HomeMy WebLinkAbout129
Pleasant Harbor
Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015
Prepared by
Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
VOLUME 1 – CHAPTERS 1-6
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 i Fact Sheet
FACT SHEET
PROJECT TITLE Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Final
Supplemental EIS
PROPOSED ACTIONS Jefferson County is considering the adoption of
amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County
Code to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for
the Master Planned Resort (MPR) approved by the Board
of County Commissioners (BoCC) by Ordinance No. 01-
0128-08, adopted January 28, 2008. In 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 (MPR).
SEIS Required 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 the
proposal. Accordingly, a Draft and Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) were 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).
Please note that new information and/or analysis
presented subsequent to the Draft SEIS is indicated by
gray highlight.
SEIS ALTERNATIVES The environmental impacts of four alternatives are
analyzed in this SEIS, including three project-level
development alternatives – Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3 – 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 31-acres of
natural area would be preserved, and 2.2 million cubic
yards of cut and fill would be required for golf course
grading.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 ii Fact Sheet
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
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.
Alternative 3 – Alternative 3 is a new alternative which
has been added for consideration in this Final SEIS. It is
similar to Alternative 2, except that the size of the golf
course is reduced to 9-holes and more natural area is
preserved. Approximately 103-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 – It is assumed that the site’s
current land use designations would remain
(Comprehensive Plan MPR and Rural Residential zoning
designations) and the site would remain primarily in rural
residential use. Two scenarios are analyzed for this
alternative in this Final SEIS; Scenario A – Continuation of
existing conditions; and, Scenario B – Redevelopment of
the site under existing land use designations with single
family residential uses and a 9-hole golf course.
2007 EIS 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 Maritime Village with 890 residential units and 79,000
sq. ft. of commercial uses.
In 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 EIS. 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 iii Fact Sheet
was withdrawn or denied, and that the area would be
developed under the current zoning.
The DEIS was issued with a 45-day comment period
through October 24, 2007. Public meetings were held in
Brinnon by a Planning Commission committee on
September 11th, 18th and 25th, 2007.
Final EIS
A FEIS was issued in November 2007. The FEIS was
based on the DEIS, with responses to comments added to
Chapter 3 (Probable Significant Adverse Impact Review of
the Proposal), and the addition of a new chapter (Chapter
5), which included a summary of mitigation requirements,
technical comments, and a log of comments received on
the DEIS.
MPR APPROVAL 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.
LOCATION 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.
PROPONENT/APPLICANT Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLC
c/o Pleasant Harbor Marina
308913 Highway 101
Brinnon, WA 98320
LEAD AGENCY Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL David Goldsmith, Interim Director and Acting SEPA
Responsible Official
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4463
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 iv Fact Sheet
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT David W. Johnson, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4465
PERMITS AND APPROVALS Jefferson County – Non Project Approvals
Unified Development Code amendment to add a
section on the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
Approval of a Development Agreement between
Jefferson County and the Applicant (originally the
Statesman Group).
Local or County Permits – Project Level Approvals
Preliminary/final plat or Binding Site Plan for roads,
utilities and other infrastructure.
Stormwater permit(s) for:
- Preliminary site grading, cut and fill;
- New roads and impervious surfaces;
- Construction and operation of the resort
properties; and
- Critical Areas protection and modification.
Class IV 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).
Building permits for construction.
Fuel containment and fire plan.
State Permits
Wastewater treatment and upland disposal (Class A
recycled water) facility permits from Washington State
Department of Ecology (WDOE).
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 (W SDOT).
Well closure approval by WDOE.
Construction period air quality permits from air quality
authority.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permits for clearing from WDOE.
Water quality certification, wetlands, by WDOE.
Water System Plan Approval by WDOH.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 v Fact Sheet
SEIS AUTHORS AND
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Author of Housing and Employment, Rural Character
and Population, Aesthetics, Public Services and
Consistency with BoCC Conditions Sections.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707
Seattle, WA 98121
Peer Review Consultant
ESA Adolfson
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
Applicant Legal Representative
JT Cooke, Houlihan Law
3401 Evanston Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103
Earth
Craig A. Peck & Associates
11402 40th Avenue E.
Tacoma, WA 98446
Water Resources
Bender Consulting
19920 South Elger Bay Road
Camano Island, 98282
Plants
GeoEngineers
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98402
Fish and Wildlife
GeoEngineers
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98402
Critical Areas
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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 vi Fact Sheet
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Failsafe Canada Inc.
4628 5th Street NE
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2E 7C3
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc.
710 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Light and Glare
Michael Bornyk
Signature Lighting Manufacturers
Las Vegas, Nevada
Water and Sewer System
Craig A. Peck & Associates
11402 40th Avenue E.
Tacoma, WA 98446
Consultares Engineering
PO Box 608
Issaquah, WA 98027
H R Esvelt Engineering
6450 N.E. Brigham Road
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Earnings Analysis
Wright Johnson, LLC
205 Worth Avenue, Suite 201
Palm Beach, FL 33480
ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS 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.
LOCATION OF BACK-
GROUND INFORMATION 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 vii Fact Sheet
DATE OF DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS ISSUANCE November 19, 2014
DATE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
EIS COMMENTS WERE DUE January 5, 2015
DATE OF DRAFT
SEIS OPEN HOUSE An Open House with subsequent Planning Commission
meeting was held on 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 was
held at 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
DATE OF FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS ISSUANCE December 9, 2015
AVAILABILITY OF
THE FINAL 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:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/brinnon_
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 dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 viii Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 – CHAPTERS 1-6
Page
FACT SHEET ...................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 – SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 SEIS Alternatives ........................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts ........................................................... 1-3
1.4 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......... 1-21
CHAPTER 2 – DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL and ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Background ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Environmental Review Process .................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Site Description .......................................................................................... 2-5
2.4 Objectives of the Proposal ........................................................................ 2-15
2.5 Description of the Proposal and Alternatives ............................................. 2-16
2.6 Separate Actions ...................................................................................... 2-42
2.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation of Proposal ...... 2-42
CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES
and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
3.1 Earth........ ................................................................................................ 3.1-1
3.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................... 3.2-1
3.3 Plants ...................................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.4 Fish and Wildlife ...................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 Shellfish ................................................................................................... 3.5-1
3.6 Shorelines ............................................................................................... 3.6-1
3.7 Critical Areas ........................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.8 Energy and Natural Resources ................................................................ 3.8-1
3.9 Transportation ......................................................................................... 3.9-1
3.10 Air Quality .............................................................................................. 3.10-1
3.11 Housing and Employment ...................................................................... 3.11-1
3.12 Rural Character and Population ............................................................. 3.12-1
3.13 Archaeological and Cultural Resources ................................................. 3.13-1
3.14 Light and Glare ...................................................................................... 3.14-1
3.15 Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 3.15-1
3.16 Utilities…. .............................................................................................. 3.16-1
3.17 Public Services ...................................................................................... 3.17-1
3.18 Relationship to Plans and Policies (BoCC Conditions) ........................... 3.18-1
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 ix Table of Contents
CHAPTER 4 – KEY TOPICS
CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS
CHAPTER 6 – REFERENCES
VOLUME 2 – EXHIBITS 1 and 2
Exhibit 1 – Comment Letters and Responses
Exhibit 2 – Planning Commission Meeting Comments and Responses
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 x Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Summary Matrix ........................................................................................ 1-4
