The 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J). Irlitiqation Measures to be lmolemented Prior to and Durino 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. a A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site will be required. a hrlitioation hrleasures to be lmplemented 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. BoCC Conditions No mitigation measures were identified by the Jefferson County BoCC specifically applicable to critical areas that are not addressed in other sections (e.9., Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife). sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following critical areas mitigation measures would also apply: Mitiaation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction The mitigation of Wetland B shall be implemented in accordance with the 2012 Wetland tvlitigation Report (Appendix J). The buffer reduction/averaging for Wetlands C and D shall be mitigated in accordance with the 2012Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J). a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-30 Mitioation Atleasures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation o 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. a a Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts Site development under either Alternative 1 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 to critical areas would be anticipated. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURGES 2007 Ets 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. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measure identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Itl iti o ati on Ale asu re s Com p I ete d . 63 (bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District. o Appendix K provides documentation from the Mason County PUD No. 1. Capacity exists to serve the first phase of the project (the Maritime Village). Additional improvements will be necessary to serve the full buildout of the project. Mitioation Measures To Be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-31 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. sEs With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for energy or natural resources would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 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 to energy or natural resources would be anticipated. TRANSPORTATION 2007 Ets The following transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Fully fund and construct associated improvements for Black Point Road to meet County standards from U.S. 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 U.S. HwyY 101 to improve and maximize entering and exit sight distance. At the U.S. 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 U.S. Hwy 10'1. Provide a northbound right-turn pocket or taper at U.S. 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 U.S. Hwy 101. A detailed traffic design to accommodate traffic on U.S. Hwy 101 returning to the resort must be developed, with further traffic analysis and design approval by WSDOT and Jefferson County. Reconstruct the Black Point Road approach to U.S. Hwy 101 with adjacent left turning lanes, a widened approach onto U.S. Hwy 101, and an "entry treatment" on Black Point Road at U.S. 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 a a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-32 a a Department and emergency service providers during the preliminary plat phase if desired by the applicant. a 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 U.S. Hwy 101 bicycle tratfic bypass through the resort (i.e. Black Point properties and Maritime Village). 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: 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. BoCC Conditions The following transportation mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. 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 tt/OU with Jefferson Transit to fulfill this condition (see Appendix R). sEs All transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS either Alternative 1 or 2. Additional transportation mitigation measures proposed are listed below. Best management practices would be implemented by contractors during construction, including necessary on-site truck wash facilities or oversized load transport routing and operations. 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 Phase 3 of the proposed construction sequence. a a a a 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 U.S. 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-33 a 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 An on-site layover and transit zone in the southeast corner of the U.S. 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. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would be anticipated. AIR QUALITY 2007 Ets As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No air quality mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. BoCC Conditions The following air quality mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County 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. sEs The following other possible mitigation measures could be implemented with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 2 to further address potential GHG- related impacts. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-34 a a a a a 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 either Alternative 1 or 2 would help to reduce GHG emissions including: the use of grid electricity; preservation of riparian and buffer areas; transplanting usable trees; selective reforestation; off-site trip reduction from a mixed- use contained resort with staff housing, on-site amenities, buses, and on-site electric transportation; energy star appliances; low flow plumbing fixtures, provision of an on-site camp for construction workers; on-site 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 lrlanagement Practices Plan. Additional air quality mitigation measures which could be implemented include the following Renewable energy purchases Using locally sourced materials Emissions offsets Waste heat recovery S i g n ifica nt U n avoid abl e Adverse I m pacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 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. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. llitioation lvleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction Because there is a limited rental housing market, it is proposed that the out-of-town construction crews may use the existing on-site 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 on-site. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-35 a BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Atlitiaation hleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durina 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% o'f rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2). a a 63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students. Mitiqation Measures Com pleted 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 (AMl). 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 on-site housing development. o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor ltlaster Planned Resorf (Appendix N). lt is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of construction jobs and 99 percent of operationaljobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area Alvll. The availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than B0% o't the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU. a SE'S With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for housing and employment would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-36 RURAL CHARACTER AND POPULATION 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant sections of this SEIS, as applicable. Mitioation hleasures 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: o The retention of rural area zoning on the lands outside of the ltlaster Planned Resort. o 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. o 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. o The number of proposed residential units shall be no greater than 890 units, including both the resort residences and staff/affordable housing. o The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fainrvays, and the upper portion of the development. o 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. o The proposal shall provide landscaping between US HWY 101 and the new access road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. o With the exception of the Condotel/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. o 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 off-site impacts are minimized.) Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-37 a BoCC Conditions hlitioation lleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 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. Hwy 101 and 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 U.S. Hwy 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. sEs o With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With the implementation of the proposed site design features and identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to rural character or population are anticipated. CULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGIGAL RESOURCES 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction The project proponent shall work with the Tribes and County to provide on-site monitoring during all construction to assure identification and management of any cu ltural resources identified. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-38 a ltlitioation ltleasures 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. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. Itl iti o ati o n ful e a su re s C o m p I ete d 63 (1) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource. 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. 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. a sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, the following cultural and archaeological mitigation measures would apply: Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction A construction buffer shall be constructed to protect the archeological site on Washington State lands adjacent to the site from any unnecessary disturbance. Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-39 LIGHT AND GLARE 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. hlitioation Atleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction . The overall project approval shall address light and glare to reduce the projection of evening lights otf the golf course and marina properties. (Reduction does not mean lights cannot be seen, but that through shielding and proper placement and orientation, the off- site impacts are minimized.) BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. Mitioation hrleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durina Construction 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. sEs ln addition to the implementation of lhe 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following light and glare mitigation measure would be implemented. llitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino 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). Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lm pacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse light and glare impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-40 a a a a AESTHETICS 2007 Ets The following aesthetic mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. Itlitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino 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. Hwy 101 and the new access road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. With the exception of the Condotel/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. o Note that the lt/aritime Village building would be 3-stories, but it would be built into the existing topography so that only two stories visible would be visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west (the higher grade elevation) and three stories visible internal to the site. BoCC Conditions Mitiaation Aleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 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. Hwy 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 naturalvisualseparation of the developmentfrom U.S. Hwy 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-41 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 18.15.135(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 public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9,hhe 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 Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. a 63 (v) ln 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. o The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-way while providing adequate visual access from the highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after removing invasive plant species. The building architecture will share similar features to those at the marina and within the golf resort. sE/s With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternatives 1 or 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 surrounding area. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-42 UTILITIES 2007 Ets Itl itiq ati o n Al e asu re s Co m p I ete d . 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. Mitioation h/leasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction a 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 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. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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 WDOE shall be required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development. 63 (o) Detailed review is needed at the projectlevel 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. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following utility mitigation measures would also apply: a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-43 a a a a Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino 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, then current metered use records, and fixture counts. The fire flow requirements will be based on 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 flow rates and early construction phase fire flow rates. Fire flow will be provided by the project irrigation/fire flow system following completion and filling of the irrigation pond in Kettle B. 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. Sewer o 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 permit conditions. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would result in an increased demand for utilities. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to utilities would be anticipated. PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMs) 2007 Ets Mitiqation Aleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durina Construction Any preliminary plat for the development of a portion of the resort shall require the following: . Ensure the on-site water system will provide for adequate sustainable fire flow. . All resort buildings to include internal sprinkler systems with FDC connections. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-44 a a a a a a a a a a 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 Fire District l#41 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 firefighting operations on any structure over 18 feet from ground level, including but not limited to the Condotel/Conference Center Building. Enter in to an "action plan" with the local fire authority at District ll4 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. 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: o "Firewise" design standards o "Emergency action plan" for predevelopment and operational service for each phase of development o Provide necessary facilities to mount rescue and firefighting operations in all phases ofthe resort o "Action plan" for coordinated control and additional services BoCC Conditions h/litiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction 63(c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement ([VOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency tt/edical 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-45 Harbor 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. SE'S With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for fire, medical and public services would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 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 fire or EMS impacts would be anticipated. PUBLIG SERVICES - POLICE SERVICES 2007 Ets Atlitioation fuleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durina Construction 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. On-site security and surveillance systems for the protection of resort guests, residents, and property coordinated with local service providers to assure appropriate communication and controlsystems 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 a a BoCC Conditions Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino 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 Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-46 a o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson County Sheriff. SE'S With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for sheriff services would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 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 to sheriff services would be anticipated. PUBLIG SERVICES - PUBLIG SGHOOLS 2007 Ets 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. BoCC Conditions Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino 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 speciflcally between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor 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. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for public schools would be necessary. Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 2 would result in new students to the area school district. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public schools would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-47 a PUBLIC SERVIGES - HEALTH SERVIGES 2007 Ets Mitiqation hleasures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction 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. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson HealthCare. BoCC Conditions Nlitiqation lvleasures 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 lr/edical Services (E[VS), 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 Harbor 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. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for health services would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 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 to health services would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 1 Summary1-48 Ghapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives GHAPTER 2 DESGRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter of the SEIS provides: An overview of the Pleasant Harbor fularina and Golf Resorf Draft and Final EIS (issued by the Jefferson County, Department of Community Development in September 2007 and November 2007, respectively; referred to collectively as the 2007 EIS); An explanation of planning activities that occurred after the 2007 EIS was issued, and why a SEIS is being prepared; and A description of the Proposal and the Alternatives that are analyzed in this SEIS. See Chapter 1 for an Executive Summary of the information and analysis contained in this SEIS 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 SEIS Alternatives. 2.1 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 ti4PR 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 on November 27,2007. ln 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment with 30 conditions (Ordinance 07-0128-08), as well as requiring project-level review of the MPR proposal (including environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement required to implement the proposal). Accordingly, this SEIS prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW provides project-level environmental review to supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 ElS. Since 2008, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BIUPR 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). The new master plan relocates the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline management area to a new location near U.S. Highway (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 as well as construction of a storage building shown within the BSP boundary. a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-1 The marina and marina uplands area are not subject to environmental review under this SEIS due to the existing BSP permit; all other areas remain within the SEIS site area and are described in detail in Section 2.3 below. ln addition, the applicant has a tentative agreement with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to realign the upper portion of the WDFW boat launch access roadway further east to resolve a driveway spacing issue with the proposed Maritime Village access roadway and deficient geometric standards and sight distance conditions onto Black Point Road (see Appendix D for WDFW letter). ln order to analyze potential impacts of this road realignment, the WDFW property adjacent to the project site has been added to the SEIS site boundary, and is described in Section 2.3 below. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGESS Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort ElS, 2OO7 The 2007 EIS evaluated a Prooosed 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.S. Hwy 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" . 60,000 sq. ft. resort center with restaurant and lounge with outdoor lanai, conference center and reception, spa, pro shop and offices . 128-unit terrace lofts for resort occupancy . 462 two-story Black Point garden townhomes . 97 one-story Black Point villas . 52 units of staff housing . Class A reuse recycle sewage / effluent / water treatment plant and ponds . A 200 seat community center . A 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant for golfing refreshments and community dining . 739 total residential units in the Golf Course Resort area Marina/Maritime Village Area: . 16,000 sq. ft. of commercial area Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-2 . 63 water-side units . 40 townhouses r 48 villas . 151 total residential units in the Marina/Maritime Village area Total Units: 890 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 proposal was withdrawn or denied, and that the Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-3 Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Draft EIS c6bd \nao +b o& stlrd @ os a9\9I -uPPt*f I I I I fr"r"* Jmeo s ,Cf a t, ,--l I ded+?dG i \ , l-, -l ! r-_J t I +,aaa \ -rrra @ - \\ a,?7'. \ *r, nqrro, ^o /Oo%od ,\tahoz v,, c , - \ a \ I t ,2 I -r Lilac /" r 'il xoJ @ q !q Dj I,a\ I 6b e o e6a ..fd \ *5 \ I I @ I I L$ qrhqe,ao +o,Rd E0( a+J I I 2007 EIS Site Boundary t North Source: EA, Google, 2013 HIftir3;li:. Figure 2-l 2007 EIS Site Boundary j I 1000n * tEil.-I_ a -- ?" ( ,€ 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 (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 Hybrid 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(4)(d), a SEIS may be prepared if there are: 1)Substantial changes so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or 2) New information indicating a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, this SEIS is being prepared due to substantial changes in the proposal, to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment as noted above in Section 2.1, and to satisfy project level SEPA requirements. The SEIS 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 SEIS has been carried out following the procedures set forth 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 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-5 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 197-11-444. See Appendix B for an Overview of the SEIS Scoping. Both the Fact Sheet and Cover Letter of the SEIS state that this SEIS is being prepared to supplement 2007 Pleasant Harbor fularina and Golf Resort 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 Manager serves as the Responsible Official for the SEPA review. This SEIS 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 and utilities. 2.3 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 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. Hwy 101 to the 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 2-2'tor a regional map and Figure 2-3 for 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, 11-acres are located north of Black Point Road. See Figure 24'for 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 BSP allows construction of a storage building shown within the BSP boundary and redevelopment of structures within their existing footprints. 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 pool; pool equipment building; pool restroom building; laundry; and boaters' shower and restroom building. The BSP allows replacing the demolished building (that formerly contained the grocery and food service areas and the marina offices) within the same building footprint. The applicant is considering a zipline that would connect the Maritime Village building to a landing with a pole near the existing swimming pool in the BSP area. While the BSP area is not included within the site boundary for this SEIS, the impacts of this landing area within the BSP are analyzed within this SEIS, as the landing area is a component of a larger feature within the SEIS site area. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-6 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Source.' EA, Google, 2013 Ftgure 2-2 Regional Map Scrttlc Hill.Srlvcr Firs a Norh Crack Stale {I r-'f 'I ,r t Bclfarr t Strb Prrk'r' Janell a t tl ,t ,l @ (I) state Park lsmi I lTokm -------l T North HtFi{rifiri,l \ tr- \ Lincoln Park a 1 J '/nshrn Des l- Fljgof Sound t I ,, Cove (,\\rPark J 7 E Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS I .!,7! t { { f.-.t I Dt/ I c$ J \rorr"o$ *fltn, taw ran.. tfl Rc t North Source.' EA, Google, 2073 EIIfi#ar,l Figure 2-3 Vicinity Map lmi Oabob Bay ,/ 7 I 7r t 7\ \ .J ) \ 7 Project Site 7t I / II7 _.4 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS t North 4..t- 9 Ll16c I I I rr_J \e\ I - ,+nq fr It 6! "dd \ @ \ a, .{#'' \ I I \ \ -t \r*f ,, I \ a - ! I I I I I I @ CneL$ *5- I ';:k u I L I o.{ t , I I s .r*" .\Pd "d. ql il !qE lSd ,q" Itt Rd \ .6,%ireon /E'o t I] I I i \ \ I I 'l+.\* qr"qqaf+a +!f, 4? %nro @ ) t gt b€t.? ,tStfP \ Rd SEIS Site Boundary Source.' EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-,4 SEIS Site BoundaryHliiirifffl,l gl0lXlll * tlffi=-rE-, c ^ss *ord rno ,o eb "r ShCA* .// As noted in Section 2.1, the applicant has a tentative agreement with WDFW to realign the upper portion of the WDFW boat launch access roadway further east and intersect with Black Point Road approximately 1,000 feet east of U.S. Hwy 101. Thus, the WDFW property immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site north of Black Point Road has been added to the SEIS site boundary, even though it is owned and managed by the WDFW. The overall site calculations, acreages or percentages of area presented in this SEIS for the project do not include the WDFW property. Data and information regarding the WDFW property/road alignment is included separately in the appropriate sections of Chapter 3 of this SEIS. Existing Site Gharacter 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 three structures; and 2) a former RV parUcampground (hereafter referred to as the Black Point campground) to the south of Black Point Road. A small building that contained a former real estate office is located at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The area from this intersection to the BSP boundary is forested with a narrow paved and gravel road that connects the gravel parking lot for the small office building 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 that has been filled with soil, 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. The WDFW property located north of Black Point Road is approximately 28.7-acres and contains a boat ramp and picnic facilities at the sound end of Pleasant Harbor. A boat access road connects Black Point Road to the boat launch. The remainder of the WDFW property is forested hillside. See Appendix D for details of this existing access road and surrounding property. Past Uses The majority of the Pleasant Harbor site was previously developed as a 500-unit RV park/campground (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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-10 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 narrow paved and gravel road connects the gravel parking area for the small former office building and the Pleasant Harbor Marina. Direct access to the gravel parking lot is from U.S. Hwy 101. This narrow road is overgrown in some areas. Vehicular access to the Pleasant Harbor House is via the marina area which accesses U.S. Hwy 101 and access to the Bed and Breakfast is direct via the gravel driveway (see Figure 2-4). 