HomeMy WebLinkAbout022Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
joe breskin <joe.breskin@gmail.com>
Monday, January 05, 2015 4:08 PM
dwjoh nson @co jefferson.wa.us
OEC Black Point Pleasant Harbor MPR DSEIS Comments
David,
In addition to the concerns raised by The Brinnon Group in the Jan2 submittal by Barbara Moore-
Lewis, Olympic Environmental Council (OEC) would add the following concerns:
POPULATION
The population of Brinnon is about 81 8 and maybe half this number of homes. Expanding the number of living
quarters to 890 residential units (Options I & 2) will have an enoffnous impact in the area in many respects,
including potable water, stormwater, sewage solids and effluents, release of CO2 into the atmosphere and loss
of CO2 soil and tree sequestration.
ECONOMICS
Few of the built units are intended for year round occupancy. (The majority of this housing (67%) would be for
short- term visitors and 33% would be for permanent residents.) 67oh or about 548 units are hoped to be filled,
but most likely the largest percentage of PT occupancy will be in the warner time of the year. The impacts to
the area call for showing an economic analysis that this resort is financially viable. We request this be done.
Has the resort company factored in the new minimum wage for employees?
Where will construction workers (80.5% out of the area) be housed? Feasibility of housing them close to the
site? Will all construction works be from WA State?
Options l&2 details are described but the No Action, which is to build a few hundred homesites, is not
detailed. So it is not being seriously considered. Yet, it is an Option and it should have comparative details so
the costs can be seen. You ask for the public to weigh in and the public should have this information to
consider. This is an omission and should be corrected.
The information should be combined with that of the marina so one grasps an overall picture of the costs and
potential impacts of the entire operation.
GLOBAL WARMING
Stripping this large area of trees and its natural grasses, soils and wetlands will release immense amount of
greenhouse gases into the ambient air. Earth removal will have a large affect on the microbial soil
community. A study needs to be done on how this will affect both the harbor life and the surrounding Brinnon
community.
1
What costs will be put to the area and state citizens? For instance, road repair from additional traffic the resort
will bring. Utility costs. Medical facilities. Taxation. This estimation should be made public up front.
Appendix M doesn't quantify the GHG releases and effects of the releases, and the mitigations are hardly
that! And for sequestration to work, even for the replanted trees, the amount will not balance out. It takes years
to regain that sequestration, whether replanted trees or new grass. Too, please factor in how this would affect
the marine life.
EFFLUENT
Class A effluent discharge from the proposed sewerage treatment plant is planned to be stored and recycled
Do not use this to recharge the aquifers! Do not use this for fire protection and inigation. It will make
firefighters ill!
There are many studies that determine recycling of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents are
unsafe. There are thousands of chemicals and many pathogens that cannot be tested, nor the cumulative
impacts. It is known that:
. microbeads from personal products pass through WWTPs into effluent
. MRSA and other pathogens remain in the sludge and the effluent
. antibiotic bacteria can be created in the WWTPs
. triclosan minimizes WWTP treatment
. effluent contains fire retardants
. effluent and well as the solids contain thousands of chemicals including chemicals of emerging concern and
POPs
More reason to not recycle the effluent:
http ://www.epa. sov/oi I 4 I 20 I 40929 - I 4-P -03 63 .pdf
NOISE:
There is an inadequate discussion ofconstruction noise resulting from stated need to crush vast amounts ofgravel as site is developed.
Presumption is that crushing would occur in batches, based on the combination of site development, related land disturbing activities and
projected needs for each development stage. Noise abatement means should be provided in a noise abatement plan that includes hours of
operation and noise abatement means and Counfy should require development of computer models to predict noise impacts at receiving
properties and ongoing monitoring to insure that projections are accurate and that noise abatement provided is in fact effective, and should
includes clauses calling for immediate remedies if abatement fails to deliver promised SPL. Continuous monitoring at receiving property that
records both peak and average SPL to be recorded during periods when crushing equipment is in operation and available for public review.
SUMMARY
This comment covers only some of the problems with the planned resort and the DSEIS. Clearly, it is not
appropriate to approve this project at this time.
Joe Breskin (Treasurer)
for Olympic Environmental Council
Jan 5, 2015
2