2-1 2007 EIS and SEIS Alternatives Comparison ........................................... 2-20
2-2 SEIS Action Alternatives Comparison –Residential and Commercial ........ 2-23
2-3 Action Alternatives Comparison ................................................................ 2-30
3.2-1 Annual Recharge to Aquifer under Alternatives 1 and 2 ......................... 3.2-12
3.9-1 Proposed Parking Capacity by Alternative ............................................. 3.9-10
3.9-2 Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative ...................................... 3.9-11
3.9-3 Cumulative Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative ................... 3.9-11
3.10-1 Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources ........................................................... 3.10-4
3.10-2 Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources ........................................................... 3.10-6
3.10-3 Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources ........................................................... 3.10-6
3.10-4 Alternative 2 – Estimated GHG Emissions ............................................. 3.10-7
3.11-1 Jefferson County Housing Characteristics, 2010 ................................... 3.11-2
3.11-2 Brinnon Housing Characteristics, 2010 .................................................. 3.11-2
3.11-3 Jefferson County, Non-Farm Employment, 2013 ................................... 3.11-3
3.11-4 Jefferson County And Washington State – Resident Labor Force And
Employment ........................................................................................... 3.11-3
3.11-5 Number of Employees per Job Sector ................................................... 3.11-6
3.17-1 Fire District #4 – Fire and EMS Calls 2008-2012 ................................... 3.17-2
3.17-2 Brinnon School District Enrollment: 2008-2012 ...................................... 3.17-9
3.17-3 Pleasant Harbor Estimated Student Generation –
Alternatives 1 & 2................................................................................. 3.17-11
3.18-1 BoCC Conditions ................................................................................... 3.19-2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 xi Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 2007 EIS Site Boundary ............................................................................. 2-3
2-2 Regional Map ............................................................................................. 2-6
2-3 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................ 2-7
2-4 SEIS Site Boundary .................................................................................... 2-8
2-5 Kettles ...................................................................................................... 2-12
2-6 Wetlands and Streams ............................................................................. 2-13
2-7 Alternative 1 Site Plan .............................................................................. 2-17
2-8 Alternative 2 Site Plan .............................................................................. 2-18
2-9 Alternative 3 Site Plan .............................................................................. 2-19
2-10 Phasing Map – Alternative 2 ..................................................................... 2-38
2-11 Phasing Map – Alternative 3 ..................................................................... 2-39
3.1-1 Grading Plan – Alternative 2 .................................................................... 3.1-4
3.1-2 Grading Plan – Alternative 3 .................................................................... 3.1-5
3.2-1 Existing Drainage Basins ......................................................................... 3.2-5
3.2-2 Soil Infiltration .......................................................................................... 3.2-6
3.2-3 Alternative 1 – Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort
Building and Completion ........................................................................ 3.2-10
3.2-4 Alternative 2 - Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort
Building and Completion ........................................................................ 3.2-11
3.2-5 Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage Basins ............................................ 3.2-14
3.3-1 Forested Subareas .................................................................................. 3.3-3
3.4-1 Wildlife Corridors ..................................................................................... 3.4-6
3.12-1 Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity ............................................... 3.12-3
3.18-1 Zoning Map.......................................................................................... 3.18-15
\
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 xii Table of Contents
VOLUME 3 - APPENDICES
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 Report
SEIS Soil and Earth Impacts and Mitigation
F. Water Resources Reports
Groundwater Impact 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
Vegetation Supplemental Analysis
Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan
H. Habitat Management Plan
I. WDFW Tunicate Monitoring Plan
J. Wetland Mitigation Report
K. Energy and Natural Resources Reports
Electrical Load Memo
Electrical Capacity Letter from Mason County PUD
Compliance with LEED Standards
L. Transportation Impact Study
M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report
N. An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners’ Condition 63g for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR)
O. Cultural Resources
Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery
Protocol
DAHP Response to Cultural Resources Plan
Skokomish Tribe Response to Cultural Resources Plan
P. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards
Q. Utility Reports
General Water 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 Sheriff’s Office
MOU with School District #46
MOU with Jefferson Healthcare
MOU with Jefferson County RE: Housing
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
December 2015 xiii Table of Contents
MOU with Jefferson Transit Authority
S. BoCC Conditions
Proposed Public Amenities
Draft Brinnon MPR Zoning Code and Proposed Zoning Map
Draft Development Agreement
Chapter 1
Summary
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-1 Summary
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a summary of the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Final Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS). It 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 Chapter 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. Chapter 4 of
this Final SEIS discusses Key Topic areas that relate to several common subjects that
emerged in comments on the Draft SEIS, and Chapter 5 contains a summary of comments
received on the Draft SEIS. Volume 2, Exhibits 1 and 2 contain the individual comment
letters and transcript of the verbal comments received along with responses to each specific
comment.
1.1.1 Background
In 2006 the Statesman Group of Companies (Statesmen) applied to Jefferson County for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment for a Master 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. In 2008, the approval of the Brinnon MPR 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 EIS.
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 area are 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 Chapter
2. In 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. In 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 Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-2 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). In addition,
based in part on comments received on the Draft SEIS, a new alterative reflecting a smaller
golf course (Alternative 3) has been added to this Final SEIS. As a result of the changes
since the issuance of the 2007 EIS, 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, Impacts,
and Mitigation Measures from both the 2007 EIS and this SEIS for each element of the
environment. Please note that new information and/or analysis presented subsequent to the
Draft SEIS is indicated by gray highlight.
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 EIS. The amount of
commercial square footage currently proposed is approximately one-quarter less than that
proposed under the 2007 EIS.
1.2.1 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 for the current Pleasant Harbor SEIS represents a modification to the site plan
proposed in the 2007 EIS. 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 Maritime Village from the shoreline area to an upland area.
Alternative 1 includes a golf course layout similar to the 2007 EIS, 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 Maritime 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
Alternative 2 differs 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-3 Summary
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,
and preserves more natural vegetation. Revisions to the golf course design result in more
angular fairways 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.
1.2.3 Alternative 3
Based on comments received on the Draft SEIS and other factors, an additional
development alternative (Alternative 3) has been added for analysis in this Final SEIS.
Alternative 3 proposes a smaller 9-hole golf course with associated putting green practice
area, as compared to the full 18-hole golf course assumed under Alternatives 1 and 2. With
the smaller golf course, less clearing of vegetation would occur on the site, and more natural
area would be preserved. For example, approximately 103 acres (45 percent of the site)
would be in natural area under Alternative 3, compared to approximately 31 acres (13
percent of the site) under Alternative 1, and 80 acres (35 percent of the site) under
Alternative 2. The number of residential units, the amount of commercial space and parking
and the number, configuration and heights of all buildings would remain the same as
Alternative 2
1.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following table (Table 1-1) presents the key probable significant environmental impacts
for each element of the environment evaluated for the alternatives. This summary table is
not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained
in Chapter 3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-4 Summary
TABLE 1.1
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
Earth
Construction Impacts
Subsurface soils
Approximately 2.2 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.
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.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
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 would be anticipated to occur within the
existing topography.
Scenario B
While some grading would be required, given the lesser
amount of roadway and building construction, it is
assumed that grading would be less than that which
would occur under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Erosion
Approximately 170-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 occurred either on
slopes or close to the toe of slopes. Erosion could
contribute to sediment in wetlands and streams.