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. This road is on property owned by WDFW. Old Black Point Road intersects with Black Point Road at approximately 0.05 miles from U.S. Hwy 101. Public access to the campground is currently 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. The existing WDFW boat launch access road that connects Black Point Road to Pleasant Harbor was originally constructed in 2007. As designed, the WDFW driveway does not meet geometric standards, or does it provide adequate sight distance onto Black Point Road. The existing access road is approximately 1,900 feet in length and ends in a paved parking area for vehicles and boat trailers with a paved boat launch area. The road varies in width from 16 to 20 feet with varrable width graveled shoulders and varies in grade up to more than 12 percent. The road is asphalt paved and in good condition. The alignment contains approximately 12 curves including one with a centerline radius of approximately 25 feet. Vegetation 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 Madrone. Understory includes broadleaf shrubs, red flowering currant, Scot's broom, blackberry, vine maple, salal and evergreen huckleberry. Topography 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-11 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supptemental EIS Section 3: Marina Sectlon 2: Maritime Village Section 1: Golf Resort ,ro*to .so d$ \ e Oq*.ouoA \ d _f i( 1 \ t \ I i t i t \ \. t )I'i I -.r!. 4a ct I I t i 1 ( ) oY ) I I t *@, 0 2,0002,000 Feet Source.' GeoEngineers, 201 2 Figure 2-5 KettlesHlil{rifiri,l I ri, | :' , , -o*- EI B 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, wilh 0.274-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 for further information on wetlands. 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 minimum S0-foot buffer dependent on the gradient per Jefferson County Code (JCC 18.22.270). Both streams flow east under U.S. Hwy 101 where they flow through a series of culverts within the 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. Refer to Section 3.7, Critica! Areas, for further information on streams. Existing Utilities WATER The private water system infrastructure within the site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. ln the past approximately seven years, the resort has not operated and maintenance of the aged water system has abated. However, existing wells on and adjacent to the site remain. Water Supplv - Two wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second well north of Black Point Road serves the existing Bed and Breakfast. Another well outside of the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional 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 highly deteriorated 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 ls 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 existing system is highly deteriorated and is not currently fully functional. The limited extent water distribution system located within the marina upland area is outside of the site boundary. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-13 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Site I Detineated Wetlands *@,rrr+ Delineated Streams (- ffi 75-ft stream Buffer (:.- , 80-ft Wetland Buffer 150-ft Wetland Buffer 1,ooo 0 1,000 Feet Source.' GeoEngineers, 201 2 EIIfrj#iffiil: Figure 2-6 Wetlands and Streams -rr lS'ectibntli rr I ,1$I I -t I 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 pump tank and grinder pump. The forcemain from that grinder pump 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. Stormwater Most natural runotf 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 drainagefrom U.S. Hwy 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. The existing WDFW road is crowned or cross sloped to disperse runoff as sheet flow to the shoulder. No specific facilities are provided for treatment of road runoff. A culvert under Black Point Road and the existing WDFW access road just east of its present connection to Black Point Road conveys seasonal surface water within a topographic swale. No defined surface water drainage channel was identified upslope or downslope of the culvert. 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 surrounding residentlal uses. Natural gas 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. Existing Land Use Designations Gomprehensive 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-1s 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. Surrounding Land Uses The site is within the greater Brinnon Subarea Planning Area which extends to the county line on the south, Dosewallips State Park on 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, restrooms, showers and laundry, and a swimming pool. A building that once contained a grocery store/convenience store/deli and office has been demolished and is being replaced. These structures are being redeveloped within their existing footprints under an existing Binding Site Plan, as noted above in Sections 2.1 and 2.3, Full{ime 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 U.S. Hwy 101. Undeveloped areas of the Black Point Peninsula are dominated by stands of mature second and third groMh forest. 2.4 OBJECTIVES 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 complimenta ry architectu ral 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 natural vegetation, drainage courses, and slopes. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-16 Establish the siting of buildings to reduce impacts on sensitive areas. 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. lncorporate a well designed system for potable and non-potable water conservation and treatment. lncorporate a state-of-the-art sewage and effluent treatment plant to deliver Class A water. . Eliminate the risks to Hood Canalfrom the eutrophication effects of poor development o Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. 2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE SEIS 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 Marina and Golf Resort, this SEIS evaluates two development alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2), and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 is identified by the applicant as the Preferred Alternative. SEIS Alternatives Summary ln order to conduct a comprehensive environmental review, a range of Alternatives are included in this SEIS 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 2-8 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 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (approved by Ecology and taken into effect by Jefferson County February 21, 2014) 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 SEIS Alternatives to 2OOT 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 BTMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan buffer of 150 feet. The SEIS Alternatives have been drafted to conform to these 30 conditions and the SMP buffer, and reduce the potentialfor environmental impacts associated with the proposed fvlaster 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 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. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-17 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS uxtT Oat6: (rctobCr 2t m xgMUffi DgBrmvffi rr (ru@mrmr ^i&4SlNG6 SHOREUNE I^rMMffivWE ^i&a!rulJmal JEoariD IREAKF^.,\*.^* sE LE,EL - @,rl6mI mm@^3lJmi(tu.m I ffiM* (ffvml -rlJm Iffi**!129.re rcuntoir2ultn Hq[E Iwm ffiGrcWffiruEluln(aumrlmmre r^s^qUsrs@ I MMgffiAmI rmoulBt2lJW M&IE!mEWM M&@re@5rc$ GOLF COURSE AND RESORT A WEtL B TEXXIS COURTS PLEASANT HARBoR MAi${ A},tO60I,lC9()Rl - Prolect Narn€: 2OO FT SHOREUXE ANO COXSERYAIION TEIINIS@ tt fllrltilil PLEAIAXT H N'ORI.drr Pl.nn d niorl Oarrld Harnllton A.chltect WA €ETNrry-ru Source.' David Hamilton Architects, 2014 Figure 2-7 Alternative 1 Site PlanHlilitiffrtl UARITIME VILLIGE HARBOi VIEW EXISTII{G SwlITIXG I itTtyE EUILOIIIG YtstTot OYNER REUNION HOUSE PIIAS NT HANgOR iECOXSIRUCTED ITARINA CENTEi WIIHIX EXISIING FOOTPiINT h .5 #ff ..d+ !-, c ft o ,l !t rru, s*' KETTLE B +btfr .=s ,!' .i _eq' (t \l E ti I I I I D Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS &@tl6ta& MEBMG @@MIryT &ry{ElJmE &rlxEm:6 r @lM^rcI re@aolJmI0u.m I f,ffi* @WAglJm I IreIJWASI SEOIJUB,lm lmrcffi,r&9.@ - EIffiMI rlm(auruEmwl IEllrulrcltrytl^Iuffi - rwMwEmmIJ@) M&ImElJmM&@.rD$- EED & BREAXFAST8Y OTHERS) SHOREUNE Lrr,. * *r* EUtLOmG 30 GOLF COURSE ANO RESORT o WELL WATET IIARITIME VILLAGE EXISTING ACCESS HIGHWAY PLEASANT HOUSE 2OO-FT SHOTEUTIE vAnlxA ACCESS (PROPOSE0) |raRflvEgutLott{G vlstToR OWNER us lol H]GHWAY @ l_I it PLEASANT HARBoR - MAR}IAAND@LF flffiil Ordd Hrdlton ArchlEctw4?il, r-saae-7r45 Project N.Ina:PLE IAXT XAruOR Xa.Lr Pl0nad Rxqt Source.' David Hamilton Architects, 201 4 HTft{ffiffii:: Figure 2-8 Alternative 2 Site Plan t I FATRWAY t GAIE \ I \o l(Elru 3 \ F r) ffi{ri 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.56,608 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 a 739 units . 828 units o 822 units . Commercial Sq. Ft.a 63,000 sq. ft.a 36,000 sq. ft.a 36,000 sq. ft. Maritime Village Area 36-acres 1 1 -acres 1 1-acres o New Residential Units a 151 units a 60 units a 66 units . Commercial Sq. Ft.a 16,000 sq. ft.a 13,772 sq. ft.a 20,608 sq. ft. Golf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 2.2 million cy 1 million cy See Table 2-'l for a basic comparison between the 2007 EIS Proposed Action and the SEIS Alternatives. Table 2-l 2OO7 EIS AND SEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON 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, but the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced to 56,608 sq. ft. 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. Hwy 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-20 Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection. Primary access to the golf 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. Hwy 101 intersection and the marina. Access to the WDFW boat launch would be revised to provide safer access to the Maritime Village. Compared to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, residential units would be increased in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area, transferred from reduced development in the lvlaritime Village area of 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. 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 SEIS, 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 fainarays 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 COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 Alternatives 1 and 2 include development of an 1B-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 have been renovated or are being 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 SEIS. Golf Course The first nine golf course fainivays 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-l 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 recovery 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-21 structured parking below the building (see Figure 2-7 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 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 2-2 below for a breakdown of units within the Golf Resort. 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 lrlaintenance Building/Staff Quarters. Maritime Village The Maritime Village would be located near the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 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 buffer 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 U.S. Hwy 101. The largest structure within the Maritime Village 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 to the east. lt would accommodate 36 to 66 residential units and provide 13,772 to 20,608 sq. ft. of commercial space, depending on the alternative. Under Alternative 1,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 2-2 below for a breakdown of units within the Maritime Village. Table 2-2 SEIS ACTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON - RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Residential Units Golf Resoft Area o Golf Terraces a 500 units . 520 units . Sea View Villas . 200 units . 206 units . Golf/Alpine Vistas a 76 units a 44 units . Staff Quarters o 52 units . 52 units Maritime Village Area . Reunion House a 12 units a 0 units . Harbor View House a 12 units a 0 units r Maritime Village Building a 36 units a 66 units . Existing Residences remain to a 2 units a 2 units Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units Total Retail/Commercial 49,772 sq.ft.56,608 sq. ft. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-22 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 . Golf Resort Area a 36,000 sq. ft.a 36,000 sq. ft. . Maritime Village Area a 13,772 sq.ft.a 20,608 sq. ft. TotalSurface Parking 533 stalls 663 stalls . Golf Resort Area a 268 stalls a 413 stalls o Reunion & Harborview House a 32 stalls a N/A r Maritime Village Area a 88 stalls a 104 stalls . Transit Stop a 60 stalls a 60 stalls o Maintenance/StaffMater Treat.o85 a 86 Total Structured Parking 1,003 stalls 887 stalls . Golf Resort Area a 999 stalls a 817 stalls . Maritime Village Area a 4 existing stalls a 70, including 4 existinq stalls Total Parking 1,536 stalls 1,550 stalls 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. Sffe 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. Hwy 101. A 12-ft wide (with turn-outs) Marina Access Drive would be constructed parallelto the east side of U.S. Hwy 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 Maritime Village parking lot and the marina. This drive would accommodate pedestrian access, two-way shuttle vehicle service and emergency vehicle access, between Black Point Road and the marina. Access to the Golf Course/Golf Resort from Black Point Road would be controlled by a gate with a guard house 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. Parking Parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would be provided at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Hwy 101, with shuttle service from the parking area to the marina using the Marina Access Drive. The existing real estate office at this intersection would be 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 Maritime Village building. Surface parking would also be provided within the site for golf guests. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-23 Utilities The resort would be largely self-sufficient with regard to utilities, as described below: Water Domestic water would be provided under existing water rights granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 16, 2010. The existing onsite well within the Black Point campground (south of Black Point Road) would be rehabilitated plus a second well would be drilled in one of two potential locations also south of Black Point Road. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. Below-grade water storage would be constructed on the property. An on-site wastewater recovery plant is proposed capable of producing Class A reclaimed water for irrigation and fire suppression. The plant would be designed to treat approximately 280,000 gallons per day. Sanitarv Sewer A wastewater recovery plant would be located in the northwest corner of the site, utilizing 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 in the west area of the site until Kettle B is converted to a retention pond. The new wastewater recovery plant would also serve the marina north of the site. Stormwater Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, golf course fairways 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 recovery 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 basis for stormwater management on the site would be to infiltrate runoff near its source or collect and treat runoff as required near its source and convey it to the irrigation pond for storage, to be used for irrigation and fire protection. Where development patterns and topography allow, small distributed bioretention facilities would be designed along roads, parking areas, and fairways. To the extent practicable, runoff from roof areas would be infiltrated near the structures producing the runoff. Parking areas where slope and subsoils are suitable, would be paved with pervious pavements to eliminate runoff. The proposed new portion of the WDFW road would be constructed with a collection and conveyance system to control and treat the runoff from the pollution generating surfaces. The treated runoff would discharge into the local depression to the southwest of the new intersection of the proposed road and the existing boat launch access road. Power and Communication Electricity would continue to be supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Geothermal exchange within Kettle B and in drill wells would be utilized for heating and cooling of buildings. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-24 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 2013. 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 in a conservation easement. 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 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 approximately 2.2 million cubic yards under Alternative 1, compared to approximately 1 million cubic yards under Alternative 2. Approximately B0-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 at approximately 120 million gallons. To reduce the built area within the Golf Resort under Alternative 2, the total number of buildings that contain residential units is reduced to 36, as compared to 54 buildings under Alternative 1. As a result, the four Golf Terrace buildings are one story greater in height under Alternative 2 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 1 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 ltrlaster 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-25 Maritime Village from the shoreline area to an upland area near the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 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. Under Alternative 1, the applicant is intending to include a Tree-Top Adventure Course near the Maritime Village Building with a Zip Line that would connect from that area to a landing platform within the pool area of the marina. The applicant is coordinating with the County for the required permits for this project. 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 fainvays would be similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, with the exception of the fainruays in the far southeastern corner of the property (Fainruays 7-9), which would be aligned in a more north-south orientation than the east-west orientation proposed in the 2007 ElS. 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 Village 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 Maritime Village building, which is proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The Maritime 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 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-26 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 lr/arina 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. Hwy 101/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 WDFW 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. Landscaping 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 [\4aritime Village, Terrace Buildings, and along meandering pathways. The proposal includes creating a temporary native plant nursery south of the wastewater recovery plant site in the area of Fainray 14, as these fainvays 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 Village 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 the new Maritime Village building, 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 Maritime Village building is proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The Marina Village building would include 66 residential units and 20,608 sq. ft. of commercial space. Parking would be provided in an underground parkade for residents and staff of the commercial spaces and in surface parking lots atthe intersection of U.S. Hwy 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 re-designed intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101 includes relocating the access to the WDFW boat launch approximately 1000 feet to the east of its current location. 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-27 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 fainarays are more angular in nature and with varying orientations, compared to Alternative 1, with substantial elevation differences. Golf Resort A total o'f 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 Terrace 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 2-2). Landscaping 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. See Table 2-3 below for a full comparison of the two action alternatives. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-28 Table 2-3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resoft: Fifty-two buildings, B2B 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: One new building, 66 new residential units Total New Buildings: 37 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: 66 units Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-29 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 Building Heights and Square Footage: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 4 stories (47 tl.I inches in height; 724,000 sq.ft.) Golf Vistas: Thirteen buildings, 2 stories (27 ft.9 inches in height; 123,000 sq.ft.) Sea View Villas: Thirty-one buildings, 1 story QB ft.5 inches in height; 371,400 sq. ft.) 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) Building Heights and Square Footage: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 5 stories (58 ft. I inches to 70 ft. in height; 612,674 sq. ft.) Golf 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.) 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.) 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). 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 Number and Type of Residentia! Units Proposed within the Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 62 units located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House - same as Alternative 1 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-30 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATIVE2 (20121 located up the hillside away from the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House (owned by others) Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House (owned by others) Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units:* Short Term Tourist Residential Units: 560 (670/") Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278 (33%) Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units: Short Term Tourist Residential Units: 560 (67%) Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278 (33%) Commercial Development Proposed: Golf Resort: 36,000 sq. ft. Maritime Village: 13,772 sq.ft. Total Commercial Development: 49,772 sq. ft. Commercial Development Proposed: Golf Resort: 36,000 sq. ft. Maritime Village: 20,608 sq. ft. Total Gommercial Development: 56,608 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 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 area, with the exception of a storage building approved under the existing Binding Site Plan. Repair and widening of existing roadways and reconfiguration of parking areas would also occur. Proximity of Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM Same as Alternative '1. Length of Project Roads Proposed: Overall length of projects roads approximately 12,700lf . Combined WDFW boat launch access road with Maritime Village access. Does not include approximatelv 1750 lf of combined qolf Length of Project Roads Proposed: Overall length of project roads approximately 13,750 lf. Relocated WDFW boat launch access road 1000 feet east of Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-31 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 cart, service road, EMS access through east side fairways.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: Same requirements 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. Hwy 101 intersection realigned further south. Surface parking at the Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 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 for transit access to U.S. Hwy 101 . Provisions for Transit Service: Surface parking at the Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection revised slightly from Alternative 1. 20,608 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. Hwy 101. Provisions for Transit Service: Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Relocated this building along with the resort main entrance to the northeast corner of the site (adjacent to Black Point Road). 52 residential units proposed in the upper 2 stories of this structure. Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Same requirements as Alternative 1. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-32 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 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 Proposa!: Ground water supply from on-site wells. Two options for second well location: east of Fairway 2 or west of Faimtay B. Wastewater Recovery 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 Recovery Plant (WRP) Same requirements as Alternative 1. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site propane and geothermal proposed. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site biodiesel co-generation, propane and geothermal sources proposed. Wetland Mitigation Proposalfor Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Same requirements as Alternative 1. Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Create a replacement wetland in the bottom of the smaller of the two Kettles (Kettle C)and retain this Kettle feature within the development. Amenities (4): Golf Terrace 1 building to have a restaurant, lounge, spa, conference and meeting rooms, chapel and billiards room. The lt/aritime Village building near Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection would provide approximately 13,772 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space, includinq a restaurant and the relocated Amenities (4): Golf Terrace 1 building would be the same as Alternative 1. The Maritime Village building near Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection would increase to approximately 20,608 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space, including a restaurant and the relocated Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-33 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 deli, grocery, convenience store from the marina upland area.deli, grocery, convenience store from the marina upland area Recreational Amenities (a) (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): Renovated swimming pool in the marina upland area;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 graphics) not included in Alternative 1. Recreationa! Amenities (a) (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 (Halfway House shown in graphics) by Hole #9. Tree Top Adventure and Zip Line in the Maritime Village area. lmpervious Area: 13% lmpervious Area: 12% Pervious Area Pervious Disturbed Area: 170 Ac or 73o/o Natural Area: 33 Ac 14% Total Pervious Area: 210 Ac or 87o/o Pervious Area Pervious Disturbed Area: 133 Ac or 55% NaturalArea: 80 Ac or 33% 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-34 ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 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): Phase 1: . Construct U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements o Construct Marina Access Drive within SEIS site . Construct relocated WDFW Boat Access Road . Construct Water Storage Tank at Tee 9 with transmission/distribution piping . Redevelop Resort Well o Create Construction Materials Processing Location on Golf Course Site . Construct Septic Tanks and Sandfilters on WWTP Site (Large Onsite Septic System - LOSS) . Construct Drip Line Drainfield in Fairway 14 (LOSS) . Set up Construction Camp . Construct Maritime Village Building and Parking . Construct Transit Stop Parking Phase 2: . Construct Electric Power lnfrastructure for Resort Site (Mason County PUD lmprovements) . Construct site utilities for Phase 2 - utilities underground and roads . Construct Terrace 1 Building (191 units; 36,000 sf commercial) . Develop second well . Construct Kettle B Reservoir o Create wetland in Kettle C . Construct storm pond at Fainray 10 with stormwater pumps o Clearing and grading of site . Begin Golf Course construction (grading/contouring) and create planUtree nursery . Construct Wastewater Recovery Plant Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 2-35 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives Phase 3: . Construct Golf Terraces 2,3 and 4 (329 units) . Construct Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations and Forcemain . Construct site utilities for Phase 3 - utilities underground and roads . Complete Golf Course Construction . Construct Golf Halfway House (snack and beverage)at Fainvay g . Construct Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters (52 units) o Reconstruct Black Point Road . Golf Course opens Phase 4: . Construct Seaview Villas (206 units) . Construct Golf Vistas (44 units) Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 2-36 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS PrcjetNm€:PLEASAXT HARAOif,[tar Plannad Rmrt hEure:^ncmrtlvG 2: Phr3lno Overull SitG ffiEdo(rc ronm ffiIEM us 101 tltcHWAf m.