HomeMy WebLinkAbout1153.13 CULTURAL and ARCHAEOLOGIGAL 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 Discove ry P rotocol (Append ix O).
3.13-i Affected Environment
2007 Els
The2007 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.
SEIS
The potential for archaeological and cultural resources to be present on the site has generally
remained the same as presented in the 2007 EIS; therefore, no changes to the discussion of
existing conditions is warranted in this SEIS (see Section 3.9 and Appendix 8 of the 2007 EIS
for a description of the existing archaeological conditions).
3.13-2 lmpacts
2007 Ets
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 Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 3.13-1
3.13
Cultural and Archaeological 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
Alternativei 2 iini#.* , 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 im
to cultural and archeo ical resources would be as described in the 2007 Final EIS
3.13-3 Mitisation Measures
2007 Els
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative1,2m.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 3.13-2
3.13
Cultu ral and Archaeological Resources
site and
and 3. lt is likely
cultural resources monitoring programs would be necessary during
1
a
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.
Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation
63 O 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.
a
BoGG Gonditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternative 1, 2 ffi.
Mitiqation Measures Completed
a
a
o See Appendix O for the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and
lnadveftent Discovery Protocol, and for correspondence with DAHP and local
tribes.
sEts
ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, the
following cultural and archaeological mitigation measures would apply:
Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 3.13-3
3.13
Cultural and Archaeological Resources
The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal is a significant environmental and cultural
area, and is proposed to be closed to resort use.
a
3.13-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 3.13-4
3.13
Cultu ral and Archaeological Resources