Alternative 2 would require approximately 25 percent less
surface area disturbance 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.
Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, but would
require approximately 16 percent less surface
disturbance than Alternative 2.
Scenario A
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 would be anticipated to occur within the
existing topography.
Scenario B
While some clearing would be required, given the lesser
amount of roadway and building construction, it is
assumed that such would be less than that which would
occur under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Maritime Village 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 Maritime Village Area compared to the 2007 EIS
Proposed Action.
Structures would be built into the existing slope.
Commercial and residential development would be
consolidated into one 3-story building at the intersection
of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, further reducing
impacts on the existing topography in the Maritime
Village Area.
Structures would be built into the existing slope.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
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 would be anticipated to occur within the
existing topography.
Scenario B
Scenario B assumes that the site would develop as a
single-family residential area along with a 9-hole golf
course and retail area consistent with underlying
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations.
Impacts would be anticipated to be less than under
Alternatives 1-3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-5 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
Black Point Area
Earth conditions would be similar to those described in
the 2007 EIS, and impacts as a result of site grading
would be similar.
Alternative 2 was modified to improve constructability by
refining development in the existing topographic
conditions, resulting in the use of one half less fill when
compared to Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
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.
Scenario B
Scenario B assumes that the site would develop as a
single-family residential area along with a 9-hole golf
course and retail area consistent with underlying
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. Impacts
would be anticipated to be less than under Alternatives
1-3.
Water Resources
Surface Water
The two small non fish-bearing streams within the
Maritime Village Area would be left in their native
condition, 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 -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.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new temporary or permanent impacts to
surface water conditions.
Scenario B
Overall, the potential for impacts to surface water
resources would be less than under Alternatives 1, 2
and 3
Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge
After completion of the resort, aquifer recharge to the
sea level aquifer would be approximately 840 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 construction of
roads and buildings. Infiltration of precipitation would
occur more quickly due to changes in the soil moisture
associated with golf course irrigation.
This alternative would result in an aquifer recharge of
approximately 804 acre-feet per year. This would be
higher than current conditions, but less than Alternative 1
due to the reduced amount of impervious surfaces and
increased vegetation under Alternative 2.
This alternative would result in an aquifer recharge of
approximately 844 acre-feet per year. This would be
higher than current conditions and Alternative 1 due to
reduced irrigation needs related to the smaller, 9-hole
golf course.
Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new temporary or permanent impacts to
groundwater or aquifer recharge.
Scenario B
Overall, the amount of required water rights, water use
and potential for impacts would be less than under
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Stormwater
Under Alternative 1, 87 percent 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
Impacts 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 pervious
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
of change under Alternative 2 because of significantly
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
The existing stormwater collection system which
discharges directly into Pleasant Harbor would be
maintained.
Scenario B
Overall, the potential for impacts would be less than
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-6 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
infiltration system would be designed around the
perimeter of Kettle B, as well as a direct piped overflow
connection to Kettle C for less frequent, larger rainfall
events. The use of reuse water for irrigation would be
computer controlled to prevent runoff.
To prevent runoff entering the Hood Canal in Basins 1,
2, and 12, embankments that change the direction of
surface flow would direct runoff away from Hood Canal
into natural and created detention areas This
modification 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 current edition of the WDOE’s
Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington together with WDOE’s adopted Low Impact
Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget
Sound, January 2005.
higher percentages of impervious surface being
constructed in those areas.
Potential Construction Impacts
Stormwater impacts would be largely related to
potential water erosion of disturbed and exposed soils.
During construction, stormwater management
measures would be implemented to reduce potential
impacts for sediment-laden water and wind-blown
particles to leave the site. Grading activities could
cause sediment-laden waters to cross the property line
without proper mitigation measures. To minimize this
potential impact, detailed final designs would consider
redirection of runoff into different basins with better
permeability.
Similar to Alternative 1.
Similar to Alternative 2.
Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new temporary impacts.
Scenario B
Overall, the potential for impacts would be less than
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Potential Operational Impacts
The replacement of existing surfaces and vegetation
with less permeable and impervious surfaces would
increase the runoff that enters the stormwater
management facilities. With implementation of the
proposed stormwater control system, significant
impacts from surface water runoff would not be
anticipated. The replacement of naturally vegetated
areas with newly 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 impervious surfaces would add
additional pollutants to the site from gasoline, oils, and
other mechanical fluids. These pollutants have the
potential to degrade the quality of water being infiltrated
into the ground if not properly treated.
Similar to Alternative 1.
Similar to Alternative 2. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new operational impacts.
Scenario B
Overall, the potential for impacts would be less than
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-7 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
Plants
Construction
Proposed development would disturb approximately 87
percent of the site and existing plant communities.
These areas would be cleared of vegetation and new,
maintained landscaping would be provided in pervious
areas.
Approximately 31-acres of existing vegetation would be
retained.
Proposed development would disturb approximately 65
percent of the site and existing plant communities. These
areas would be cleared of vegetation and new,
maintained landscaping would be provided in pervious
areas.
Approximately 80-acres of existing vegetation would be
retained.
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 pervious
areas.
Approximately 103 acres of existing vegetation would
be retained.
Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new temporary construction impacts to
existing plant habitats and species
Scenario B
The removal of plants and vegetation would occur, but
at a lower level than under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Maritime 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
building and parking construction.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition and
existing habitats that are intact would remain intact and
degraded habitat would remain degraded.
Scenario B
Development would result in the removal of plants and
vegetation but at a lower level than under Alternatives
1, 2 and 3, and it is assumed that more natural area
would be retained on the site.
Black Point Area
Designated vegetated areas would be undisturbed, and
the 200-foot riparian buffer along the southern shoreline
edge would be retained. During construction viable
trees within the proposed development areas that could
be transplanted would be relocated temporarily.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition and
existing habitats that are intact would remain intact and
degraded habitat would remain degraded.
Scenario B
Development would result in the removal of plants and
vegetation but at a lower level than under Alternatives
1, 2 and 3, and it is assumed that more natural area
would be retained on the site.
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. Water quality would be monitored at
existing monitoring stations, and the resort would be
required to notify the County if any problems or
changes in water quality occurred. Further, the resort
would participate in rectifying any prob lems. 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. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new impacts to fish and wildlife.
Scenario B
On an overall basis, the potential for impacts under this
scenario would be less than under Alternatives 1, 2 and
3. The small 9-hole golf course would retain more open
space, but because single family homes would be built
along the southern site boundary, greater impacts to the
natural habitat on the southern beachfront riparian edge
could result.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-8 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
Wildlife
Wildlife is largely isolated from the site by U.S. Hwy
101, but some areas of temperate forests could allow
for wildlife corridors. Wildlife resources would be
protected through providing natural areas from
development and disturbance. A trail leading from the
beach to the top of the bluff along the shoreline buffer
would be decommissioned and access to the shoreline
from the site would not be permitted. Disturbed areas
within the 200-foot buffer would be restored and planted
with native vegetation.
Development construction may temporarily displace
bald eagles during construction, but the habitat they
potentially use would remain undisturbed. Birds,
mammals, and reptiles on the site could be temporarily
displaced or disturbed during construction, but there
should not be significant impacts as designated
vegetated areas would remain undisturbed during and
after construction. Natural and undisturbed areas would
allow wildlife to continue to utilize the site. Rainier elk
are not currently found at the site and would be
discouraged from site use through exclusionary fencing,
as there is not suitable habitat and elk have the
potential to damage property.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new impacts to fish and wildlife.