*ur@ 4L PLEASANT HARBoR uA*[{AAilOGOI_FRt50m -flmill Oavld Hamllton A.chltact wA gtxr1.w-776 l EN Ixmre vtre&luE6Wnaou.qf,lry. 16l)m(rmaaIrffi!t,NKW3Wt ?AMMTMlmDMHMATM' 6ffiAY0lm!gffiMIlIffilm @EnuTl^ma^dr(re (!muamuTuuxx&aB OAEMMlI:iuUETNn(rrcEmor@f @&.m llNMP I lmtamnP ilDFa^M(:uEmNmc &uior L- -* ruruIffiM-EAIImmrus.(m EB@TMEffiKruX DtruffiDlu r** llrc2,1N'guxm rcretremrMsm,:UW MOU@E(Im tffitrwuNrtm MtffiUtmruEnffi oxm6l{M.tatlm N' &vrryw&wm (ffvsagUm Source; David Hamilton Architects, 2014 E)o$'ffiii,l Figure 2-9 Alternative 2-Phasing Map ffiBT 'otrDly tt- \ I -..tqL I{ .b Isa! ,d*' I&m 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. 2.6 SEPARATE ACTIONS 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 for regularly scheduled flights. Renovation/Reconstruction of Marina Buildings FLOAT PLANE DOGK The applicant is investigating improving float plane access to a dock at the Pleasant Harbor Marina. 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 float planes would land outside the mouth of Pleasant Harbor and taxi into the harbor itself. The applicant may also investigate the possibility of establishing future regularly scheduled float plane service to Pleasant Harbor. A Substantial Shoreline Development Permit would likely be required for this addition of service. RENOVATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF MARI NA BU I LDI NGS 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 additional environmental review. The Binding Site Plan (BSP) allows redevelopment of structures within existing footprints illustrated on the BSP. The BSP includes replacing the largest building within the same building footprint. Remodeling of the smaller buildings, renovation of the pool, and construction of the storage building have been completed. 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: t The No Action Alternative from the 2007 Final EIS 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 2-38 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives . Potential impacts from development on the transportation network; o Potential impacts from development 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. 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; The potential opportunity to provide economic opportunity to the region through tourism; and, The potential loss of tax revenue that would benefit county public services. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 2-39 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives Ghapter 3 Affected Environment, lmpacts, Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVTRONMENT, IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATTON MEASURES, AND SIGNIFIGANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPAGTS This chapter describes the affected environment, impacts of the alternatives, mitigation measures and any significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment that would be anticipated from development of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort project under the SEIS alternatives. 3.1 EARTH 3.1 -1 Affected Environment This section of the SEIS describes existing geotechnical conditions on the site, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section is based on the 2008 Pleasant Harbor ltlarina and Golf Resorf Final Geotechnical lnvestigation, the 2012 SEIS Soil and Earth lmpacts and Mlitigation report, and the 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resoft Grading and Drainage Engineering Repofi (Appendix E). 2007 Ers Within the 2007 ElS, a technical report, Pleasant Harbor ltlarina and Golf Resort - E/S So/s and Geology, was included as an appendix (DEIS Appendix 4). However, except for a very brief discussion regarding Geologically Hazardous Areas in DEIS Section 3.10.5, a discussion of soils and geology was not included in the body of the 2007 ElS. The 2007 Soils and Geology technical report includes field reconnaissance, a review of geologic and subsurface information, and geotechnical drilling. A full description of the topography and the regional and site geology was provided within the report. The project site lies on the boundary of the Physiographic province of the Olympic Mountains and the Puget Sound Lowland which has a complex history of mountain building, volcanism, faulting, erosion, deposition of sedimentary rocks, and several periods of glaciations. These forces have formed the present landforms in the region. Within the Black Point area, the site topography rises up from Hood Canal on the southern property line to the upland area at about 200 to 300 foot elevation. The upland area is hummocky terrain which was sculpted by glacial processes, and includes a series of kettle depressions that are about 120 feet deep. The slopes along Hood Canal consist of near vertical 100 foot high bluffs along the eastern half of the southern property line. The westerly shoreline slopes are inclined at about 1.5 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical (1.5H:1V). Some minor site grading as occurred to create level campsites and roadways. A gravel borrow pit is located east of the large kettle and in the fenced storage area near the campground entrance. Portions of the site were previously logged including the large kettle. The site is vegetated with Douglas fir, spruce, alder and cedar, madrona, alder and maple trees with an understory of salal, ferns, and blackberries. There are no streams in the Black Point area. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-1 3.1 Earth The Maritime Village area between U.S. Highway 101 and Pleasant Harbor generally slopes down to the east at about 2H:1V to 3H:1V. Most of this portion of the site is vegetated by Douglas fir trees with a thick under story of salal and ferns. Three intermittent streams flow through the site and discharge into Pleasant Harbor. The project site is comprised of predominantly Vashon Age glacial soils that consist of dense to very dense sand or sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt and some cobbles and occasional boulders. Older Pre-Vashon non-glacial deposits consisting primarily of dense to very dense silty sand with minor layers of hard lacustrine silts and clays were observed at depth in one test boring and exposed in the bluffs along Hood Canal. Fill soil was generally found under existing roads, graded campsites and along the margins of existing buildings. Fill soil was re-worked native soil consisting of loose to medium dense, silty gravelly sand with trace organics to few organics. Fill soil in the project area may range in thickness from a few feet to 10 feet along the edges of roadways and campsites. Vashon Stade glacial deposits were mapped on the ground surface across the project site and observed in test pits and borings. These deposits were generally dense to very dense and should provide a suitable earth material for support of proposed structures, slopes, roadways, and other site improvements. Pre-Vashon non-glacial deposits underlie the Vashon age glacial deposits along the south- central and southeastern portion of the beach bluff. The interglacial deposits were composed of very dense stratified fine to coarse sand interbedded with gravelly sand with occasional 2 to 6- inch thick clayey silt beds. One test boring encountered this unit at elevation 150 feet. sEls The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E) builds upon the 2007 EIS Soils and Geology technical report (DEIS Appendix 4), this report contains much of the same existing information, plus on-site infiltration test and engineering analysis. The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Grading and Drainage Engineering Report indicated that groundwater at the Golf Course and Resort site, and for most of the Black Point arca, resides in the sea-level aquifer. Though there is a small component of easterly groundwater flow from the mainland toward Pleasant Harbor, most of the groundwater on-site comes from the direct infiltration of precipitation. As water percolates downward, it may perch on low-permeability till or till-like soils; however, because there were no streams and only minor seeps observed on the bluffs at the site, it is assumed that perching layers are discontinuous, and the majority of groundwater percolates to the sea-level aquifer. ln the Maritime Village area, it is anticipated that low-permeability till is directly underlain by bedrock. ln this environment, groundwater recharge is limited and surface water flow is typically seasonal and intermittently related to precipitation events. Groundwater levels are likely just above sea level in these areas. Because the Vashon glacial deposits are discontinuous, particularly the Vashon lce Contact deposits, perched groundwater could be encountered where impervious layers underlie granular soils. The locations of perched groundwater conditions in the near surface glacial deposits are limited and could be encountered anywhere on the site, especially at end of the winter and early spring months. See Section 3.2, Water Resources, for additional information regarding groundwater. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-2 3.1 Earth The soil within the WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road exhibts a surface profile of gravelly loam often with a duff layer a few inches thick. The subsoil was dominated by gravelly loam to gravelly, sandy loam. The soil appears to drain moderately well to well and does not exhibit indicators of "hydric" soil characteristics. 3.1-2lmpacts 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS (DEIS Appendix 4) indicated that the site consists of predominantly glacial granular soils that could be used for general site regrading, structural fill beneath buildings, infiltration areas, and for bedding beneath fainruays and greens. However, the soils will need to be screened and processed on site to produce sufficient sand for the fairways and greens. Cobbles and small boulders could be crushed on site to produce gravel base course for roads. Under the 2007 ElS, the retention ponds would be constructed within the existing kettle features. Site grading would be accomplished to balance the amount of excavation with the amount of fill needed to fill the kettles for the stormwater retention ponds. Approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of excavation and new structural fill would be placed in the kettles to reduce the overall volume of the pond. The overall cut and fill for the entire site under the 2007 EIS would be 2.2 million cubic yards. ln order to minimize the area of site disturbance while obtaining sufficient fill material, full basements would be excavated beneath the residences. Site grading would occur in the residential dwelling areas, roadways, retention pond areas and in the wastewater treatment plant area. These site areas would be stripped of vegetation and topsoil (which would be reserved for future use) to expose the underlying soils which would be excavated or compacted. During construction, these areas would be exposed to increased stormwater runoff and erosion into adjacent intermittent streams in the Maritime Village area and in the south side of the Black Point area near Hood Canal. Localized areas of soil erosion could occur on the slopes along Hood Canal during site grading due to temporary increases in groundwater runoff. Long term project impacts to the stability of the steep slopes along Hood Canal were not anticipated due to the design of the proposed stormwater facilities capture stormwater runoff and avoid any increase of groundwater levels on the slope. sEts ln addition to the 2008 Pleasant Harbor lilarina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E), a Sor/s and Eafth lmpacts and Mitigation report was prepared in January 2012 (Appendix E) for this SEIS to supplement prior information on impacts to soils and earth within the project site, specific to the current SEIS Alternatives. Similar to that analyzed in the 2007 ElS, under either of the two development alternatives, significant clearing of vegetation and grading would be required. Over the entire site, it is anticipated that under SEIS Alternative 1 , approximately 162 acres or 67 percent of the land will be cleared and graded. SEIS Alternative 2 would have about 25 percent less surface area disturbance than SEIS Alternative 1. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-3 3.1 Earth Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS r;') t\\ if"ltr^,1ff - : -.1 2.9 2r.o 19.& 1!_O ra.!0 15.O 13S 126 10.$ 9.O 75060 a.$ 3m19 t1@t$ Lm 4.S 6.O79 o.m 10$ 12.6 13.Sr50 10.50 rEm 1e.$ 2r.o 22$ DUCKABUSH OYSIER TRACIS NATTVE TI{INNED I GRAPH]C SCALE 400 2m 4m ( IN FEET ) 1 irqh = 400 tt. 16@ Source.' Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 Figure 3.1-1 Alternative 2-Grading PlanHll}{ri:,ri,l I\ffiIE a r ,J I I The majority of the areas not designated as protected would be cleared and topography would be significantly altered (see Figure 3.1-1). Total site grading for SEIS Alternative 1 would be similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives, or approximately 2.2 million cubic yards. The total site grading under SEIS Alternative 2 would be substantially less at approximately 1 million cubic yards, due to the golf course design difference using existing site topography with limited areas of grading. Buffers would be established for any protected area including slopes, and guidelines would be created for work that would occur in the steep slope buffers, subject to restoration and/or enhancement requirements. Slope instability and erosion would be possible if clearing and grading occurred either on slopes or close to the toe of slopes. Erosion from instabilities could contribute to sediment in wetlands and streams. Existing gravel material would be utilized for purposes such as golf fainvay sand-plating, road building, utility trench backfill, building pad construction, and building materials. The main area targeted for construction materials processing facilities is in the east central portion of the Black Point area, which is approximately 600 feet from the eastern property line and approximately 1200 feetfrom the nearest offsite residence. Grades would be altered, but hydrology would not be impacted significantly as areas targeted for gravel extraction are high points where runoff has high potential to infiltrate or surface-flow to lower areas. The estimated quantity of sand and gravel available from excavated material processing on the site is approximately 930,000 cubic yards (including 490,000 cubic yards of sand and 440,000 cubic yards of gravel). lt is estimated that it would require approximately 30,000 large off-road transport vehicle trips to move this material from the source to its final destination onsite. Use of public roads for transport of excavated materials or aggregates for building materials would be very limited. Stumps, branches, topsoil and other materials would be stockpiled on the site as clearing and grading activities take place. Stumps, branches and other vegetative materials would be stockpiled for possible wood chipping, saved for use in landscaping, or disposed offsite. Mobile tree spades would remove and place trees of manageable size in temporary storage in an onsite nursery for later transplanting within the site. Other trees and stumps would be stockpiled for reuse in stream and wetland restoration projects both on- and off-site. tt/ultiple temporary stockpiles of wood debris approximately 25 feet high and 100 feet in diameter could exist for each area cleared. Topsoil material is expected to be stockpiled as clearing and grading activities occur. For each acre cleared, approximately 400 to 800 cubic yards of topsoil could be scraped from the site. The quantity of material to be reused on the golf course or in landscaped areas would be amended by adding imported peat soils. The unused quantity of this material could be placed in non-structural embankments. Temporary topsoil stockpiles could be as large as 30 feet high and 90 feet in diameter. ln general, the proposed buildings could be supported on shallow spread footings found on native glacial soils or compacted structural fill. Much of the native soils could be used for structural fill. On-site soil processing could be used to produce sand and gravel for storm water infiltration and bedding beneath fairways, tees and greens, and aggregate for concrete production. The existing kettles would require placement of a flexible synthetic membrane or geosynthetic clay liner to construct retention ponds or wetlands. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-5 3.1 Earth MARITIME VILLAGE AREA As noted in Chap ter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation has occurred 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 would occur outside of existing building footprints in the marina area under the SEIS Alternatives. The commercial development and 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 12-unit buildings under Alternative 1 and no new 12-unit buildings under Alternative 2. This new configuration under SEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would reduce the impact on the existing topography in this area compared to that analyzed in the 2007 EIS and the structures would be built into the existing slope. The new WDFW boat ramp access roadway alignment would be constructed within a forested hillside that has been impacted by prior forest harvest actions and the placement of an existing buried domestic water line. Approximately 1.2 acres of forested hillside would be cleared for the road corridor. The balance of the excavated material (2340 cubic yards) could be used as fill on the WDFW site for additional parking or used as fill within the Pleasant Harbor site. BLACK POINT AREA Earth conditions under SEIS Alternative 1 would be similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives in the Black Point area. SEIS Alternative 2 was modified to improve constructability by refining the development within the existing topographic conditions of the site to minimize environmental impacts. The golf course was redesigned to more closely follow the existing contours and the building locations were adjusted so they are placed on undisturbed native soil in excavated areas (cuts) instead of on compacted fills. Similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives, site grading would occur primarily in the residential dwelling area, golf resort building areas, roadways, retention pond areas, golf course, and in the wastewater treatment plant area with impacts similar to those noted in lhe 2007 ElS. Similar to the 2007 EIS alternatives, site grading would be accomplished as a balanced cut and fill with significant quantities of fill being placed in the existing kettles which would become stormwater and Class A reclaimed wastewater retention ponds. While the balanced cut and fill quantities for SEIS Alternative 1 are similar to those in the 2007 ElS, SEIS Alternative 2 quantities have been substantially reduced from about 2 million cubic yards to about 1 million cubic yards. NO AGTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The geotechnical conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions as development occurred within the existing topography. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-o 3.1 Earth 3.{-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets No mitigation measures were specifically proposed relating to topography and soils in the 2007 EIS. BOCG CONDITIONS The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. MITIGATION MEASURES GOMPLETED 63 (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. The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Atlarina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation included field investigations and a groundwater modeling program to assess potential impacts to the aquifer that could result from stormwater infiltration within the proposed development. Results from these studies indicate the proposed development would increase groundwater recharge by approximately 10 percent; this is largely due to removal of existing vegetation that currently allows rainfall to evaporate and transpire by the vegetative cover. 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. a o a o The water rights were granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15, 2010. The existing onsite wellwithin 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 63 (q) Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Alarina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E) was completed and infiltration rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are illustrated in Appendix B of that report. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, these additional mitigation measures could be implemented. . A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site will be required. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-7 3.1 Earth Construction activities shall be completed in accordance with the recommendations in the 2008 Geotechnical Report (Appendix E) for erosion control, site drainage, and earthwork and in accordance with the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinances. 3.14 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Both development alternatives would permanently alter the site's natural topography as described in Section 3.1-1 above. Alternative 2 would have less impact due to the lower area of site stripping and quantity of cut and fill. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, significant impacts to earth would not be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1-8 3.1 Earth 3.2 WATER RESOURCES This section of the SEIS describes existing water resource conditions on the site, including surface water, stormwater and groundwater, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section is based on the Pleasant Harbor Atlarina and Golf Resorf Grading and Drainage Engineering Repori (Appendix F), Groundwater lmpact Addendum (Appendix F), and the 2010 Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memo (Appendix F). 3.2-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ers Surface Water Hydrolooic Settino As noted in the 2006 Fish and Wildlife Assessment (DEIS Appendix 7), five unnamed streams were identified within the 2007 site area and ranked as seasonal "Type N" (non-fish bearing stream) based on impassable fish barriers, particularly hung culverts. These streams were located within the Maritime Village portion of the site and discharged into Pleasant Harbor. No streams were identified within the Black Point area of the site. As noted in the 2006 Wetland Delineation (DEIS Appendix 9), there were three wetlands (Wetlands B, C and D) identified and delineated on the site within the Black Point area. No wetlands north of Black Point Road were identified. There were no direct hydrologic connections between wetlands onsite to wetlands or streams located offsite. Wetlands C and D have well established native buffers. Wetland B has seasonal ponding in a large glacial depression known as a kettle and has some vegetation, but has been affected by human activity. The southern boundary of the site abuts Hood Canal with a nearly vertical steep slope approximately 100 feet in elevation. The 2007 site boundary included a portion of the western shoreline of Pleasant Harbor, an inlet of Hood Canal formed by the peninsula of Black Point. Surface Water Qualitv The 2006 Marina lmpact Analysis (DEIS Appendix 2) and the 2006 Shoreline Characterization Report (DEIS Appendix 3) highlight the water quality issues in Hood Canal, in particular the pollution and poor dissolved oxygen levels. Hood Canal is prone to developing low levels of dissolved oxygen, which can cause periodic fish kills, due in part to the narrow and long configuration of the canal inhibiting water circulation. As noted in Section 3.2 of the 2007 EIS (and summarized in Section 3.5, Shellfish, of this SEIS), the Washington State Department of Health has a water quality monitoring station near the mouth of Pleasant Harbor to measure bacteria levels used to determine shellfish closure zones. Shellfish harvesting in Pleasant Harbor is prohibited based on standard concerns with any shellfish grown in an area adjacent to a marina. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-1 3.2 Water Resources Stormwater 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 via roadside ditches and is 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. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge The peninsula is surrounded on three sides by sea water. Due to density differences, fresh water essentially floats on sea water. The fresh water head (above sea level) beneath the peninsula ranges between 11 and 34 feet. As such, there is a significant fresh water lens beneath the peninsula. Though there is a very significant fresh water aquifer beneath the peninsula, it is important to maintain a positive fresh water head above sea level in the aquifer. The change in fresh water head has a large impact on the location of the salt water interface. A reduction in head below sea level could cause sea water intrusion on the Black Point peninsula. Groundwater flows toward the center of the Black Point peninsula from the north, east and west sides (2006 Hydrogeologic Evaluation, DEIS Appendix 5). The center and western portions of the peninsula are anticipated to be composed of higher permeability soils. The presence of bedrock also affects groundwater flow directions, as the northern and eastern portions of the peninsula have high elevations of bedrock. Based on studies performed for the 2007 EIS (2007 Soils and Geology Report by Subsurface Group LLC, DEIS Appendix 4), the hydrology of the Black Point aquifer is strongly influenced by recharge over the upland areas including the Pleasant Harbor area. Aquifer recharge in the Black Point area of the site is primarily from the direct infiltration of precipitation. As water percolates downward, it may perch on low-permeability till or till-like soils; however, because there were no streams and only minor seeps observed on the bluffs on the southern boundary of the site, it was assumed that perching layers are discontinuous, and the majority of groundwater percolates to the sea-level aquifer. Groundwater north of Black Point Road also resides in the sea level aquifer. ln this area, the aquifer material may be sand, till or more likely basalt bedrock. The aquifer is recharged by the direct infiltration of precipitation, and from groundwater seepage from the upslope area to the west. The regional groundwater levels are approximately 20 to 25 feet elevation, based on three borings and existing static water levels in domestic wells. The 2007 EIS identified the site as withrn a Seawater lntrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ), which covers property within one-quarter mile of the shoreline. Additionally, areas within 1,000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses above 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are categorized as either at risk (between 100 mg/L and 200 mg/L)or high risk (over 200 mg/L) SIPZ. The 2007 EIS indicated that the County's website showed no At Risk or High Risk SIPZ areas were identified on the peninsula at that time, however recent mapping indicates othenruise (see SEIS section below). All of the wells sampled in the vicinity of the site in the County's study had chloride concentrations less than 100 milligrams per liter, below the level indicative of seawater intrusion. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-2 3.2 Water Resources The 2007 EIS also noted that the site is designated as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The 2006 Hydrogeologic Evaluation (DEIS Appendix 5) recommended that additional analysis be performed to quantify aquifer recharge and susceptibility and to develop susceptibility ratings for the site. Based on the results of these studies, adaptive management procedures will be developed for maintaining groundwater quality and quantity. SEIS Surface Water The site is located in the Hood Canal Watershed, within the Skokomish-Dosewallips Water Resource lnventory Area (WRIA 16). Two streams have been identified within the SEIS site area north of Black Point Road in the lr/aritime Village area (see Figure 2-6); three additional streams are located north of the SEIS site. These streams are classified as Type N (non-fish bearing). No streams occur within the Black Point properties, due to the depressional topography prevalent throughout the landscape of this area. A non-fish-bearing intermittent stream corridor within the WDFW-owned property appears to originate in the forested hillside to the west of U.S. Hwy 101 and travels through the existing culverts under the existing boat launch roadway to Pleasant Harbor. An existing culvert is located under Black Point Road just to the east of the present connection of the existing boat launch roadway to Black Point Road and appears to be designed to carry seasonal surface water within a topographic swale. However, a defined surface water drainage channel upslope or downslope of the existing culvert could not be identified (see Appendix D). Three wetland systems have been delineated on the property. These are located in the central and eastern portions of the site as shown in Figure 2-6, and described in detail in Section 3.7, Critical Areas. The two western wetlands are isolated systems with no outlet. The first isolated wetland is located at the bottom of the largest kettle (Wetland B in Kettle B), and is 0.475 acre in area. The second isolated wetland (Wetland C) is located southeasterly of the largest kettle and is 0.279 acre in area. The eastern wetland (Wetland D) occurs on both sides of the east property line, with 0.274 acre on the project site of its approximate 0.5 to 1.0-acre total area. This wetland is the headwater of a drainage that flows easterly to Fulton Lake and continues easterly to Hood Canal approximately 0.5 mile to the east. The existing water quality within and surrounding the site has generally remained as described in the 2007 ElS. No additional information was gathered pertaining to existing surface water quality for purposes of the SEIS. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge ln 2010, a hydrogeologic memo (Appendix F) was issued by the Department of Ecology (as part of the processing of the applicant's groundwater rights application) to present findings of an investigation of geology, groundwater quantity, groundwater quality, and seawater intrusion potential on the Black Point peninsula, The agency determined that seawater intrusion was not a widespread problem on the peninsula, although there were two areas near the shoreline where it appears to be occurring in the sea level aquifer. Two wells in these areas had higher chloride concentrations at a level indicative of seawater intrusion (see Appendix F). Historical data in other wells indicated there is not widespread seawater intrusion, although future periodic Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-3 3.2 Water Resources monitoring of groundwater levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance in select wells were recommended. Stormwater The 2012 Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (Appendix F) analyzed the topographic map of the site prepared from LIDAR data and delineated thirteen existing drainage basins within the Black Point properties (see Figure 3.2-1). Of these existing drainage basins, seven drain away from the site, but only three of these drain directly to Hood Canal. Runoff from six drainage basins presently enters local depressions, remains within the site and is infiltrated. Five existing drainage basins were identified north of Black Point Road. Each of these basins presently drains to Pleasant Harbor. The average annual precipitation for Quilcene weather station, the closest weather station to Brinnon and Pleasant Harbor, is more than 56 inches (Bender Consulting, LLC, December 17, 2008). Approximately half of the annual precipitation that falls on the site is currently lost to the combined effects of evaporation and transpiration, and nearly all of the remainder infiltrates to groundwater (Subsurface Group, LLC, December 9, 2008). ln compliance with BoCC Condition 63(q), the existing infiltration rates for the soils within the site were calculated and are presented in Figure 3.2-2. The primary areas with soils with low infiltration rates include the area north of Black Point Road and Kettles B and C. Other areas bordering the boundary of the Black Point area of the site also have low infiltration rates. The majority of the Black Point area of the site includes soils with moderate infiltration rates with scattered areas of high infiltration rates. 3.2-2lmpacts 2007 Ers Surtace Water The surface water on the 2007 project site included 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 would be left in their native condition, buffered, and all stormwater would 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. lrrioation Water Because the source of the irrigation water would be partly provided by the collected rainwater (in addition to the reclaimed water), the irrigation supply would be dependent upon the local climatic conditions. lrrigation requirements would be highest during the drier periods of the year; thus water would be collected during rain events and stored in ponds for water demands during the remainder of the year. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-4 3.2 Water Resources Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS I R@'NSON RD. SCALE (rrrr) llrh=44[ ' F@T COT{TO{JR INTEIVAL I I tl Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates,2073 Figure 3.2-1 Existing Drainage BasinsHli$'ii[ri,l I t ii '\r-/'''r_),!:- /-r-1 I ,t lrutrox lLAKE J "( 1 t -!==,14 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS l.egcnd Exfuretioas i Bod.g O tltcduiq!trcll laSlr.ioToi il T..Pl. A E:ddrytpdl SummerT' Coa F:ll Umu Rttes l.o(!toSio,/L) Mceor (5 o 15 ia / Hieh (15 to 3o io / hr) F-o 250 5(p r,0o r,5@ a(m esoo D.tm : MVD0S c6br tnbrd i. 20 l. Source.' Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 HIff#all Figure 3.2-2 Soil lnfiltration ,,+ s ,,u ) ,/ ,/, ?1 '/;//./ t Ifood Caoa/ A constructed water storage pond (Kettle B), which would include a combination of reclaimed water, treated stormwater, and rainwater, would pump water in a pressurized piping system partially for the purposes of the irrigation of the golf course. The pond would be designed to retain sufficient water to provide full irrigation supply to the golf course, and supply is dependent upon securing necessary water rights permits (see Water Supply and Groundwater lmpact Analysis, DEIS Appendix 5). A key element of any irrigation plan for the golf course would be the adoption of a best management program to address golf course operation to prevent direct runoff from the golf course to Hood Canal or the harbor and the potential for ground water impact would be minimized. Jefferson County uses the King County aquifer protection guide for golf course management BMPs, and the same conditions or substantially similar programs would be required for this project at the permit level. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge As noted previously, the proposed storage pond (Kettle B) would retain Class A water from the wastewater treatment plant as wells as stormwater from impervious surfaces. Approximately 20 percent of the captured water would be used for irrigation; the remaining water would be infiltrated back into the aquifer. This type of infiltration would be a more direct means of aquifer recharge than natural infiltration. Section 3.2.2 of the 2007 EIS notes that the only net loss of water in this approach would be from evaporation of water as it is stored in the ponds, and evapotranspiration of the portion of the water used for irrigation. The net effect would be an increase in aquifer recharge compared to predevelopment conditions. Appendix 5 of the DEIS provided a summary of predevelopment recharge versus post- development aquifer recharge. Under the 2007 EIS alternatives, post-development recharge into the aquifer would include direct injection into wells above the water table. A small increase in water use compared to existing conditions would occur. However, an increase of aquifer recharge over existing conditions could occur through water saving fixtures and through use of harvested water for residential purposes. As noted in the Hydrogeologic Evaluation performed for the 2007 EIS (DEIS Appendix 5), the proposed land uses at the site do not fall within the high impact land classification as defined by Jefferson County. As such, the County policy requires protection standards using Best Management Practices for stormwater and sewage disposal, and for land uses such as golf courses. Golf course management would conform to Jefferson County's BuiltGreen Program. ln addition, less than 15 percent of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces; the water from these surfaces would be collected and eventually reintroduced to the aquifer. The only losses to the system would be through evaporative and evapotranspiration processes, which were estimated at less than one percent of the annual pre-development water budget. Stormwater The 2007 EIS indicated that the site would be designed to meet the recommendations of the current edition of WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, February 2005 together with WDOE's adopted Low lmpact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, January 2005. The stormwater management plan for the site would be designed to meet the project's requirement for zero-discharge of water to the Hood Canal from the golf course resort area, and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the harbor, which is a significant upgrade from current direct discharge conditions. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-7 3.2 Water Resources The proposed project as outlined in the 2007 EIS has a significant cut and fill program planned for the golf course area which could cause significant adverse impact if not properly controlled. A separate stormwater management plan would required for the clearing and grading and subsequently for the development and operation of the facility. Section 3.3.7 of the 2007 EIS outlines elements to be included in the construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, including Best Management Practices (BMPs). As noted previously, Kettle B would be partially filled and lined with synthetic liners to receive stormwater runoff along with Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. Rainwater from building roof tops and roadway surfaces of the resort would be collected and routed to the storage ponds. The rainwater that would be collected from roof runotf would be considered "clean" water and therefore would not need additional treatment before entering the storage ponds. The stormwater runoff from roadway and parking surfaces is considered "polluted" and would be treated before entering the ponds. Natural treatment facilities (i.e., rain gardens) would meet runoff water quality requirements per the DOE stormwater management treatment criteria. Raingardens are typically shallow man-made depressions with compost-amended soils and plantings that are used to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The amended soils in the raingardens would capture pollutants as water percolates through them. The water would be collected by perforated underdrain pipes below the amended soil layer and be conveyed to a stormwater pond for reuse. sEts This section identifies and analyzes impacts to water resources on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site with proposed development. ln general, the potential for impacts to water resources from SEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 ElS. Alternative 2 consolidates development into fewer buildings, thereby reducing impervious surface area and increasing aquifer recharge compared to the 2007 ElS. Surtace Water Compared to the 2007 ElS, the SEIS project site now only includes two small, non fish-bearing streams south of the marina compared to the five described in the 2007 EIS (three of the small streams are outside the current site boundary, north of the marina). As with the 2007 ElS, these streams would be left in their natural state and buffered from development. Stormwater from the proposed development area would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge, thereby potentially improving water quality compared to existing conditions. The intermittent, non fish-bearing stream within the WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road is located downslope of the new WDFW boat access roadway alignment and would not be impacted by construction of the new roadway alignment (see Appendix D). ln compliance with BoCC Condition 63(r) in the 2007 FEIS, a draft water quality monitoring plan (Appendix F) has been developed that requires monthly water collection and testing for pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading. Additionally, a Golf Course Best Management Practices (BIUP) Plan (Appendix F) was drafted that includes water quality management measures. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-8 3.2 Water Resources Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Under the SEIS alternatives, direct injection of post-development recharge into wells above the water table would not occur. Subsequent to the issuance of the 2007 ElS, the Washington State Department of Ecology issued a memo in response to the Pleasant Harbor Resort application for additional water rights. Part ll of the Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memo (Appendix F) identifies the validity of Pleasant Harbor's aquifer test and also gives specific requirements for groundwater monitoring and testing in Pleasant Harbor wells. The memo indicates that if pumping is concentrated at the existing Black Point well site and is allowed to vary seasonally up to 300 gpm for several months at a time, conditions are marginal for avoiding saltwater intrusion. The memo further indicated that the Department of Ecology would require Pleasant Harbor to conduct groundwater monitoring on proposed production and monitoring wells to ensure saltwater intrusion does not occur in Pleasant Harbor's wells as well as coastal domestic wells. A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is included in Appendix F to comply with the DOE recommendation for future continued monitoring of groundwater levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance which could indicate seawater intrusion. This Plan also fulfills BoCC Conditions 63(r). BoCC Condition 63(p) within the 2007 FEIS required that a Neighborhood Water Policy (NWP) be established that requires Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for 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. The draft NWP (Appendix F) establishes a monitoring program for chlorides (which are indicative of saltwater intrusion) and requires an implementation plan if increased chlorides in neighboring wells show probable salt water intrusion impact from the project's withdrawal of groundwater. A groundwater impact addendum was completed to analyze the changes in groundwater recharge to the sea level aquifer under the SEIS Alternatives (Appendix F). After completion of the resort, aquifer recharge would be approximately 840 acre-feet per year under Alterative 1 and 804 acre-feet per year under Alternative 2, compared to 759 acre-feet per year under existing conditions; thus resulting in increased recharge to the aquifer compared to existing conditions. See Figures 3.2-3 and 3.24 for a graph depicting cumulative annual aquifer recharge over the resort build-out to full operation. [See Table 3.2-1 'for a detailed comparison of annual aquifer recharge under existing conditions and the alternatives.] As shown by the figures and table, the calculated ultimate aquifer recharge for all stages of the project development would be relatively stable, and would not decrease below existing conditions. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-g 3.2 Water Resources Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS 900 800 700 600 (D .e) IO .9 soo 19 ao 6! Io : 400 UJW 843 ac-ft 840 ac-fl833 ac-ft 8'13 ac-ft September to December June to August 1r January to May 200 100 0 01/01/15 Exiding Coditions 0lioll16 12J3t/16 12/31117 tu3t/18 Begin Pand lnigation of Gdf Corrse 12131119 12t30D0 t2/30/21 t2l30D2 12130/23 Full Buil&Out 12/29124 II 760 ac-ft i I I I ' I iI I I ) I I I I I I i I , I I a II I I i II I I I I I I I I I , II I I Source.' Bender Consulting, lnc., 2014 Htil'il'ffi Figure 3.2-3 Alternative 1-Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort Build-out and Completion Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 793 ac-ft 794 ac-ft 804 ac-ft September to December June to August o.q) o GI a)a0 Gl o& o 6 U r January to May 0 0l/01/t 5 Existing Cmditions 0l/01/16 ta31/16 12J3t/t7 1y3yl8 t2l3t/19 12130120 Begin Pand lrrigatim of Golf Ccurse 12130121 t2l30D2 t2l30D3 12/29D4 12129D Full Build-Out I I I l 760 ac-ft 760 ac-ft II I I I I 1 I i I I I I I i I i I I t i I I I I I ,I I Source,' Bender Consulting, lnc., 2014 Figure 3.24 Alternative 2-Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort Build-out and Completion Bllii{rifirr,l i Table 3.2-1 Annual Recharge to Aquifer Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Source.' Bender Consulting, lnc., 201 4. 1 No consumptive use /oss occurs under existing conditions because wastewater is infiltrated. 2Evapotranspiration is reduced under the alternatives compared to existing conditions due to the introduction of additional impervious surfaces on the site. sConsumptive use does not contribute to aquifer recharge, because wastewater would be used for irrigation; no infiltration would occur from irrigation. The increase in recharge over existing conditions is due to a decrease in vegetation at the site through construction of roads and buildings. Water from precipitation would normally have been consumed by existing trees and plants through evaporation and evapotranspiration processes. Runoff from new impervious surfaces would be routed directly to infiltration, routed to Kettle B, or discharged offsite as in the existing runoff condition. ln addition, precipitation would infiltrate more quickly due to changes in soil moisture associated with irrigation of the golf course. The decrease in aquifer recharge between Alternatives 1 and 2 would be due to the reduced amount of impervious surfaces under Alternative 2. However, even under Alternative 2, aquifer recharge would increase by approximately six percent above existing conditions. Stormwater Alternative 1 would result in 87 percent of the overall site being retained in open space in the form of the golf course, natural areas, and buffers. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 88 percent of the site being retained in open space in the form of the golf course, natural areas, and buffers. Natural areas, those not being initially cleared and graded, would total approximately 80 acres. Accordingly, the basis for stormwater management on the site for the two alternatives would be similar. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 (BoCC) condition 63(a) requires the use of local data pertinent to the Brinnon area for projection of rainfall and runoff. The average annual precipitation for Quilcene weather station, the closest weather station to Brinnon and Pleasant Harbor, was used to model groundwater recharge on the Black Point site. Project site runoff modeling used the continuous rainfall model as required by Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-12 3.2 Water Resources Existing Conditions (Acre-feet) Alternative 1 (Acre-feet) Alternative 2 (Acre-feet) TotalAnnual Rainfall 1 ,189 1 189 1 189 (Minus Actual Evapotranspiration )430 3222 3492 (Minus Pond Evaporation)9 11 (Minus Consumptive Use)01 1213 1213 (Minus lrriqation)120 120 Plus Wastewater Generated 121 121 Plus lmpervious Runoff 102 94 TotalAquifer Recharge 759 840 804 Jefferson County and Department of Ecology. This model specifies rainfall rates to be applied at a site specific location which assures compliance with BoCC Condition 63(a). Stormwater impacts that would result from implementing the proposal would relate to an increase in the rate and volume of runoff from developed surfaces within the Master Planned Resort. These increases would vary in each basin depending on the changes in character of the impervious surface, pervious surface type, and topographic changes (see Figure 3.2-5). Basins 16, 17, and 18 (which would include the Maritime Village and the transit stop parking area) are examples of larger percentages of change because of significantly higher percentages of impervious surface being constructed (see Grading and Drainage Report, Appendix E, Table 3.2.1). Runoff rates and volumes for the area south of Black Point Road would be similar for Alternatives 1 and 2, however pervious pavement is not proposed under Alternative 1, resulting in higher local rates and volumes of runoff. Where development patterns and topography would allow, more numerous small distributed bioretention facilities would be provided along roads, parking areas, and fainruays rather than larger facilities with larger conveyance systems. To the extent practicable, runoff from roof areas would be infiltrated near the structures producing the runotf. Parking areas, where slope and subsoils are suitable, would be paved with pervious pavements to minimize runoff. The intent of proposed stormwater management on the site is to infiltrate runoff near its source or collect and treat runotf as required near its source and convey it to the irrigation pond for storage, to be used for irrigation and fire protection. An overflow infiltration system would be designed around the perimeter of Kettle B in addition to a direct piped overflow connection to Kettle C during less frequent larger rainfall events. The application rate of reuse water for golf course irrigation would be computer controlled to prevent runoff from over irrigating while providing adequate moisture for plant uptake. Replenishment of the aquifer from irrigation during the dry season is anticipated to be minimal. The site would be designed to meet the recommendations of the current edition of WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington together with WDOE's adopted Low lmpact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, January 2005. lnfiltration (groundwater recharge) from the irrigation pond would begin to occur when the irrigation pond water surface rises above the pond liner elevation. lf the water surface elevation continues to rise in the irrigation pond, a long control weir would divert an increasing greater proportion of pond discharge to Kettle C. The stormwater runoff that would be diverted to Kettle C during periods of high runoff would be contained within the kettle and infiltrated through the walls of the kettle. The plants in the created wetland at the bottom of Kettle C would be tolerant of this infrequent flooding. For the Pleasant Harbor project, Jefferson County has required a more stringent restriction than the state by mandating in BoCC Condition 63(q) that no runoff from the golf course is to enter Hood Canal regardless of the size or frequency of the runoff event. This requirement would restrict direct runoff to Hood Canal specifically from the golf course fairways within the Master Planned Resort. Runoff from areas other than the fainruays that discharge to adjoining properties would be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that complies with State requirements. ln drainage Basins 1,2, and 12 in the southern portion of the site where runoff has a high potential to enter Hood Canal, construction of embankments that change the direction of surface flow would direct runoff away from Hood Canal and into natural and created detention areas including the lined stormwater pond on Fainruay 10. This redirection of runoff away from Hood Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-13 3.2 Water Resources Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS lFuLTdl ILArE i RO8rr{So$l RD. t-I - T Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 Figure 3.2-s Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage BasinsHli}{rifiri,l =v i\i, i: l$. Canal is intended to address BoCC Condition 63 (q) by eliminating direct golf course fairuvay runoff to Hood Canal. The created stormwater pond would be sized during final design to collect and hold the runoff during pumping to the irrigation pond. This runoff would be conveyed to Basin 2, which contains Kettle B, by a combination of pumps. The pumps equipped with standby emergency power supply would eliminate direct discharge to Hood Canal from these basins. The Maritime Village areas discharge directly to Pleasant Harbor/Hood Canal at the present time and would continue to do so in the developed condition of the site. Thus, prevention of channel erosion due to increases in the rate and frequency of runotf would be required. Runoff from reconstructed and widened U.S. Highway 101 and Black Point Road may require control of the flow rate and water quality prior to discharge into Pleasant Harbor. Potential Construction I mpacts Stormwater impacts associated with site development construction activities would be largely related to the potential water erosion of disturbed and exposed soils. During construction, stormwater management measures would be implemented to limit or reduce potential impacts for sediment-laden water and wind-blown particles to leave the site. Because grading activities would alter the size of existing drainage basins, it is possible that sediment-laden water from either existing areas or newly-graded areas near the site perimeter could cross the property line onto adjacent land parcels if proper mitigation measures were not installed. lf altered, stormwater drainage characteristics would change by directing runoff from an existing basin to another location within a different basin. Areas within the Master Planned Resort site that contain soils with higher rates of permeability would receive runoff from areas with soils with lower rates of permeability. To minimize this potential impact more successfully, detailed final designs would consider redirection of runoff into different basins with better permeability so that runoff could be retained onsite. Potential Operational I mpacts Operational impacts associated with stormwater can be characterized as changes in the function of the existing dralnage systems as the site changes over time. Forest areas, local closed depressions or kettles, and wetlands that currently detain and treat stormwater runoff would be altered. Changes to stormwater quantity and quality would occur with development. Stormwater Quantitv Chanqes. As noted previously, existing impervious surfaces and vegetation would be replaced with new impervious surfaces and less permeable surfaces on the golf course and in landscaped areas. The result would be an increase in total runoff that enters the stormwater management facilities of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. As indicated earlier, with implementation of the proposed stormwater control system, significant impacts associated with surface water runoff would not be anticipated. Additionally, replacement of existing naturally vegetated area with new landscaped area (including the proposed golf course and new maintained landscaping) would alter the surface water runoff and infiltration characteristics of these areas. For example, under existing vegetated conditions a percentage of rainfall remains in branches and leaves, and evaporates or transpires back into the atmosphere. Replacement of existing vegetation with a maintained golf course and other landscaped areas would be expected to provide less evaporation/transpiration and result in additional infiltration. Findings of groundwater and transpiration studies indicate that the proposed development would increase the stormwater Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-15 3.2 Water Resources recharge into the groundwater by approximately 10 percent as a result of removing existing vegetation (Subsurface Group, LLC, December 9, 2008). Stormwater Qualitv Chanoes. New pollutant-generating impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots, and pervious surfaces of the golf course, would introduce additional quantities of pollutants to the site during construction and long-term in the form of oils, gasoline, other mechanicalfluids used to operate motorized equipment, and materials used to maintain the golf course vegetation. These pollutants would have the potential to degrade the quality of water being infiltrated into the ground if not properly treated. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to water resources under the No Action Alternative would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.2-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Els The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. The stormwater mitigation measures listed in Section 3.5.3, Shellfish, would also apply. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 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. Stormwater management plans for clearing and grading and for construction and operation phases must be approved and systems in place prior to land disturbing activities to assure control of the stormwater as provided above. The golf course project approval shall require the adoption of best management practices for the management of stormwater onsite and the reuse of water as irrigation water, with a condition that the system demonstrate no direct discharge to Hood Canal of any stormwater from impervious or golf course surfaces, and that the grass management program include specific BMPs to assure proper management of all elements of the golf course management system consistent with best available technology for management in aquifer sensitive areas or its substantial equivalent. Approval of any permits for the marina redevelopment area shall be conditioned upon the approval of a stormwater management plan that intercepts and treats all stormwater from existing or new impervious surfaces to Puget Sound water quality management standards prior to discharge, and that the Maritime Village has a plan and facilities in place to deal with any upland upset that may threaten pollutant discharge to Pleasant Harbor. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-16 3.2 Water Resources a a a a The Project Engineer shall be responsible for ensuring that State and County stormwater management standards are met. Clearing, grading, implementation of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and construction of roads and stormwater management facilities shall be conducted under the supervision of the Project Engineer. The Project Engineer shall submit weekly reports to Jefferson County while construction is in progress. Preliminary plat approval for the golf course resort that requires water use in excess of current approved water rights. Preliminary plat approval shall require a hydrogeological report demonstrating that the additional water use does not pose a threat of saltwater intrusion to existing wells or sources of water supply. A hydrogeological report is required for each construction or development phase to demonstrate compliance with this condition. Adequate and sustainable fire flow will be provided by the Class A water system. The Class A water system will provide this level of service at all times. Construction site stormwater runoff for the project is to be regulated at the state level by WDOE through the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and at the local level by the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Code (JCC 18.25.070). A Construction General Stormwater Permit is (NPDES) required for all development activities where more than one acre will be disturbed and stormwater will be discharged to surface water or to storm drains that discharge to surface water. The project will require a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). a a a a a a Low lmpact Development - all water on the site will be collected and either used appropriately onsite, routed to the storage ponds, or infiltrated to the groundwater aquifer - a zerc discharge criterion, except at the Maritime Village where zero discharge to the Harbor cannot be achieved because oftopography. The project will develop susceptibility ratings for the site and develop adaptive management procedures to maintain groundwater quality and quantity. Groundwater and water quality monitoring will be performed at monitoring wells installed along the bluff and interior of the project site. BOGC GONDITIONS The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M itig ati o n M eas u res Co m pleted 63 (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. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-17 3.2 Water Resources a a a a o The 2012 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix F) includes a model and methodology with local rainfall data and associated runotf projections and potential impacts on Hood Canal. 63 (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. o The 2012 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix F) includes an analysis of the interconnection between stormwater, water storage, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and wetlands. 63 (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. o 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 were confirmed by the Department of Ecology in 2010 (Appendix F). 63 (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. o 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 (Appendix F). 63 (r) A County-based comprehensive water quality 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 regime. o A draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan was completed by the applicant and reviewed by the Jefferson County Water Quality Department in August 2014 (Appendix F). a Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (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 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. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-18 3.2 Water Resources o A draft Neighborhood Water Policy has been drafted by the applicant and reviewed by Jefferson County Health and WDOE (Appendix F). The NWP shall be finalized prior to approval of the Development Agreement. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following additional water resources mitigation measures could be implemented. There are some areas within the site that have slow to moderate rates of infiltration. Until the actual allowable rate of infiltration of the soil at each facility can be determined, the facilities may need to be sized to retain water to allow for a slower release. The stormwater design team will work closely with the wetlands biologist to develop a stormwater management system that will minimize hydrologic alterations to existing wetlands. Surface ponding in existing kettles and depressed areas and subsurface infiltration beds designed under some roads and parking areas would be constructed using soils processed on the site with suitable rates of permeability to infiltrate stormwater to the aquifer. Measures such as rainwater harvesting (i.e., collecting and storing stormwater for beneficial use, such as irrigation, fire flow, etc.), and drought-tolerant landscaping could minimize requirements for irrigation with potable water. Although rainwater harvesting may not be economical on a large scale, it is a measure that could be implemented on case-by-case basis. Measures to reduce the amount of stormwater to be infiltrated could include increasing evaporation and transpiration by introducing vegetation that requires significant quantities of water to survive, and/or by reducing the amount of new impervious surface proposed. Certain areas of the site not planned for development could be reserved for maintaining or adding vegetation to maximize evapotranspiration. Reduction of roadway width to the minimum acceptable to Jefferson County and the local fire district would reduce runoff quantities. Periodic monitoring of groundwater levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance in select wells will be conducted to monitor potential seawater intrusion. lmplement the best management practices within the Pleasant Harbor Golf Course BMP Plan (GeoEngineers, 2012) as applied to water use, water quality, and construction management. 3.2-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in the conversion of existing primarily vegetated area to new impervious and maintained landscape/golf course areas that would affect stormwater and groundwater characteristics. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to water resources would be anticipated. a a a a a O Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.2-19 3.2 Water Resources 3.3 PLANTS 3.3-i Affected Environment This section of the SEIS describes existing plant 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 hrlarina and Golf Resorf Forest Report, the 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation lrlanagement Plan, and the 2012 Habitat Management Plan (Appendix G). 2007 Ers Existing plants and vegetation were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sErs 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 menziesif. Broadleaf shrubs and other plants found in the understory include: Red-Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguineum), Scotch Broom (Cyfisus scopanns), Vine Maple (Acer circinatum), 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 at the mouth of the Duckabush River approximately 0.5 miles southwest of site. This community includes saltgrass, pickleweed, sea- milkwort, Pacific silvenrueed, 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.3-1 3.3 Plants Maritime 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. The WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road generally contains a mature, second growth coniferous forest with somewhat recent clearing at the eastern end of the proposed new roadway alignment. This area is dominated by a dense thicket of Scots broom intermixed with Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, and sapling red alder. 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-l). The BP-1 subarea encompasses approximately 21 percent of the total Black Point area and is characterized by relatively 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 growth 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. 3.3-2lmpacts 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.3-2 3.3 Plants I I Pteasant Harbor Marina and Gotf Resort Btack Point Gotf Course Area Not to I I BP.2 lmpact Class Areas Property Line lmpact Class lD lndicates Same lmpact Group t North Source.' Resource Management Group, 201 3 Figure 3.3-1 Forested SubareasEA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc.EII Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS I 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 Village 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 a storage building approved on the Binding 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. Approximately 1.2 acres of the forested hillside within the WDFW-owned property would be cleared for the new boat access roadway alignment. The eastern portion of this new roadway alignment was somewhat recently cleared which reduces the impact on the forest plant community. 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.3-4 3.3 Plants 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 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 that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Limited plants and vegetation would be removed in areas of new development. 3.3-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation BoGG Gonditions The following plant mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitigation Measures Completed 63 (a) [-he 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 circu mstances. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 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 a200 foot riparian bufferalong the steep bluff along the south Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S 101 and the tvlaritime 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. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.3-5 3.3 Plants a 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the tt/aritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 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 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. Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln 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-like greenbelts between the buildings. o The landscape plan for the single lt/arina Village Building will provide native vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-way while providing adequate visual access from the highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after removing invasive plant species. The building architecture will share similar features to those at the marina and within the golf resort. 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. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measure for plants would also apply: o a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.3-6 3.3 Plants A Vegetation Management Plan based on the 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation l/lanagement 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 either Alternative 1 or 2,large areas of existing vegetation would be retained (11 percent to 26 percent). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to plants would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.3-7 3.3 Plants 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 Ers 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 Endangered Specres No threatened or endangered species were found onsite. Hood Canal is home to six federally- listed 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. 3.4 Fish &Wildlife Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.+1 sErs The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Habitat llanagement 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 two seasonal streams within the SEIS site, 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. Three additional seasonal, non-fish-bearing drainages enter Pleasant Harbor along the northern shoreline near the marina outside of the SEIS site. One seasonal, non-fish-bearing drainage is located within the WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road. 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 field 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.+2 3.4 Fish &Wildlife communities that are expected to support certain species. There is no documentation or evidence of terrestrial-listed ESA species utilizing the site. 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 potential for bald eagles to utilize the site. Numerous snags that contained signs of use by woodpeckers and insects were observed throughout the site. lt 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 2011). 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. Black{ail 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.4-3 3.4 Fish & Wildlife presence of regular large concentrations of Roosevelt elk in the vicinity of the site (WDFW, 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 Impacts 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 quali$ 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 butfer 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.4-4 3.4 Fish & Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species 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, pumps, and drainfields would be replaced with a sewage treatment plant and water system. The treated water from the sewage treatment plant would 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 Jefferson County and participate in rectifying problems. Runoff from new pollution-generating impervious surfaces within the lvlaritime Village area is required by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to be treated prior to discharge into the harbor. As a result of the stormwater management and the replacement of the septic tanks and drainfields, the 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.+5 3.4 Fish E Wildlife Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS t , I t I t' I Ti { 'e /,&MI Legal Desiption: Sedion 15 and lhe North Half of Sedion 22, Tomship 25 North and Range 2 West of the Vllllamette Mendian.'-l{ Legend -Wetland-we0and Buffer - --...oH\,!M_* oHwl/l Bufter -Top{f-Slope- Top-of-slope Bulfer ----Properly Boundary fwtotite corioo, Fairuays @welana Buffer Reduction ! wettano Buffer Addition -+ 0800 800 I Source,' GeoEngineers, 207 3 Btli$[r'fu:,l Figure 3.4-1 Wildlife Corridors ial r frD tlJE I $ ft!i 1t i:,*,'il H - 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 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 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 carnivores 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. Threatened and Endangered Species 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to fish, wildlife and threatened and endangered species resources would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.4-7 3.4 Fish & Wildlife 3.4-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M itig atio n Meas u res Com pleted 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. o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resort Habitat llanagement Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this requirement. a Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During 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. The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. The site contains several intermittent or seasonal stream channels (Type "Np" or "Ns" under the County classification system). Some of these are steep in gradient and blocked from fish passage due to structural barriers. PeTJCC 18.15.315, Type Np or Ns streams require a 50-foot buffer of native vegetation. The Proposal will comply with this requirement. Additionally, the creation of a complete and modern treatment system for stormwater on the developed portion of the marina site should result in an improvement in water quality discharge. o The last sentence of this mitigation measure no longer applies under this SEIS. Redevelopment within the marina area is addressed under an existing Binding Site Plan Permit. As well, the JCC 18.15.315 code reference should be JCC 18.22.270, and streams require a 50 to 7S-foot buffer of native vegetation. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrentwith 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 a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.4-8 3.4 Fish &Wildlife BOCG GONDITIONS The following fish and wildlife mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M iti g ati o n M eas u res Co m pleted 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 101, 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 Resort Habitat Atlanagement Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this condition. sErs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following fish and wildlife mitigation measures would also apply: Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During 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. lnstead 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. An effort will be made to retain trees that have a 10-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 a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.4-g 3.4 Fish & Wildlife identified near the west shoreline of Pleasant Harbor and the nest and tree will be protected during construction. An exclusion fence will be installed to prevent elk from entering the Black Point property if they cross U.S. Hwy 101. lmplement the best management practices within the Pleasant Harbor Golf Course BMP Plan (GeoEngineers, 2012) as applied to wildlife management and construction management. 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 to fish and wildlife would be anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.4-10 3.4 Fish & Wildlife 3.5 SHELLFISH 3.5-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ers Section 3.2.1 o't 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 Repoft 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-1 3.5 Shellfish 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-tidal zone 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. WDFW 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 40% of the docks in the Pleasant Harbor marina were wooden or have Styrofoam billets, which are not conducive to the preferred method of power washing. ln 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. sEts 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 Quality 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. Aquatic lnvasive Specres Tunicates To address the issue of invasive tunicates, Pleasant Harbor Jt/arina embarked on a program of dock replacement consistent with WDFW guidance. ln February of 2009, Pleasant Harbor lvlarina replaced the D-dock, that was wood & styrofoam construction, with wood frame "enviro- Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-2 3.5 Shellfish 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 endtie. 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. Electricalwiring and power pedestals was upgraded to accommodate modern boats and improved the potable water 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. 3.5-2lmpacts 2007 Els 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 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 potentialfor harm to the significant shellfish beds located to the south. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-3 3.5 Shellfish 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 long-term 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 shellfish 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. SEIS As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints with the exception of an approved storage building 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 would occur outside of existing building footprints or as shown on the Binding Site Plan in the marin a 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 is now relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-4 3.5 Shellfish 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 Alternalive 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. ln compliance with BoCC Condition 63(q), direct stormwater runoff to Hood Canal from the golf course fainruays 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 naturaland created detention areas including the lined stormwater pond on Fainrvay 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to water quality and shellfish would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS. 3.5-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 EIS The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During 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 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. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-5 3.5 Shellfish a a a o 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. o Clarification: Stormwater from pollution-generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite before discharge. No direct runoff specifically from the golf course fairways will be discharged to Hood Canal. Runoff from areas other than the fainrtrays that discharge to adjoining properties will be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that complies with State requirements.. 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. Clarification: The stormwater management system for all phases shall capture, treat (where/when applicable), and infiltrate or store for reuse all stormwater from impervious surfaces of the improved golf course areas. Golf cart paved paths are pollution generating surfaces that require treatment, but they will occur in areas where runoff to offsite locations like the wetland on the east side and Pleasant Harbor on the north side require discharge of runoff. 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. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented During Operation Marina Mitiaation Measures All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington 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. a Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the marina. The Project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines 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. a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-6 3.5 Shellfish a a a a a a a a a Fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats, docks, piers, and storage lockers. 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 Arlitioation 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. BoGG Gonditions The following shellfish mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M itig ati on Measu res Com pl eted 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-T a 3.5 Shellfish 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 !). This agreement shall be finalized prior to the BoCC signing of the Development Agreement. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for shellfish would be necessary. 3.54 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse lmpacts to shellfish would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.5-g 3.5 Shellfish 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 Section 3.5, Shellfish, of this SEIS. Public access is addressed in Section 3.18, BoCC 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 (approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and taken into effect by Jefferson County February 21,2014). 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 SEIS 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 includes the existing Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed and Breakfast. The shoreline area along Hood Canal remains in the same condition as under the 2007 ElS. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.6-1 3.6 Shorelines An update of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) began in 2005 and has been approved by DOE. The bufferfrom Pleasant Harbor increased to 150 feet underthe new SMP compared to the previous SMP. The 150-foot buffer 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 project-specific environmental review for the shoreline permit required and a specific construction/operation mitigation plan shall be approved prior to construction. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.6-2 3.6 Shorelines 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. sErs As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints with the exception of the storage building shown on the Binding Site Plan (BSP) in the Marina Center (marina upland) area. This redevelopment is approved under a separate existing BSP 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 150-foot shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of that allowed by the BSP in the marina area under the SEIS Alternatives. 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 streams carry both stormwater from the U.S. Hwy 101 and intermittent overflow in the wet season. As with the 2007 ElS, the streams would be left in their native condition, buffered, and stormwater from new pollution-generating surfaces would 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 not be degraded as a result of the 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 no 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to the shoreline environment would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.6-3 3.6 Shore/lnes 3.6-3 Mitiqation 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 a Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor. a a 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 County standards before discharge. All surface water runoff from new pollution-generating surfaces in the golf course area shall be captured and treated in accordance with adopted County stormwater manuals. Zero discharge to Hood Canal from the developed golf course area is required. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented 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. a a a 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the lr/aritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.6-4 3.6 Shore/ines 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. o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. sEts With the implementation of lhe 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional shoreline mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.64 Significant Unavoid able Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shorelines would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.6-5 3.6 Shore/lnes 3.7 GRITIGAL AREAS This section of the SEIS describes existing critical areas on the site, and evaluates how development under each of the alternatives could affect these areas. The critical areas that are evaluated include the five listed 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 Ers 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 ll. The onsite wetlands were delineated using the 2004 wetland rating manual as required by JCC 18.15.325(1)(2).1 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)).2 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 Section 3.10 of lhe 2007 ElS, portions of the Black Point area of the site are mapped as an aquifer 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. ' Note: the correct code reference is JCC 18.22.300 ' Note, the correct code reference is JCC 78.22.330. 3.7 CriticalAreas Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-1 Frequentlv Flooded Areas The site has no flood plains or frequently flooded areas and these provisions do not apply to the Pleasant Harbor site. Geoloqicallv Hazardous Areas The2007 EIS included a geologichazard analysis (see 2007 DEIS Appendix4). 