Scenario B
On an overall basis, the potential for impacts under this
scenario would be less than under Alternatives 1, 2 and
3. The small 9-hole golf course would retain more open
space, but because single family homes would be built
along the southern site boundary, greater impacts to the
natural habitat on the southern beachfront riparian edge
could result.
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 changes to the water
quality from pollution entering the Hood Canal.
However, surface water runoff would be collected and
treated on-site, then discharged to an on-site infiltration
system. No direct discharge of golf course fairway
runoff would enter Hood Canal.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present condition, and there
would be no new impacts to fish and wildlife.
Scenario B
On an overall basis, the potential for impacts under this
scenario would be less than under Alternatives 1, 2 and
3. The small 9-hole golf course would retain more open
space, but because single family homes would be built
along the southern site boundary, greater impacts to
the natural habitat on the southern beachfront riparian
edge could result.
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
condition 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 treatment system and proposed
stormwater management system would improve water
quality.
Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, but less
clearing would occur, resulting in a lower potential for
runoff under Alternative 2.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
The site would remain in its present conditions and
there would be no new impacts to shellfish.
Scenario B
Overall, significant impacts to shellfish would not be
expected if residences are properly permitted, and a
vegetated buffer is maintained to protect the southerly
bluff and control stormwater. Septic tanks and
drainfields would need to be built or upgraded.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-9 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
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 stormwater from new
sources would be captured and treated prior to
discharge. Flows would be maintained and water quality
would not be degraded.
The 200-foot riparian buffer along the southern
shoreline edge would be retained, public access would
be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the
bluff, and residences would be set back no less than 30
feet from the steep slope.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would
occur and shoreline conditions would remain relatively
unchanged.
Scenario B
Homes would be located in the southern portion of the
site, and would need to be set well back from the bluff
to meet geological hazard requirements and limit water
quality concerns. It is possible that the construction of
single family residences could lead to demand for
single-purpose docks. In general, no additional
shoreline impacts would be anticipated.
Critical Areas
Wetlands
Development would result in the loss of approximately
20,700 sq. ft. of wetland area associated with Wetland
B. Soils would be covered with approximately 100 feet
of earth and an impermeable layer. The kettle and pond
would be filled 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 waterfowl and amphibians.
Kettle construction would require vegetation removal on
the slopes and in the buffer of Wetland B. The filling of
Wetland B would result in the loss of habitat used
primarily by birds, mammals, and reptiles.
To offset the fill of Wetland B, compensatory mitigation
is proposed to be provided in another large kettle south
of Wetland B. Development under Alternative 1 would
retain Wetlands C and D, but development would
encroach on wetland buffer areas. Wetland buffer
averaging would minimize impacts to wetland buffers.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would
occur and critical areas including wetlands would
remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Existing wetlands and wetland buffers would be
retained consistent with applicable regulations.
Upgrades to stormwater management would be
piecemeal, in contrast to the construction of a new
coordinated system that would occur under SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Aquifer Recharge Areas - Impacts to aquifer recharge areas are included in the analysis in the Water Resources section of this SEIS.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas - Impacts to fish and wildlife conservation areas are included in the analysis in the Fish and Wildlife section in this SEIS.
Geologically Hazardous Areas - Impacts to geologically hazardous areas are included in the analysis in the Earth section in this SEIS.
Energy and Natural Resources
Energy Use and Consumption
New development on the site would use energy,
resulting in an increase in energy levels compared to
existing conditions. Approximately 19,337 kVA (about
15.46 MW) would be needed for a build out of the
proposed project, requiring the construction of a new
substation and associated distribution feeders.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
Limited existing uses of energy and natural resources
would continue.
Scenario B
Potential impacts to energy and natural resources
would be limited, compared to the higher intensity
development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-10 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
Propane and Gasoline Generation
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 Terrace
buildings.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would
occur and limited existing uses of energy and natural
resources would continue.
Scenario B
Potential impacts to energy and natural resources
would be limited, compared to the higher intensity
development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Geothermal
Geothermal exchange would be used as an alternative
energy source. The earth would 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.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would
occur and limited existing uses of energy and natural
resources would continue.
Scenario B
Potential impacts to energy and natural resources
would be limited, compared to the higher intensity
development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
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 energy
consumption.
A cogeneration unit would not be included under
Alternative 2.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would
occur and limited existing uses of energy and natural
resources would continue.
Scenario B
Potential impacts to energy and natural resources
would be limited, compared to the higher intensity
development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
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 Indoor
Environmental Quality; 5 potential points in Innovation
in Design; and 4 potential points in Regional Priority.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would
occur and limited existing uses of energy and natural
resources would continue.
Scenario B
Potential impacts to energy and natural resources
would be limited, compared to the higher intensity
development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Transportation
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.
Same as Alternative 1, 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
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site
would occur and the existing circulation system remain
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-11 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
Hwy 101 would service all traffic to and from the Golf
Course/Resort. A secondary gated access road would
be used for emergency vehicles and staff/maintenance
access only. A transit layover and bus zone would be
accommodated on-site within the southeast quadrant of
the realigned U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road
intersection. The applicant also proposes to purchase
two shuttles to transport 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 Village and the Marina.
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 U.S. Hwy 101/Black Point Road.
east of U.S. Hwy 101 on Black Point Road. relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
It is presumed that the site would continue to develop
as a single-family residential area with 30 residential
units and a 9-hole golf course based on the underlying
rural residential zoning, with fewer modifications to the
existing circulation system on the site.
Trip Generation
Land use would remain generally the same as
evaluated in the 2007 SEIS. Although the land use
changes slightly under Alternative 1, overall trip
generation and distribution and assignment of the
proposal remains similar.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site
would occur and existing traffic volumes would
continue.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course based on the underlying rural residential
zoning, with total gross trip generation estimated at
1,100 daily trips.
Level of Service
The Level of Service (LOS) at U.S. Hwy 101 and Black
Point Road would not change from the 2007 EIS, even
with potential reductions from the 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.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site
would occur and existing LOS would continue.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course based on the underlying rural residential
zoning. Less traffic impacts would occur as compared
to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Site Access
Stop-controlled entering/exit movements at the project
site driveways 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 southbound left-turn lane is warranted on U.S.
Hwy 101 approaching Black Point Road, and Alternative
1 would include this improvement. A northbound 60-foot
right-turn pocket with 100-foot taper was warranted and
is included under Alternative 1 as well.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
Existing site access conditions would remain.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course based on the underlying rural residential
zoning. Fewer changes to site access would occur.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-12 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
WDFW Driveway Access to Pleasant Harbor Boat
Launch
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 of this
intersection would require fill and topography changes.
It would require property transfer or stringent access
easements on private property to allow public access to
the Marina and Golf Resort properties. Mixing project-
generated traffic and WDFW boat launch traffic could
cause congestion during peak use of the 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
within WDFW-managed property; topography and fill
impacts to public lands would be substantially less than
under Alternative 1. This access roadway would only
serve the WDFW boat launch and is preferred by WDFW
representatives.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site
would occur and existing traffic and the access
driveway onto Black Point Road from the WDFW Boat
Launch would remain.
Scenario B
It is assumed that existing traffic and the access
driveway onto Black Point Road from the WDFW Boat
Launch would remain.
Construction Impacts
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 the 10-year build out period. During construction
trips generated would include employee trips,
transportation of construction materials and equipment,
and miscellaneous trips.
Site preparation and earthwork construction would
require approximately 20-40 employees/contractors on-
site during weekdays. Construction of infrastructure and
specific buildings would require an additional 30-40
employees/contractors on-site. During peak
construction this could require 75-100 employees,
resulting in upwards of 250 vehicle trips.
Larger trucks 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.
In 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 traffic
impacts.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site and
no construction impacts would occur.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course based on the underlying rural residential
zoning. Less construction impacts would occur as
compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Parking Demand
A total of 1,536 parking spaces would be supplied
under Alternative 1, through a mix of surface parking
and “parkades” (structured parking below buildings).
This parking supply is greater than the weekday
demand of 1,329 stalls and weekend demand of 1,353
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 supply is greater than the weekday demand of
1,353 stalls and weekend demand of 1,389 stalls.
With the cumulative impact of the parking demand from
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site
would occur and existing (limited) parking demands
would continue.
Scenario B
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-13 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
With the cumulative impact of the parking demand from
the marina, the entire site (including the marina)
generates a weekday surplus of 207 stalls and a
weekend surplus of 92 stalls.
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 with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course based on the underlying rural residential
zoning. Less parking demand would occur as
compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Air Quality
Construction
Due to the high amount of excavation and grading
associated with the golf course design under Alternative
1, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be greater
than under Alternative 2. A GHG Emissions analysis
was performed only for Alternative 2.
Scope 1 Emissions: Construction could result in 5483.62
tCO2e 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 carbon
loss, and soil organic carbon loss.
Scope 2 Emissions: 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 Emissions: Construction could result in 9,673.66
tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 9,130.52 tCO2e
with mitigation. Scope 3 emissions sources for
construction include heavy equipment battery/on-site
mining combustion, material hauling trip emissions,
vehicle trip emissions, organic waste (wood), and
electricity transmission and distribution losses.
Under Alternative 3, excavation and grading would be
the same as Alternative 2 (1 million cubic yards).
However, more natural area would be preserved on the
site (103 acres under Alternative 3 v. 80 acres under
Alternative 2). Construction-related GHG emissions
would, therefore, be expected to be less than those
accounted for under Alternative 2.
Scenario A
It is assumed that that no redevelopment of the site
would occur and there would be no construction air
quality impacts.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course based on the underlying rural residential
zoning and potential impacts regarding construction-
related greenhouse gas emissions would be limited, as
compared to the higher intensity development proposed
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Operation
Impacts would be similar to those discussed under
Alternative 2.
Scope 1 Emissions: 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. W astewater methane
(on-site) and fertilizer application would be additional
emissions sources.
Scope 2 Emissions: 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 Emissions: 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 total emissions (construction and
operation) with mitigation would be 35,894.20 tCO2e.
Operational emissions could be expected to be similar to
or slightly less than those described for Alternative 2 due
to smaller, 9-hole golf course.
Scenario A
It is assumed that existing limited levels of air quality
impacts, energy use and GHG emissions would be
expected to continue.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole
golf course 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 1, 2
and 3
Employment and Housing
Housing
Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions
Construction of the project would occur over time in
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-14 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
response to market conditions; the assumed timeframe
in this SEIS is 10 years. It is estimated that on average,
up to 175 positions could be associated with facility
construction per year. The applicant proposes to
upgrade existing RV facilities on the site on a temporary
basis to provide temporary housing for construction
workers.
No redevelopment of the site and no temporary housing
impacts would occur.
Scenario B
Some temporary construction employment would occur
as associated with building 30 new residences and a 9-
hole golf course.
Long-Term Housing Conditions
Under Alternative 1, 890 residential units would be
provided on the site. Of the total, 278 (33%) 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.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur.
Scenario B
Limited additional employment could be added to the
site as compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Housing stock could increase by approximately 30 new
residences.
Indirect Housing Conditions
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.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site or indirect housing
impacts would occur.
Scenario B
Limited indirect housing impacts would occur as
compared to Alternatives 1-3.
Employment
Construction Employment
Site preparation and construction activities would
require new temporary construction employment
opportunities during the 10-year build out period. It is
now estimated that the project could generate up to
1,750 total jobs over the course of the 10-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 discontinued once
construction was complete. It is estimated that
approximately 19.5 percent of construction jobs that
would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could
be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMI.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment or construction employment would
occur.
Scenario B
Some temporary construction employment would occur
as associated with building 30 new residences and a 9 -
hole golf course, but this would be less than that which
would occur Alternatives 1-3.
Operational Employment
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 food service, med-spa/grotto,
maintenance and security, and environmental standards
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site and no new operational
employment would be added to the site.
Scenario B
Some employment would occur as associated with the
9-hole golf course. Employment would be less than
would occur under Alternatives 1-3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-15 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
and safety management. New employment could help to
lower the county’s unemployment rate, depending on
several factors. It 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 AMI.
Indirect Employment Impacts
During construction, it is possible that some nearby
businesses could 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 increased retail and service spending
and local businesses.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site and no indirect
employment impacts would occur.
Scenario B
Some indirect employment could occur as associated
with the 9-hole golf course. Indirect employment would
be less than would occur under Alternatives 1-3.
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.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and there
would be no construction impacts.
.Scenario B
While some construction employment could occur as
associated with the 9-hole golf course and new
residences, this would be less than would occur under
Alternatives 1-3.
Operation
Population
The proposed project would provide 890 residential units,
with 278 for permanent residents, and 560 for short-term
use. With an assumed two persons per household, the
permanent resident population would be 556, and a
permanent staff population of 208 (within the 52 staff
units), resulting in 764 permanent residents. This would
result in an 95 percent increase in population in Brinnon.
Short-term 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 the summer.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
Existing and population conditions on the site would
remain relatively unchanged.
.Scenario B
Potential impacts to population and rural character
conditions would remain generally as described in the
2007 Final EIS, with an permanent population increase
of approximately 15-20 persons. Population impacts
would be much less than Alternatives 1-3.
Rural Character
Site would be transformed from a primarily vacant,
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 development and commercial and
recreational amenities on the site would increase, to a
Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to Alternative 1,
but approximately 80-acres (33 percent of the site) would
be preserved, and an additional 133-acres would be
pervious area with landscaping, golf course fairways, and
pedestrian trails.
Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to Alternative
1, but approximately 103-acres (45 percent of the site)
would be preserved, and an additional 100-acres would
be pervious area with landscaping, golf course
fairways, and pedestrian trails.
Scenario A
Existing rural character and population conditions,
which are generally characterized by low density
residential development with a remote, rural character,
would remain relatively unchanged.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-16 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
density of 3.85 residential dwellings per acre.
In general, the type, character, and pattern 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, preserving 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 of the site) would be
preserved, and an additional 177-acres would be
pervious area with landscaping, golf course fairways,
and pedestrian trails.
Scenario B
Potential impacts to rural character conditions would
remain generally as described in the 2007 Final EIS,
with an permanent population increase of
approximately 15-20 persons. Impacts would be less
than Alternatives 1-3.