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. sEts 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 llt wetland in accordance with the Jefferson County Code with a high score for habitat value. ln 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-2 3.7 Critical Areas 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 recharge and evapotranspiration. 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 !mpacts 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. Court 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 sub-basin 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 a wetland 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-3 3.7 Critical Areas 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). 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 CriticalAreas Ordinance (JCC 18.22.170) requires a 3O-foot setback from geologically hazardous areas, which may be modified by a geotechnical report. 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 blutf in the event of wet seasons or upset. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-4 3.7 Critical Areas sErs ln general, the potential for impacts to critical areas from either SEIS Alternative 1 or 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 Alternative 1 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 lhe 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 either Alternative 1 or 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 approximately 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. Due to proposed site grading, the kettle and pond would collect a significantly larger quantity of runoff from precipitation from the larger drainage basin than existing conditions. 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 pond 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. 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 1SO-foot buffer surrounding Wetland B would be cleared of vegetation to accommodate the proposed water recycling system and driving range. 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. lt 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 in kind through wetland creation in Kettle C. See Appendix J for a full description of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Development under either Alternative 1 or 2 would retain Wetlands C and D, and the proposed development would maintain hydrologic input to these areas. However, development under Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-s 3.7 Critical Areas either Alternative 1 or 2 would encroach on wetland buffer areas. Buffer averaging consistent with Jefferson County Code is proposed to minimize impacts to wetland buffers. Aouifer Recharoe Areas 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. Geoloqicallv Hazardous Areas Potential impacts to the steep slope on the southern site boundary are detailed in Section 3.1- 2,Earlh, of this SEIS. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to critical areas would generally remain as described under the 2007 Final ElS. 3.7-3 Mitiqation Measures 2007 EIS The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitiqation Measures Completed 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. a a 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 overall wetland area function and value. o The 2012Wetland Mitigation Plan (Appendix J)fulfills this mitigation measure. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-o 3.7 CriticalAreas 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 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 2012Welland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J). Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented 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. A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site will be required. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented 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 3.1, Earth; Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife). a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-7 3.7 Critical Areas sEls ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following critical areas mitigation measures would also apply: Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The mitigation of Wetland B shall be implemented in accordance with the 2012 Wetland lrlitigation 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 Goncurrent 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 perlodic 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 Alternative 1 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 to critical areas would be anticipated. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.7-o 3.7 Critical Areas 3.8 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURGES This section of the SEIS describes existing energy and natural resources 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 LEED standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), as required by the BoCC conditions for the proposed project. This section is based on the Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED Standards (Appendix K) and Mason County PUD letter dated November 18, 2013 (Appendix K), and Pleasant Harbor Conceptual Load Estimafes (Appendix K). 3.8-l Affected Environment 2007 EIS Energy and natural resource conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS sEts 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 PUD. Propane gas is 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 condition 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 system wells on the Maritime Village portion of the site. The rest of the site is not in current use. 3.8-2 Impacts 2007 Ets 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 either Alternative 1 or 2 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 under Alternative 1 as an alternate source of heating. Development under either Alternative 1 or 2 would result in an increase in energy levels compared to existing conditions. Approximately of 19,337 kVA (approximately 15.46 MW) of electricity would be required for buildout of the proposed project. Energy to power the residential, commercial, conference, and Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.8-1 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources utility uses would be provided by the Mason County Public Utility District. The Mason County PUD has indicated that capacity exists for the first phase of development (the Maritime Village), with the installation of cooling fans on the power transformer in the Duckabush Substation (see Appendix K). To serve full buildout of the project, a new substation and associated distribution feeders would be required. lmprovements would be constructed as project loads are added. Additional engineering studies and designs would need to be performed to accommodate the remaining stages/phases of the development. Substantial advance notice (up to three years) would be required to obligate the Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") to serve the project load. For the wastewater pump stations, backup standby power would be provided by the use of a truck mounted gasoline or diesel generator and permanent onsite generators. Propane would continue to be utilized on site for cooking in restaurants in Terrace 1 and at the Maritime Village. Fireplaces in the villas and the central areas of the Terrace buildings would utilize bio-fuel (vegetable oil) instead of propane. 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 etficiency 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.8-2 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources 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 - Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED Sfandards). This narrative also includes the potential number of points awarded to the project per compliance with the LEED standards. As noted above, LEED standards are grouped into the following five base categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, lVaterials 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 Etfect - non roof and roof; and Light Pollution Reduction. The only subcategory under Sustainable Sites for which this project 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 [Vanagement, 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 lr/aterials 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.8-3 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources 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. Within the two extra 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.8€ Mitisation Measures 2007 Ers As noted previously, energy and natural resource impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS 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 Completed 63 (bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District. o Appendix K provides documentation from the Mason County PUD No. 1. Capacity exists to serve the first phase of the project (the Maritime Village). Additional improvements will be necessary to serve the full buildout of the project. Mitigation Measures To Be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 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. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.8-4 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources 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. sErs 3.8-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 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 to energy or natural resources would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.8-5 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for energy or natural resources would be necessary. 3.9 TRANSPORTATION This section of the SEIS describes the existing transportation system on the site and in the vicinity, summarizes the analysis presented in the 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). 3.9-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ets 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. Roadwavs U.S. Hwy 101 is a state rural arterial that runs along the western 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 (4-7 p.m.) 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-1 3.9 Transportation 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 on the project site. Route 1 provides Monday to Saturday service to Brinnon, Quilcene, and the Hadlock/lrondale/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 Facil ities 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 HWY 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 narrow 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. SEIS The existing roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-2 3-9 Transportation 3.9-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets 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. 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 approximately4,l00 daily and 363 p.m. peak hourvehicular 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 Impacts Traffic volumes were estimated for daily and p.m. peak hour conditions to the year 2017 without the proposed project and with the proposed project. Peak hour traffic impacts remained within Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-3 3.9 Transportation 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. Public Transportation Impacts Jefferson Transit Route 1 stops on the project site at the intersection of US HWY 101 at Black Point Road, providing transit service four times 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 Level 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 projectspecific 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-4 3.9 Transportation 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 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 Issues The 2007 EIS noted that vehicular site access would be consolidated for the marina and Black Point Property at US HWY 101 and Black Point Road under the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. A right-only driveway from the marina 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 ft/anagement - Access Control Classification System and Standard were evaluated in relation to the proposed action. US HWY 101 in the site vicinity is classified as a Class 2 facility under WSDOT'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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-5 3.9 Transportation more than 660 feet away from other existing private access connections. Therefore it complies with minimum access management standards. 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. SEIS 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 either SEIS Alternative 1 or 2 from those analyzed in the 2007 ElS, and the resultant changes in potential traffic impacts. ln general, the overall trip generation for either SEIS Alternative 1 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. Chanqes to Proposed Girculation Svstem Modifications to the proposal subsequent to the 2007 FEIS consolidates all vehicular access for new land uses to the US Hwy 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/layovet area, and serve as emergency vehicle/maintenance access to the main Golf Course Resort area (see Figure 2-B). Under either SEIS Alternative 1 or 2, a private frontage road (lVlarina Access Drive) would parallel US Hwy 101 between Black Point Road and the marina upland. A24-foot wide frontage road would be located approximately 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 ltlarina area. The primary access roadway onto Black Point Road would be located approximately one mile east of US Hwy 101 and would serve all traffic 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-6 3.9 Transportation 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). 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 101/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. Trip Generation The land use assumptions for either Alternative 1 or 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. 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 Servlce 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. 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 1O0-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 10O-foot taper was warranted Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-7 3.9 Transportation 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). f o 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. ln 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 Construction lmpacts As noted in Chapter 2, the applicant proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort in phases. For each of these major construction phases, 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: employee trips, 1 Personal electronic communication betvveen Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant's engineer) and Penny Warren and John Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, March 18, 2011.' Personal electronic communication between Craig Peck, P.E. (appllcant's engineer) and Penny Warren and John Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, August 19,2011. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-8 3.9 Transportation 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 earthwork/wetland 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 1,536 stalls, while Alternative 2 proposes 1,550 stalls (see Appendix C for a breakdown of parking stalls by use/location). Table 3.9-l Proposed Parking Gapacity By Alternative Source.' David Hamilton Architects December 2013; SEIS Appendix C. Demand for parking was estimated for each land use alternative (see Appendix L for approach and methodology as well as detailed tables). Table 3.9-2 below summarizes estimated peak parking demand by Alternative during peak weekday and weekend day use within the SEIS study area, which is exclusive of the marina area. Peak parking demand for the site as a whole would be less than the proposed supply under either Alternative 1 or 2. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-9 3.9 Transportation Structured Parking Surface Parking Total Parkinq Alternative 1 1,003 stalls 533 stalls 1,536 stalls Alternative 2 887 stalls 663 stalls 1,550 stalls Table 3.9-2 PEAK DEMAND FOR PARKING STALLS BY ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE SEIS STUDY AREA Proposed Supply Weekday Demand Weekend Demand Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) Alternative 1 1,536 stalls 1,329 stalls +207 stalls 1,353 stalls + 183 stalls Alternative 2 1,550 stalls 1,353 stalls +197 stalls 1,389 stalls +161 stalls Source: TENW, December 2013; SEIS Appendix L. To portray the cumulative impact of parking demand for the Pleasant Harbor project as a whole, including the marina area that is being redeveloped under a separate Binding Site Plan process, Table 3.9-3 summarizes the estimated parking demand for each alternative, inclusive of the marina area. The cumulative peak demand for the Pleasant Harbor site and the marina would be less than the proposed supply within the marina and the site under either Alternative 1 or 2. Table 3.9-3 CUMULATIVE PEAK DEMAND FOR PARKING STALLS BY ALTERNATIVE (SEIS STUDY AREA AND MARINA AREA) Proposed Supply Weekday Demand Weekend Demand Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) Demand Alternative 1 1 ,613 stalls 1,406 stalls +207 stalls 1,521 stalls +92 stalls Alternative 2 1,627 stalls 1,430 stalls +197 stalls 1,557 stalls +70 stalls Source.' TENW, December 2013; SEIS Appendix L. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potential impacts to transportation would remain generally the same as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.9-3 Mitisation Measures 2007 Els The following transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. . Fully fund and construct associated improvements for Black Point Road to meet County standards from US HWY 10'1 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-10 3.9 Transportation Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) a a a a 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 WSDOT 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. a a 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 fvlaritime Village). a ln addition, the preliminary plat approval for the golf course poftion of the resort should evaluate trip management plans as an alternative to simple roadway expansion. Such plans may include: 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 transportation 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 (see Appendix R). Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-11 3.9 Transportation sErs All transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS either Alternative 1 or 2. Additional transportation mitigation measures proposed are listed below. Best management practices would be implemented by contractors during construction, including necessary on-site truck wash facilities or oversized load transport routing and operations. 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 Phase 3 of the proposed construction sequence. 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 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 lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.9-12 a a a a 3.9 Transportation a 3.10 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 Repoft (May 2012), included in Appendix M. 3.10-l Affected Environment 2007 Ets Air quality conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Chanqe 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 lndustrial 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 lntergovernmental 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."' ln 2007,|PCC predicted that under current human GHG emission trends, the following results could be realized within the next 100 years (the 5th Assessment Report by IPCC is scheduled to be issued in 2014):2 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; ' IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report. February 2,2007 ' IPCC,@Apnl3O;2007. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-1 3.10 Air Quality 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 Assessrnenf, 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 projected 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. Regulatorv Context U nited Sfafes Envi ro nme ntal P rote cti on Age n cy 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 in2011. 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. Western 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-and-trade 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 January 1, a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-2 3.10 Air Quality 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. State 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 order was intended to address climate change, grow the clean energy economy, and move Washington toward energy independence. \n2007, the Washington legislature passed SB 6001, which among otherthings 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. ln 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 ditferent 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 2011, 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 Emisslons in SEPA Reviews and SEPA GHG Calculation Tool. Ecology began using this guidance document in June 2011. 3 http://www.governor.wa.gov/execorders/eo-O7-02.pdfa Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals, April 30, 2008. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-3 3.10 Air Quality 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 Els As noted previously, air quality conditions and impacts (including GHG emissions) were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sErs This section focuses on the probable GHG emissions impacts that could result with development of the Pleasant Harbor slte under either Alternative 1 or 2. New development under either Alternative 1 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 either Alternative 1 or 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 1 GHG EMISSION SOURCES CONSIRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Mobile Power Generation Combustion Power to run construction tools and equipment, and to provide providinq heatinq and liqhtinq 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-4 3.10 Air Quality Table 3.10-1 continued Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCR/PIION Land Use Change - Soil Organic Carbon Loss Emissions from movement and stockpiling of topsoil for use throughout the site (onetime tillage event resulting in soil organic carbon release) OPERATIONAT SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Wastewater Methane (on-site)Methane created from organic 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 during power outages. Vehicle Fleet Combustion Bus and rental car vehicle emissions Golf Course Maintenance Com bustion 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. Campfire/Fireplace Combustion There are no plans for wood or gas burning fire or campfires however, campfires could be created occasionally for special or ceremonial events. Source.' Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas M, 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 approximalely 4,743.10 tCO2e for construction and to 931.48 tCO2e for operational sources, representing a reduction of approximately 14% 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. u tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-s 3.10 Air Quality Table 3.10-2 SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSION SOURCES Source.' Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reporl 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.6 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 15% and 46Yo, 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 services, 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 3 GHG EMISSION SOURCES u tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent CONSIRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Purchased Electricity Approximately 440MWh of grid electricity could be used each year during construction. OPERATIONAT 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 CONSTRUCTION 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 0%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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-6 3.10 Air Quality Emissions related to organic waste created from landscapinq and qolf course maintenance. Organic Waste Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can ranoe from 0o/o to 15o/o. Electricity T&D Losses Source.' Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse M. Emission Report. May 2012.Appendix Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 3 sources are estimated at 9,673.66 tCO2e foiconstruction sources and 26,459.72 tCO2e for operational sources.' 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 6% 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, internal walking paths, 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 3.104 below, summarizes estimated GHG emissions under Alternative 2 (the Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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. Table 3.10.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - ESTIMATED GHG EMISSTONS Emission Source Estimated GHG Emissions (tCO2e) Estimated GHG Emissions Reductions with Mitigation 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 Ooerational Emissions 26,459.72 -9,870.54 TOTAL 51,032.98 -15,138.78 Estimated Total Emissions with Mitiqation 35,894.20 tCO2e Pleasant Harbor 2012. See Appendix M. ' tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-7 3.10 Air Quality 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potential impacts regarding greenhouse gas emissions would be limited, as compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.1O.4 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets 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 air quality mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are appilcable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M itiqation 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. SEIS The following other possible mitigation measures could be implemented with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 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 either Alternative 1 or 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-8 3.10 Air Quality a 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 air quality mitigation measures which could be implemented include the following . Renewable energy purchases. Using locally sourced materials. Emissions offsets. Waste heat recovery 3.10-4 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.10-9 3.10 Air Quality 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 An Economic Analysis of Earnings report (Appendix N). 3.11-1 Affected Environment 2007 EIS Housino 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 Brinnon Subarea Plan 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 ElS. 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. ln terms of occupied versus vacant housing units, Jefferson County has relatively high vacancy rate of approximately 21 percent out of 17,767 total housing units, as shown by Table 3.11-1, below. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-1 3.11 Housing and Employment Jefferson County TotalHousing Units 17,767 Occupied Housing Units 14,049 (79%\ Vacant Housinq Units 3,718 (21o/o) Table 3.11-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING GHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O Bureau,2010 Demographic 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 Brinnon TotalHousing Units 1,060 Occupied Housing Units 419 Vacant Housing Units 641 Vacant Housing Units for Rent 11 Vacant Housing Units Rented, not Occupied 1 Vacant Housinq Units, for Sale Only 22 Vacant Occupied Housing Units, Sold, not 1 Vacant Housing Units for Seasona!, Recreational or Occasional 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 Source.' US Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File. Census Designated Place Summary. Emplovment S,fe Currently, there are eleven full and parttime employees based on the site, primarily to serve the marina and for 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). According to the U.S. 1 Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-2 3.11 Housing and Employment 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 Type of Employment Emplovees Total Nonfarm Employment 7,700 Total Private 5,610 (73%) Total Government 2,090 (27%) Source.' Washington Security Department, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Brinnon area median income is estimated to be slightly lower than the County's as a whole, at $42,679.3 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 3.114 for details. Table 3.114 JEFFERSON COUNTYAND WASHINGTON STATE - RESIDENT LABOR FORGE AND EMPLOYMENT Department. Labor Market and Economic Analysis. 