Indirect Impacts
New development would contribute to residential and
employment growth, as well as intensification of land
uses in the community and county. The development
would also cumulatively increase vehicular traffic on
surrounding roads, and the demand for goods and
services. This could indirectly generate new
development in the area.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site and no indirect population
or rural character impacts would occur.
Scenario B
Limited indirect impacts would be anticipated as
compared to Alternatives 1-3.
Cultural and Archaeological Resources
Prehistoric and historic archaeological resources could
be present at the site. To avoid potentially adverse
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 Preservation
staff, and tribal representatives prior to adjusting the
monitoring schedule.
Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 but the
potential to encounter archaeological deposits would be
less due to the lower amount of excavation and grading
associated with the golf course design.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site and no
excavation or grading would occur and therefore, no
impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would
be anticipated.
Scenario B
The construction of residences and a small golf course
on the Black Point area would cover much of the same
area as SEIS Alternatives 1-3, and therefore the
potential to encounter cultural resources during
construction could be similar to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Light 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 anticipated to
be significant.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
It is assumed that no redevelopment of the site and no
temporary construction lighting would occur.
Scenario B
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 constructed within the
site. The level of construction-related light and glare
generated on the site would be less than that under
Alternatives 1-3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-17 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
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 reduce 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 traffic. Because of the
use of low-reflectivity building glazing and building
materials, significant glare impacts are not anticipated.
The preservation of natural areas would also help limit
potential light and glare impacts off-site.
Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those
under Alternative 1, but Alternative 2 would preserve a
greater amount of natural area, which could provide a
greater visual buffer at site borders, and could prevent
more off-site light trespass than under Alternative 1.
Impacts would be similar to those described under
Alternative 2, but Alternative 3 would preserve a greater
amount of natural area.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
limited rural residential light and glare conditions would
remain relatively unchanged
Scenario B
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 constructed within the site. The
level of light and glare generated on the site would be
less than that under Alternatives 1-3.
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. Structures 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. Landscaping
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.
Same as Alternative 2. Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
aesthetic conditions and views to the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
The aesthetic character of the site would generally be
more consistent with the surrounding area as compared
to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
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 create large, gently graded sloping areas to
accommodate the golf course design. Buildings within
the Golf Course Resort area would range from one to
four stories.
The existing aesthetic character of the southern portion
of this area would remain as under existing conditions,
as no development would be located in proximity to the
beach and bluffs, and a riparian buffer would preserve
the shoreline environment along the south/southwest
bluff of the peninsula.
Aesthetic impacts would be similar but reduced when
compared to Alternative 1 as the golf course layout
requires less cut and fill, preserves 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 existing conditions.
Aesthetic impacts would be similar to Alternative 2.
Although more of the site would be left in a natural
area, this would primarily be concentrated internal to
the site, and views to the site would generally remain
similar to Alternative 2.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
aesthetic conditions and views to the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
The site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residences and a 9-hole golf
course based on the underlying rural residential zoning.
The aesthetic character of the site would generally be
more consistent with the surrounding area as compared
to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Utilities
Construction
Water
A new water distribution system would be built under or
near roadways to reduce the need for clearing and
grading. Construction activities related to this system
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site and no construction
impacts would occur.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-18 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
may include temporary service disruptions, noise, and
dust during construction and constructio n-related traffic
impacts during materials delivery.
Scenario B
Water would continue to be provided existing
community wells or individual wells, and few
construction impacts would be anticipated.
Sewer
A new sewer collection system would be built on
easements or under or near roadways for efficient
conveyance. Construction activities related to this
system may include temporary service disruptions,
noise, and dust during construction and construction-
related traffic impacts during materials delivery.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site and no construction
impacts would occur.
Scenario B
Sewage and wastewater would continue to be treated
by individual septic systems and drainfields, and few
construction impacts would be anticipated.
Operation
Water
A multi-purpose utility district is proposed to own,
operate, and maintain the new water system. Water
rights were granted by WDOE, and in addition, 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 gpd/ERU through the
use of low flow plumbing fixtures.
Golf course irrigation and fire protection needs would be
provided with rainwater and water 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 reconfigured by
mass grading, and would have a volume capacity of
approximately 120 million gallons.
Same as Alternative 2.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
water system infrastructure on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Water would continue to be provided existing
community wells or individual wells. Overall, utility
demands would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and
3, but coordinated systems to serve the site would not
be developed.
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 corner of the 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 Shelton, and from the hauling
of fuel for standby generators 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 1.
Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and the
existing sewer system and demands on the site would
remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Sewage and wastewater would continue to be treated
by individual septic systems and drainfields. Overall,
utility demands would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1,
2 and 3, but coordinated systems to serve the site
would not be developed. Individual septic systems with
drainfields that leach nutrients into surface waters are
believed to contribute to low oxygen levels in Hood
Canal
Telecommunications
Satellite internet service would be provided. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
telecommunications conditions and demands (limited)
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-19 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
on the site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Overall, utility demands would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but coordinated systems to
serve the site would not be developed.
Solid Waste
The amount of solid waste generated at the site would
substantially increase from existing uses. It is assumed
that the residential units could generate up to 1,364
tons of solid waste per year, and commercial uses
could 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
utilized.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
solid waste collection and demands for service on the
site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Solid waste pickup and disposal would need to be
coordinated with a local provider. Overall, utility
demands would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and
3, but coordinated systems to serve the site would not
be developed.
Public Services
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Construction
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 service calls related to the
inspection of the site and potential construction-related
accidents and injuries.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing
units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but with correspondingly less
revenue to support additional services.
Operation
New development would result in an increase in the
number of calls for fire and emergency medical services
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 services until the Property Value
Assessment is reflected in the Resort’s tax payments.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing
units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but with correspondingly less
revenue to support additional services.
Police Services
Construction
Construction activities could result in an increased
demand for police services during the 10 year
construction period due to trespassing, construction site
theft, vandalism, and traffic incidents due to
construction traffic. By securing the site and using on-
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-20 Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternative
site security staff and systems, impacts would be short-
term and would not be substantial. Existing staffing and
equipment are anticipated to be sufficient during the
build out period.
Scenario B
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing
units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but with correspondingly less
revenue to support additional services.
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 Sheriff’s
Office are not anticipated.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing
units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but with correspondingly less
revenue to support additional services.
Public Schools
Residential development would generate additional
student enrollment and demand in the Brinnon School
District, which would occur incrementally as the site is
developed. The estimated increase in the student
population would be 24 students in grades K-8, and 20
high school students, for a total of 44 additional
students. The execution of an MOA would contribute to
exploring ways to increase revenue to the District’s
budget.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing
units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but with correspondingly less
revenue to support additional services.
Health Services
The increase in permanent residents, resort visitors,
and staff could result in increased demand for health
care services. Services could be related to accidental
injury or unanticipated illness, though permanent
residents and employees would have other needs that
require doctors visits. The resort would provide clinic
space on-site, and train select resort staff as first
responders. With these measures, significant impacts to
health care services would not be anticipated.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Scenario A
No redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain
relatively unchanged.
Scenario B
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing
units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but with correspondingly less
revenue to support additional services.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-21 Summary
1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANT
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
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 EIS, 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, if 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 EIS
No mitigation measures were specifically proposed relating to topography and soils in the
2007 EIS.
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1 and 2.
Mitigation Measures Completed
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 Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical
Investigation 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.
Kettle C will be preserved with a created wetland at the bottom.
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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-22 Summary
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 Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical
Investigation (Appendix E) was completed and infiltration rates to be used for
final design of stormwater facilities are illustrated in Appendix B of that report.
SEIS
In 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 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would permanently alter the site’s natural
topography as described in Section 3.1-1 above. Alternative 2 would have less impact than
Alternative 1 due to the lower area of site clearing and quantity of cut and fill, and Alternative
3 would have less impact than Alternative 2. With implementation of the identified mitigation
measures, significant impacts to earth would not be anticipated.
WATER RESOURCES
2007 EIS
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 Implemented 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 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
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-23 Summary
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 c onditioned 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).
Low Impact 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 zero discharge criterion, except at the Maritime Village where zero discharge
to the Harbor cannot be achieved because of topography.
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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-24 Summary
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation 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 E) 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 E) 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 inte nded
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
off-site sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any
on-site monitoring regime.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-25 Summary
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).
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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.
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.
SEIS
In 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 surf ace
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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-26 Summary
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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
of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to water
resources would be anticipated.
PLANTS
2007 EIS
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, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (a) [The SEIS shall include] an analysis of environmental impacts to be based on
science and data pertinent to the Brinnon site.
o The 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan is a template for
development of a Tree Hazard Control Program that relies on historical
methodology, combined with science-based research and literature, to support
tree hazard identification and assessment. The program design would enable
evaluation (grading) of the degree of risk and recommend mitigation treatments
for individual circumstances.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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 Maritime Village, wetlands and wetland buffers.
Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as
natural forest land buffers. Statesman at its expense shall manage these easements
including removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees and replanting to retain a
natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101.
o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina
Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building
footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan
permit. 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
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-27 Summary
buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the
Applicant.
63 (u) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
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 ame nities 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. In 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) In 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.
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.
SEIS
In 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 Impacts
With proposed development under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3, areas of existing vegetation
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-28 Summary
would be removed: 201 acres under Alternative 1, 152 acres under Alternative 2, and 132
acres under Alternative 3. Areas of retained natural vegetation and new vegetation in the
form of the golf course and new landscaping would be provided
FISH AND WILDLIFE
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
A habitat management plan will be prepared at the project-permitting phase to identify
and address mitigation for any potential impacts to streams and associated buffers.
o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resort Habitat Management Plan
(Appendix H) fulfills this requirement.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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. However, the marina redevelopment did in fact include stormwater
treatment.
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. Per JCC 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 75-foot buffer of native vegetation.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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. In the event that water quality shows any sign of
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-29 Summary
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.
BoCC Conditions
The following fish and wildlife mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC
are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
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.g., 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 Resort Habitat Management Plan
(Appendix H) fulfills this condition.
SEIS
In 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 Implemented 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.
Instead of the JCC 150-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 wil l 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-30 Summary
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 during construction.
An exclusion fence will be installed to prevent elk from entering the Black Point property
if they cross U.S. Hwy 101.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the site would result in the loss of some existing upland wildlife habitat.
However, the proposed development would retain areas of habitat onsite (approximately 31
acres, 80 acres and 103 acres of the site would be undisturbed under Alternatives 1, 2 and
3, respectively). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts to fish and wildlife would be anticipated.
SHELLFISH
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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.
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
fairways 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-31 Summary
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.
o 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 off-site 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 Implemented During Operation
Marina Mitigation Measures
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
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-32 Summary
development at specific locations, such as the marina, Maritime Village, and Conference
Center.
The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements appropriate under the
County Shellfish Protection Plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a
marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as
the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan.
The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from State sources so long as
available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately
reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with the County
in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any
changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime Village.
Golf Course Mitigation Measures
The golf course shall be operated in accordance with the best practice standards of the
King County golf course management guidelines, or substantial equivalent, including,
but not limited to, American Golf Association standards.
The golf course/resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive
management programs required by the County as a result of the water quality monitoring
program described above and any changes caused by the resort operations.
BoCC Conditions
The following shellfish mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are
applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (t) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory
regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with
the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate,
minimize, and full mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant
Harbor or the Maritime Village.
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 Invasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the WDFW
was drafted in October 2010 (Appendix I). This agreement shall be finalized
prior to the BoCC signing of the Development Agreement.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no
additional mitigation measures for shellfish would be necessary.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to shellfish would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-33 Summary
SHORELINES
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor.
Public access to the southern shoreline should be curtailed and direct access eliminated.
All stormwater generated in the upland marina area shall be captured and treated to
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
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
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.” In keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-34 Summary
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.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no
additional shoreline mitigation measures would be necessary.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to shorelines would be anticipated.
CRITICAL AREAS
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
2 and 3.
Mitigation 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 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.
o The 2012 Wetland 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 funct ion and value for
the resort area wetland system.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-35 Summary
o The 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J).
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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. In 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.g., Section 3.1, Earth;
Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife).
SEIS
In addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures (with the exception of
enhanced wetlands) and the BoCC conditions, the following critical areas mitigation
measures would also apply:
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
The mitigation of Wetland B shall be implemented in accordance with the 2012 Wetland
Mitigation Report (Appendix J).
The buffer reduction/averaging for Wetlands C and D shall be mitigated in accordance
with the 2012 Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J).
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-36 Summary
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Concurrent with Operation
Post-construction monitoring of the created wetland will occur on an annual basis for a
minimum of 5 years and up to 10 years based on the success of the project, in
accordance with the 2012 Wetland 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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Site development under Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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, new 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 RESOURCES
2007 EIS
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 EIS.
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measure identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation 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 Implemented Prior to and During 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 Chapter 1
December 2015 1-37 Summary
o The Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the Intent of LEED standards
(Appendix K) addresses this condition. Implementation of the measures noted in
Appendix K fulfills this condition.
SEIS
With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for
energy or natural resources would be necessary.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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 EIS
The following transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
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 101.
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 W SDOT 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
Department and emergency service providers during the preliminary plat phase if
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-38 Summary
desired by the applicant.
Provide an internal pathway and circulation system within the site that would not imp act
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 traffic bypass
through the resort (i.e. Black Point properties and Maritime Village).
In 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, 2 and 3.
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).
SEIS
All transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. 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.
In 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
Approval (PFA) channelization plan to implement the turn lane improvements, Black
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-39 Summary
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 Impacts
Construction and operation of the site development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would
generate increased traffic on area roadways, including SR 101. With implementation of
identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts
would be anticipated.
AIR QUALITY
2007 EIS
As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS. No air quality
mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 EIS.
BoCC Conditions
The following air quality mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are
applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation 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, 2 or 3 to further address potential GHG-
related impacts.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-40 Summary
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 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
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
BoCC Conditions
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-41 Summary
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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) In 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).
63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups
to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be
created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon
area average median income (AMI). The developer shall provide affordable housing
(e.g., 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
AMI. 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 63g for the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort (Appendix N). It is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of
construction jobs and 99 percent of operational jobs that would be created by the
Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMI. The
availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 80% of
the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU.
SEIS
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 Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated.
RURAL CHARACTER AND POPULATION
2007 EIS
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-42 Summary
The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant
sections of this SEIS, as applicable.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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 Master 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. Increasing 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 fairways, 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 Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the
Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in
height from higher grade elevations.
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.)
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-43 Summary
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.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no
additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
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 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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
cultural resources identified.