3.11-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets 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 Location Labor Force Persons Employed Persons Unemployed Unemploynent Rate Washington State, January 2013 3,447,640 3,154,840 292,800 8.SYo Jefferson Gounty, January 2013 11,780 10,500 1,280 10.9o/o Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-3 3.11 Housing and Employment I U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. 3 Wright Johnson. An Economic Anilysis of Earnings, October 2014. Appendix N. addressed both the increased demand represented by the proposal and provided the infrastructure to support the higher densities necessary to address affordability. 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. lt was also anticipated that seasonal employees would typically be students with the advantage to local students. sEts ln comparison to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the total number of residential units proposed under SEIS Alternatives 1 and 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 (67%) would be for short-term visitors and 33% would be for permanent residents. Regarding employment, subsequent to publication of the 2007 ElS, 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 and 2 ln general, employment and housing impacts would be similar under Alternatives 1 and 2; both alternatives would develop 890 residential units, and would provide comparable levels of retail/commercial space (49,772 sq. ft. under Alternative 1 and 56,680 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 both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Housinq Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resoft would occur incrementally over time in response to market conditions; for purposes of environmental review it is assumed to take place over an approximately 10-year timeframe. lt is estimated that up to 1 ,750 positions would be directly and indirectly associated with construction of the facility over the full build-out of the resort.a As noted in the 2007 ElS, the Applicant proposes to upgrade the existing RV facilities on the site on a temporary basis (presently approved for 60 units) to provide some temporary housing for construction workers. 4 Wright Johnson. 2014. Appendix N Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-4 3.11 Housing and Employment Long-Term Housing Conditions Under Alternative 1 and 2,890 residential units would be provided on the site. Of the total, 278 units (33%) would be for permanent residents, while 560 units (67%) would be for short- term use (i.e. time-shares, vacation rentals, 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 n d i rect H ousi ng Con d ition s Operation of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort could result in 225 new permanent employees at the site. Although statf housing would be provided on the site, employees on the site could result in some additional demand for housing in the area. Emplovment Co n stru cti on Em ployme nt 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 10-year buildout period. As noted above, based on analysis conducted subsequent to 2007, it is now estimated that the construction project could directly and indirectly employ up to approximately 1,750 workers in total. 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. Based on analysis completed in 2014, it is estimated that approximately 342 o'f the 1,750 total construction jobs (19.5 percent) would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of the Brinnon area average median income ($34,143).6 Ope ration al Em pl oy me nt Based on analysis conducted subsequent to 2007 , development of new employment-generating land uses could result in approximately 225 direct and indirect jobs. 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 in each phase of development. See Appendix N for more information. Additional, temporary seasonal employment could also occur during the summer months. Based on analysis completed in 2014, it is estimated that approximately 223 of the 225 total jobs (99 percent) of the operational jobs would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of the Brinnon area average median income ($34,143)./ 0 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, May 2Q14. Appendix N. ? Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, May 2014. Appendix N. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-5 3.11 Housing and Employment Table 3.11-5 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER JOB SECTOR Job Sector Employees Phase 1 Food Services 13 Marina 11 TTA (fun center)31 Sultes 5 Villase 5 Phase 2 Suites 44 Food Services 21 Weddinq Chapel 1 spa 21 Convention Center 6 Gift Shop 3 Recreation 11 Waste Water 2 Phase 3 Golf 37 Food Services 5 Waste Water 4 Phase 4 Waste Water 5 TOTAL 225 Source: Wight Johnson, 2014. The new employment opportunities onsite could contribute to lowering the Jefferson County's unemployment rate (8.2% in November 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 n di re ct Em ployme nt I m pacts 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 continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlylng rural residential zoning. Limited additional employment could be added to the site as allowed under the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) process. Housing stock could increase by approximately 30 new residences. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-6 3.11 Housing and Employment 3.11-3 Mitisation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Because there is a limited rental housing market, it is proposed that the out-of-town 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. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction 63 (e) Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in East Jetferson 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 a a 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 tvlPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income (AMl). 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. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-7 3.11 Housing and Employment Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction a o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf (Appendix N). lt is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of construction jobs and 99 percent of operationaljobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 80% of the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU. sErs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for housing and employment would be necessary. 3.114 Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.11-8 3.11 Housing and Employment 3.12 RUR/AL GHARACTER 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 Ets 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-1 3.12 Rural Character and Population sEts 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 approximalely 17 percent from 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 Ets Population The 2007 EIS indicated that during construction, an estimated 80 lo 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) 30% 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 ' U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistrict Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-2 3.12 Rural Character and Population Pleasant Harbor Draft lemental EIS SEIS Site Bounda Source.' EA, 2013 Figure 3.12-', Aerial Photograph - Site and Site VicinityEA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc. gT ili \ / -h CIA 4rl {" ts ,l i----) ,l I I I I I I i I I J :,\ I / a \ c ml3 Gooorc d.} ,i * I1 ''lrr \ \ ", l--, ,d! I q ,G [' t_ {L,:,ll t - jF.il a t T >)'-;, ,-'affl '"*,# D {t \ .? \ t t d / & ^ 7' I TD J \ t, v ( +, 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 '101 exceptthe node at Black Point Road; retaining a tree bufferalong U.S. Hwy 101 adjacentto 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 Alternative 1 or 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 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 (67%) 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 of commercial uses. Under Alternative 2, the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced to 56,608 sq. ft and under Alternative 1 the overall square footage of commercial uses is less than 50,000 sq. ft. Redevelopment for 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 1 and 2 ln general, rural character and population impacts would be similar under either Alternatives 1 or 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. under Alternative 1 and 56,608 sq. ft. under Alternative 2). The discussion of rural character and population impacts, below, applies to either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-4 3.12 Rural Character and Population Con struction Population Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Resorf is anticipated to occur over an approximately 10- year timeframe. During this period, construction employment is anticipated to generate up to approximately total 1,750 positions. This number of jobs, divided by the 1O-year build out period could result in roughly 175 jobs on the site per year. 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 temporav, no permanent residents are anticipated to migrate to the area. Ope rational Population Under either Alternative 1 or 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 the permanent population, resulting in a permanent population of 556. Fifty 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. Regarding the anticipated demographics, the permanent resort units are intended to be marketed to retirees seeking an active community with a variety of recreational opportunities and amenities. 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 lo 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. Rural Character Development under either Alternative 'l or 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. ln general, the relationship of the Pleasant Harbor MPR development under either Alternative 1 or 2 to surrounding uses would primarily be a function of the intensity of the new uses (such as Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-5 3.12 Rural Character and Population the types of uses, density of the development, and levels of activity associated with the 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 either Alternative 1 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 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 Alternative 1 or 2 due to the increase in density and associated on-site population (residents and employees) and short-term 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 employapproximately 190 people, 104ot 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. Hwy 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 either Alternative 1 or 2. Resort residents would also have the option of 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 U.S. Hwy 101 (tt/arina Access 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). ln 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 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 (four and five stories), which would be located in the north/central portion of the Golf Course, and would be generally not be anticipated to be visible to offsite viewers except from properties Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-0 3.12 Rural Character and Population at higher elevations to the northwest (see Figures 2-7 and 2-8 in Chapler 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. Hwy 101. The largest building within the tr/aritime 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 tolal 232 acre site) would be preserved under Alternative 1, and 80 acres (33 percent of the lotal 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 fainrays 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 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 2 would contribute to the cumulative residential and employment groMh, 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 indirecVcumulative impacts would not be anticipated. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning, or that parcels could be subdivided for residential development. Potential impacts to population and rural character conditions would remain generally as described in the 2007 Final ElS, with an permanent population increase of approximately 15-20 persons. 3.12-l Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant sections of this SEIS, as applicable. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-T 3.12 Rural Character and Population a Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented 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: - 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 fainrvays, 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 newaccess road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the Ir/aritime 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). BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation 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 a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-8 3.12 Rural Character and Population 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 where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.124 SisnificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts With the implementation of the proposed site design features and identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to rural character or population are anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.12-9 3.12 Rural Character and Population 3.{3 GULTURAL 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 n adve fte nt Di scove ry Protocol (Appendix O). 3.{3-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that prior archaeologicalfield 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. sEts 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.13-1 3.13 C ultu ra I a nd Arch aeolog i cal Resources SEIS 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 potential to 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. An archeological resource is located at the head of Pleasant Harbor east of the site on Washington State lands. This area is located adjacent to the site and could be potentially impacted by inadvertent disturbance during construction. 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. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Potential impacts to cultural and archeological resources would remain generally as described in the 2007 Final EIS. 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1or2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 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 Implemented 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. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.13-2 3.13 Cultural and Archaeological Resources 3.13-3 Mitiqation Measures BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (j) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource. 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. sErs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, the following cultural and archaeological mitigation measures would apply: Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and Durinq Construction A construction buffer shall be constructed to protect the archeological site on Washington State lands adjacent to the site from any unnecessary disturbance. 3.{34 SisnificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.13-3 3.13 C u ltu ra I a n d A rc h aeo I og i ca I Resources 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 Sfandards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). 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 llghting 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1+1 3.14 Light and Glare 3.14-1 Affected Environment 2007 EIS Existing light and glare conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts Site 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 Alternative 1 or 2 remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 ElS, 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 either Alternative 1 or 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1+2 3.14 Light and Glare 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 project 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 Alternative 1 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 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 Resod 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 Resort boundaries. 2) To protect the operation of the Resorf from deterioration by surrounding light pollution 3) Alinimize the impact of artificial 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 Alternative 1 or 2 to minimize potential light and glare impacts include the following: r lllumination would be to the minimum practical level.. The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical.r The duration of illumination would be as short as practicalfor Resident Safety.. 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1+3 3.14 Light and Glare provide a greater visual buffer at the site borders, and could possibly prevent more offsite light trespass than Alternative 1. Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Some additional light and glare could result from new residences within the site. Primarily, this would be associated with vehicle headlights maneuvering on and within the site, and limited and temporary lighting of residences at night. 3.14-3 Mitisation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1or2. 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 Alternative 1 or 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 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. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following light and glare mitigation measure would be implemented. 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 Standards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1/h4 3.14 Light and Glare No Action Alternative 3.14-4 SisnificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse light and glare impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.1+5 3.14 Light and Glare 3.{ 5 AESTHETICS This section of the SEIS characterizes the existing and future aesthetic conditions on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site. 3.{5-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ets 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. Hwy 101 and from portions of the subdivisions at the mouth of the Duckabush River, to the wesVsouthwest 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 srte are primarily available from area roadways, including U.S. Hwy 101 and portions of Black Point Road. Views of the site along U.S. Hwy 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 lmpacts 2007 EIS 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 fainruays 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.15-1 3.15 Aesthetics 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 total232 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. Total 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 Point 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 2O0-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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.15-2 3.15 Aesthetics The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural area containing mature vegetation and several single-family structures (Harbor House and the Bed and Breakfast), 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 change would occur at the 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 area. 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 P/easant Harbor Marina and Golf 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 residential buildings is reduced to 36, as compared to 54 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 B0 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.15-3 3.15 Aesfhetics 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 concentrated in the new Maritime Village building. The two smaller residential buildings proposed under Alternative 1 would not be included under Alternative 2. fhe 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 Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The aesthetic character of the site would generally be consistent with the surrounding area. 3.'15-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following aesthetic mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1 or 2. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fainarays, 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 proposalshall provide landscaping between U.S. Hwy 101 and the newaccess road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the ftrlaritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from higher grade elevations. a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.15-4 3.15 Aesthetics Although the visual character and views of the Pleasant Harbor site would extensively change under either Alternative 1 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 a Note that the Maritime Village building would be 3-stories, but it would be built into the existing topography so that only two stories visible would be visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west (the higher grade elevation) and three stories visible internal to the site. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 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. Hwy 101 and the lr/aritime 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. 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. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 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 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. o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln 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. a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.15-s 3.15 Aesfhefics o o The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-way while providing adequate visual access from the highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take advantage of the sloped area o'f the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after removing invasive plant species. The building architecture will share similar features to those at the marina and within the golf resort. sErs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.{5-4 SisnificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternatives 1 or 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. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.15-0 3.15 Aesthetics 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 Pleasant Harbor General Water Plan (2014) and Pleasant Harbor General Sewer Plan (2014) prepared by Consultares Engineering (see Appendix Q for Executive Summaries of these reports). 3.{6-{ Affected Environment 2007 EIS 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 private water system infrastructure within the Pleasant Harbor site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. ln the past approximately seven years, the resort has not operated and maintenance of the aged water system has abated. However, existing wells on and adjacent to the site remain. Water Supolv - Two wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second well north of Black Point Road serves the existing Bed and Breakfast. Another well outside of the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula. a a Water Storaoe - One storage tank currently serves the site: a highly deteriorated 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 existing system is highly deteriorated and is not currently fully functional. A limited extent water distribution system is located within the marina upland area immediately northwest of the site boundary. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-1 3.16 Utilities a Sanitarv Sewer The site presently has no existing centralized wastewater collection or treatmenUdisposal infrastructure. Outside the SEIS area, an existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system is a large onsite septic system (LOSS) currently owned, operated and maintained by the applicant. The current facilities consists of gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor House has a pump tank and grinder pump with a forcemain that 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 west of U.S. Hwy 101 , which is also owned by the applicant. 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, over 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 Pleasant Harbor House) and the real estate office on the Maritime Village portion of the site. There is currently no garbage collection service to the site; residents/employees transport their own garbage to the Quilcene drop box. 3.16-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant 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 ]Jefferson County Department of Public Works: http://jeffersoncountysolidwaste.com/3-recycling-services/ 'Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities Element. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-2 3.16 Utifities site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. ln general, water and sewer impacts would be similar under both Alternatives 1 and 2 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 Els 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 irrigation was to come from stored reclaimed water and from stormwater runoff and rainwater collected from the site. The existing kettles were to be used forwater 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 3.1.1.1 for 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 SEIS 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 SEIS site. 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 wastewater, and a new water distribution system would need to be constructed. As well, the daily potable water demand has been calculated at 175/ERU gpd, versus 70 gpd/ERU in the 2007 ElS. 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-3 3.16 Utilities 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 2. The new system would be constructed under or near new roadways to reduce the need for clearing and grading (see Figures 3.16-1 and 3.16-2). 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 if required. 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. Operation Under Alternatives 1 and 2, it is anticipated that a multi-purpose utility district would 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 16,2010. 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 well within 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 360,0OO-gallon water storage tank would be constructed on the property the 9th Tee and the east site boundary. 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 year for 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 70,000 gpd during peak periods 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 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 o'f 175 gpd. The quality of water would be consistent with Washington State Department of Health Standards (see Section 3.2, 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-4 3.16 Utilities 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 forfirefighting and landscaping irrigation. Under Alternative 2, Kettle B would not be 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 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 Because the existing septic systems are not consistent with proposed reclamation, construction of a new distribution system and wastewater treatment plant would be required to serve the development proposed under both Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as 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 reclamation plant (WRP) is proposed capable of producing Class A reclaimed water for irrigation. At its ultimate, the plant would be designed to treat 280,000 gallons per day. Construction lmpacts The new sewer collection system would be constructed within easements located under or adjacent to roadways or across golf course fainruays for efficient conveyance. The existing septic and pump tanks and subsurface drainfields would be decommissioned in place or removed after completion of the WRP. 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). Construction of a gravity collection system would likely have a longer duration than construction of a pump station and forcemain 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 recovery plant (WRP) would begin under Phase 2 of the project. The marina area and existing LOSS would continue operating for the existing facilities until the WRP is completed. (see Chapter 2for more information on phasing). Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-5 3.16 Utilities Operational lmpacts As noted above, in order to serve the development proposed under Alternatives 1 and 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 280,000 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 70 gpd/ERU can be verified through the proposed use of very low flow fixtures, meters 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). It is anticipated that a multi-purpose utility district would 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. Telecommunications Centurylink would continue to serve the site for telephone and DSL internet service, with extensions from existing lines. Solid Waste Under the Alternatives 1 and 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 1,364 tons of solid waste per year; and that commercial/retail uses would generate approximately 45 to 51 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) and that commercial/retail uses would generate 5lbs/1,000 sq. ft./day (industry estimate). These are very conservative assumptions, as occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor Resort is anticipated to fluctuate seasonally, with highest occupancy in the summer (85%). lt is assumed that a private service would pick up solid waste and that a composting and recycling program would be utilized to help reduce the solid waste stream. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental El9 November 2014 3.16-o 3.16 Utilities No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.16-3 Mitisation Mea€qres 2007 Ets Mitiqation 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 Implemented 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. 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. a a a 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 to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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 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. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-7 3.16 Utilities a sEls ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following utility mitigation measures would also apply: Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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, then current metered use records, and fixture counts. The fire flow requirements will be based on 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 flow rates and early construction phase fire flow rates. Fire flow will be provided by the project irrigation/fire flow system following completion and filling of the irrigation pond in Kettle B. a 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. 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 permit conditions. 3.164 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would result in an increased demand for utilities. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to utilities would be anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.16-8 3.16 Utilities 3.17 Public Serwices This section of the SEIS 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 MEDIGAL SERVIGES (EMS) 3.17.1-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Els 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, WAo 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, which will be remediated under an amendment to the existing lt/arina Binding Site Plan. SEIS Since publication of the 2007 EIS (see 2007 FEIS Section 3.5 for the description of the status of these services), Fire Station 43 was forced to close. The Brinnon Fire Chief has also indicated that Fire Station 42 may need to be closed soon due to lack of fundingl. The fire district is pursuing other locations to accommodate the existing equipment at these fire stations. 1 Personal communication between Chief Patrick Nicholson (Brinnon Fire Chief) and Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant representative), December 23,2013 and October 26,2014. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Senrices3.17-1 Updated fire and EMS call information is provided in below Table 3.17-1for Fire District #4. As shown, the majority of calls are for EMS. Table 3.17-1 FIRE DISTRICT H - FIRE AND EMS CALLS 2008.2012 EMS Calls Fire/Rescue Calls TotalCalls 2008 146 82 228 2009 171 93 264 2010 146 103 249 2011 155 65 220 2012 44 29 73 2013 161 88 249 Source.' B ri n n o n F i re Depa rtm e nt : http ://b ri n n o nfi re. o rg/. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a goal of having 1.25fre 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 groMh. 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. sErs Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to fire and EMS services under either SEIS Alternatives 1 or 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 56,680 square feet in Alternative 2 and less than 50,000 square feet under Alternative 1. As 3.17 Public Seryrces3.17-2 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 well, the site acreage has been reduced lo 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 ElS, with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.2 ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1 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 either Alternative 1 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 either Alternative 1 or 2 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 either Alternative 1 or 2, 890 residential units would be provided onsite, including 560 short term tourist residential units and2TS 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 either Alternative 1 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 Et\tlS 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 2 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 SEIS. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Services3.17-3 property taxes for the year of the increase. Such financial contributions would be expected to help offset potential increases in calls for service as related to the new Pleasant Harbor resort development. Proposed new development under either Alternative 1 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. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to fire and EMS services would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.17.1-3 MitisationMeasures 2007 Ets Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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 flow. o 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 localfire authority. Develop an "emergency action plan" with the Fire District [# 4] 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. a a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Seryices3.17-4 Enter into an "action plan" with the local fire authority at District #4 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. 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: "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 Harbor 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 for fire, medical and public services would be necessary. 3.17.1-4 SiqnificantUnavoidab le Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 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 fire or EMS impacts would be anticipated. a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Seryices3.17-5 3.17.2 POLICE SERVTGES 3.17.2-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that police protection to the site is provided by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, which serves all of the unincorporated areas in the County. The Sheriffs Office is located at the Justice Center in Port Hadlock and also maintains an office at the Courthouse in Port Townsend, a substation in Cleanruater, and an annex in Quilcene. The Brinnon/Black Point area is in the Sheriff's Patrol District 55. 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. sErs 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 Ets 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. SEIS Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to police services under either SEIS Alternative 1 or 2 would be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. The 2007 EIS Proposed Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Servlces3.17-6 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 from 73,000 sq. ft under the 2007 EIS to 56,680 square feet for Alternative 2 and less than 50,000 square feet under Alternative 1. ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1 or 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 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. Construction Construction activities associated with the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resoft 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{erm 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 Alternative 1 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 Sheriffs Office could increase under either Alternative 1 or 2. ln order to reduce potential impacts to the Jefferson County Sherriffs 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. "publlc service room" would be provided on the resort for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, 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. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to police services would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Seryices3.17-7 3.17.2-3 MitigationMeasures 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 controlsystems are in place. a 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. 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 ([UOU) 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 Harbor 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. SEIS With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for sheriff services would be necessary. 3.17.24 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 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 to sheriff services would be anticipated. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Servrces3.17-8 3.17.3 PUBLTC SCHOOLS 3.17.3-1 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 200512006 school year, and 49 students in 200612007. The Brinnon 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. SEIS 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. Table 3.17-2 BRINNON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 2008-2012 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 1O-year buildout period. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Seryices Date Student Enrollment 2006 56 2007 49 2008 31 2009 29 2010 33 2011 38 2012 35 3.17-9 2007 Ets 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. SEIS 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 SEIS Alternative 1 or 2. Residential development and associated increases in the on-site population under either Alternative 1 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 Alternative 1 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 either Alternative 1 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 Alternative 1 or 2. Table 3.17-3 summarizes the potential students that could be generated from development of the Pleasant Harbor site at buildout. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Seryrces3.17-10 Potential Permanent Site Population Grades K{ Studentsl High School Students' 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 additional24 students in grades K-8. Development under either Alternative 1 or 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 3.17-3 is very conservative, because permanent housing associated with the resort is likely to be marketed to an older/retirement age demographic - an age set with minimal potential to generate K-1 2 students. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to schools would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. Estimates for planning purposes are that the project will increase the Brinnon School District by 5-10 students and the adjacent district for 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 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 (EIVS), 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 a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Seryrces3.17-11 Table 3.17-3 PLEASANT'^*":1,-=r?tlHiT=,r?31'li-tGENERArroN 3.1+3 Mitisation Measures 2007 Ets Harbor 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 tvlOU between the Applicant and Brinnon School District #46. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigatlon measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for public schools would be necessary. 3.17.3-4 Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 2 would result in new students to the area school district. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public schools would be anticipated. 3.17.4 HEALTH SERVIGES 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. sEts Health care service conditions have generally remained the same as described in the 2007 ElS. 3.17.4-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers 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 medicaltraining. sEts Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to health care services under either SEIS Alternative 1 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Services3.17-12 been specified for the SEIS, and the permanent population would be likely to make more regular use of health care services in the vicinity. ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1 or 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 Ald. With the implementation of these measures, significant impacts to health care services would not be anticipated. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to health services would be limited compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.17.4-3 MitiqationMeasures 2007 Ets Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Project-specific mitigation shall be addressed in the public services memorandum of understanding (IMOU), 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 o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson HealthCare. BoCG 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 Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Servrces3.17-13 o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson HealthCare. SEIS With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for health services would be necessary. 3.17.4-4 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 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 to health services would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.17 Public Servrces3.17-14 3.{ 8 BoGC 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 (SIvlP) buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWIII). 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. The preliminary development agreement and zoning regulations are contained in Appendix S of this SEIS. BoGC 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 Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS) 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 either Alternative 1 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-1 3.18 BoCC Conditions As well, either Alternative 1 or 2 relocates the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline management area to a new location near U.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 their 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 ElS. Gompliance with BoGG Gonditions Table 3.18-1, below, outlines allthirty 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 3.18-1 BoGC 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, runotf 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 proposalwas 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 aqreement. MOU's have been negotiated with Brinnon School District #46, Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4, Jefferson County Sherriff's 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). Some of Partially fulfilled The following MOU's are in draft form and/or have yet to be signed by the agency/district: Fire District; Sherriff's Office; Jefferson Transit; and Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-2 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status Such agreements will be encou raged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. the MOU's are in draft form and have yet to be signed by the Applicant and agency/district. 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 being reviewed under this SEIS, no agreements have been negotiated with the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club or the Slip owner's Association. Housing (County). The tvlOU with Jefferson Healthcare and Brinnon School District have been signed by the appropriate agencies. 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 S. Public access conditions shall be included in the Development Ag reement 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 t 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 tVlPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income 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 (2012\. The report is included in Partially fulfilled. The availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 80% of Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-3 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoGC #Description Notes Status (AMl). 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. this SEIS as Appendix N Of the 890 housing units proposed as part of the project, 52 units would be staff housing for resort employees. the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU. 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 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 Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.184 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status correspondence 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 i nvestigations 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. I\tlonitoring 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 prior to approval of the Development Agreement. 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 foraqing on hiqh-value 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-5 3.18 BoCC Conditions I BoCC #Description Notes Status 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. 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-levelSEPA 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 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-G 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for 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. agreement. 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. November2l, 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 r A County-based comprehensive water quality 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, discharqe, and/or contaminant 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 prior to approval of the Development Agreement Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-7 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCG #Description Notes Status loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring regime. 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 101and 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 . The proposal includes preserving a riparian buffer along the south/southwest blutf of the peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve the 200-ft wide Shoreline Environment and a steep slope setback (up to an additional 30 feet wide in places) in a conservation easement. 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. These easements shall be finalized and recorded prior to approval of the Development Agreement. 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 [t/onitoring 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 final BoCC approval of the Development Agreement. u ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, The proposal includes preserving a riparian buffer along the south/southwest bluff of the Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-8 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoGC #Description Notes Status 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. peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve the 200-ft wide Shoreline Environment and a steep slope setback (up to an additional 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. V ln keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.1 5.135(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. ln order to blend into the terrain, the largest structure within the Maritime Village area (Maritime Village Building, no longer 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 transplanted healthy vegetation from the site, as well as native and low water consumption plants. See Sections 3.3, Plants, Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-9 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status and 3.15, Aesthetics, of this SEIS for additional detail. The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building willprovide native vegetation plantings islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of- way, while providing adequate visual access from the highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream butfer to take advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream butfer vegetation will be enhanced after removing invasive plant species. Building architecture will share similar features to those at the marina and within the golf resort. 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 projects. An individualtree 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, PIants, for additional detail. lndividualtrees will be inventoried to account for size and health prior to construction for viability of transplanting per the arborist report and tree protection plan x Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and The Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED standards is provided in Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-10 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status "Green Built" green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to commercial and residential dwellings respectively, "promote design and construction practices that increase profitability whi le reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings, and improving occupant health and well- being." Resources, and Appendix K of this SEIS and addresses this condition. v There shall be included as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of a golf course 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 publlc. The Golf Course Development Best Management Practices (SEIS Appendix F)are intended to comply with the Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.20, Part 190 Performance and Use- Specific Standards for golf courses. Fulfilled. The development agreement will address the 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: a a a a a lllumination would be to the minimum practical level. The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical. 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. Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines). See Section 3.14, Light and Glare, of this SEIS for further Fulfilled Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-11 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCC #Description Notes Status information aa In fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the tr/aritime 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 tlme-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123.(2). Alternatives 1 and2 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 (670/0) 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 the Mason County Public Utility District. A report is currently being drafted with the Mason County PUD but will not be complete until after the 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. The Applicant in conjunction with lVason County PUD will complete the report on the capacity of infrastructure to serve the energy demands of the project prior to approval of the Development Agreement 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. 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-12 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoCG #Description Notes Status dd Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportu n ities 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 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 S). 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 56,680 sq. ft. under Alternative 2). 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 3.18-1 for a delineation of these zones. 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 drinkingieating 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 short-term 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 [Varina and Golf Resort comply with the standards for the tr/PR-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 lt/anagement 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 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-13 3.18 BoCC Conditions 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 in 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 ovenvater 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 short-term 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 ti/aritime 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 (SIVP). The bulk of the Maritime Village building would be approximately 140 feet from U.S. Highway 101, but the northern portion would angle Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-14 3.18 BoCC Conditions Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS BRIANVON MPR - ZONINGMAP BLACK PAINIs RD. RO us 101 HIGHWA MARTNA VTLLAGE=(MpR_MV) GoLF RESoRT (MPR-cR) OPEN SPACE RESERVE (MPR-OSR) HOOD CANAL Source.' Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc. Figure 3.18-1 Zoning MapHI 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 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 tvlPRs, 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. The draft Development and Agreement and zoning regulations are included in Appendix S of this SEIS. The BoCC would adopt the lvlPR-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 facilities, and on-site retail/commercial 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 first drafted in April of 2011 and revised in October 2014 (see Appendix S). This development agreement could be revised prior to adoption by the Jefferson County BoCC. 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. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-16 3.18 BoCC Conditions The development agreement also addresses the public services: sheriff, 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 phases. The first phase focuses development within the Maritime Village area and begins the development of infrastructure within the Black Point area (the wastewater treatment plant, large onsite septic system and drainfield, the water storage tank, and the construction materials processing area). Construction of the U.S. Hwy 101 intersection improvements, the marina access drive, and the relocated WDFW access road will also be included in this first phase. The second phase includes the initial development of the Black Point area, beginning with grading of the site and the initial construction of the golf course and the Golf Terrace and Conference Center (Terrace 1). This phase would include construction of the electric power infrastructure for the site, as well as the construction of stormwater facilities. The third phase includes completion of the golf course and a significant portion of the residential units, as well as the staff quarters. The fourth and final phase completes the residential units. The details of the proposed phasing is provided in the preliminary development agreement, but could be revisited prior to approval to assure consistency with current plans. 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 significant timing 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 Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 3.18-17 3.18 BoCC Conditions Ghapter 4 References References Bri n non Fire Department: http ://bri n nonfi re.orq/. lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth Assessment Report. February 2, 2007. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. April 30, 2007. Jefferson County, Department of Community Development. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Draft ElS. September 2007 and November 2007. Jefferson County, Department of Community Development. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final ElS. November 2007. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 2004. Jetferson County Code. Jefferson Cou nty Sheriff's Office. http://www. ieffersonsheriff . oro/. Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals, April 30, 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistrict Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. Washington Administrative Code. Washington, State of. Office of Superintendent of Public lnstruction. Brinnon School District Enrollment. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS November 2014 Chapter 4 References4-1