Mitigation 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-44 Summary
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation 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 Inadvertent 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
Inadvertent Discovery Protocol, and for correspondence with DAHP and local
tribes.
SEIS
In 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 Implemented Prior to and During Construction
A construction buffer shall be constructed to protect the archeological site on
Washington State lands adjacent to the site from any unnecessary disturbance.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated.
LIGHT AND GLARE
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-45 Summary
2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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 off-
site impacts are minimized.)
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (z) Statesman shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) 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.
SEIS
In 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.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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).
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Site Development would result in an increased level of light and glare on the site and in the
surrounding area. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant
unavoidable adverse light and glare impacts would be anticipated.
AESTHETICS
2007 EIS
The following aesthetic mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to
either Alternative 1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-46 Summary
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 Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the
Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from
higher grade elevations.
o 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.
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
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.” In 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.”
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-47 Summary
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) In 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.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional
aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
Changes to the character of the site would occur incrementally over the full buildout period.
However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable
adverse aesthetic impacts would be anticipated.
UTILITIES
2007 EIS
Mitigation 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.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-48 Summary
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.
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water
rights and an adequate water supply.
63 (n) Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health,
and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the 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 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.
SEIS
In addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC
conditions, the following utility mitigation measures would also apply:
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
Water
All proposed water system improvements would be designed and constructed in
compliance with applicable local and State regulations, including: Jefferson County,
Washington State Department of Health, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4.
Actual domestic water service requirements will be determined at the time of specific
land use applications, based on population projections, 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-49 Summary
Over the course of the projected 10-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.
Significant 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.
PUBLIC SERVICES – FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
(EMS)
2007 EIS
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
Incorporate 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.
Install 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 [#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 firefighting operations on any structure over 18 feet from ground
level, including but not limited to the Condo-tel/Conference Center Building.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-50 Summary
Enter in to 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:
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 of the resort
o “Action plan” for coordinated control and additional services
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63(c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
SEIS
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 Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-51 Summary
PUBLIC SERVICES – POLICE SERVICES
2007 EIS
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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
control systems are in place.
Community level: Explore the use of a development agreement or other assurance to
provide a mechanism for the County to provide some public safety funding to the
Brinnon area from the revenues received from the resort to assure that the funds will not
be diverted to the more populous north county.
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-52 Summary
PUBLIC SERVICES – PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2007 EIS
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.
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
SEIS
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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
PUBLIC SERVICES – HEALTH SERVICES
2007 EIS
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS Chapter 1
December 2015 1-53 Summary
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
Chapter 2
Description of Proposal and
Alternatives
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-1 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter of the SEIS provides:
An overview of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort 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.
This chapter also includes an overview of Alternative 3, a new alternative that has been
added for consideration in this Final SEIS. Please note that new information and/or
analysis presented subsequent to issuance of the Draft SEIS is indicated by highlight.
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. In September 2007, Jefferson County completed a
programmatic-level EIS that addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could
occur as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and MPR approval for the
proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort project. The MPR proposal represented a
change in land use for the project site, from rural to urban, and proposed 890 units of housing,
an 18-hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina and at the golf course. A 45-
day comment period on the Draft EIS was open from September 5, 2007 through October 24,
2007. A Final EIS addressing all comments received on the Draft EIS was issued on November
27, 2007.
In 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 EIS.
Since 2008, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master
plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the
BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) buffer of 150 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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.
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.
In 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). In 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 PROCESS
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort EIS, 2007
The 2007 EIS evaluated a Proposed Action for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Master
Plan approval for a Master Planned Resort consisting of a golf course resort, marina, and
Maritime Village. The approximately 256-acre resort contained two components: the Golf
Course and Resort, located on the Black Point campground portion of the property, to the south
of Black Point Road, and the Marina/Maritime Village, adjacent to the current Pleasant Harbor
Marina, and north of Black Point Road. See Figure 2-1 for a figure showing the study area
under the 2007 EIS; the Proposed Action is the area east of U.S. Hwy 101. The main features
of the MPR proposal included:
Golf Course Resort Area:
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
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-1
2007 EIS Site Boundary
North
2007 EIS Site Boundary
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-4 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Marina/Maritime Village Area:
16,000 sq. ft. of commercial area
63 water-side units
40 townhouses
48 villas
151 total residential units in the Marina/Maritime Village area
Total Units: 890
In 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 EIS. 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 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 310-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 Critical Areas.
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 f orth 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-5 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously
prepared EIS.
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
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 W AC 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 Marina and Golf Resort Draft and Final EIS, in accordance
with WAC 197-11-620(2). As with the 2007 EIS, 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 DESCRIPTION
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 for 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
231-acres; 220-acres are located south of Black Point Road, 11-acres are located north of Black
Point Road. See Figure 2-4 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
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-2
Regional Map
North
Project Site
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-3
Vicinity Map
North
Project Site
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-4
SEIS Site Boundary
North
SEIS Site Boundary
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-9 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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.
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 Character and Uses
The Pleasant Harbor site as delineated in this SEIS is generally comprised of two distinct areas:
1) the generally forested area to the north of Black Point Road which includes three structures;
and 2) a former RV park/campground (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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-10 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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.
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 variable 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-11 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Kettles
The Black Point campground area contains several “kettle” depressions, formed when blocks of
ice buried in glacial moraines melted. The largest of these kettles, Kettle B in the north-central
portion of the site, occurs in impervious soils and supports a wetland. Other kettles on the site
occur in porous soils and are well-drained. Refer to Figure 2-5 for the location of existing
kettles on the site.
Wetlands
Three wetland systems have been delineated in the central and eastern portions of the site.
The two western wetlands are small, isolated systems with no outlet. The first isolated wetland
is located at the bottom of the largest kettle (Wetland B in Kettle B, see Figure 2-6), and is
0.475-acres in area. The second isolated wetland (Wetland C) is located southeasterly of the
largest kettle and is 0.279-acres in area. The eastern wetland (Wetland D) occurs on both sides
of the east property line, with 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 50-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, Critical 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. In 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 Supply – 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.
Water Storage – One highly deteriorated wood stave storage tank on top of the hill in the
southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground currently serves the site. A metal
storage tank and a concrete storage tank outside of the site boundary in the marina
upland area serve the marina area.
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: GeoEngineers, 2012 Figure 2-5
Kettles
Marina
Maritime Village
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: GeoEngineers, 2012 Figure 2-6
Wetlands and Streams
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-14 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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. The
limited extent water distribution system located within the marina upland area is outside
of the site boundary.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site consists of
gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface
drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor House has its own 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 runoff on the site is presently contained in the kettles or is filtered through natural
vegetation.
Existing stormwater runoff conveyance systems in the form of culverts are located under Black
Point Road and in the streams and drainages north of Black Point Road. Untreated surface
drainage from U.S. 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 residential 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-15 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Existing Land Use Designations
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site is Master Planned Resort (MPR), which was
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2008. Prior to this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, the area was designated Rural Residential.
Zoning
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2008 changed the land use designation for the site,
but the zoning for the site will not change until a development agreem ent 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.
Immediately north of the site, the Pleasant Harbor Marina contains 300 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-time 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 growth 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-16 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Establish appropriate styles, materials and scale of development that contribute to a
consistent and complimentary architectural character.
Encourage the use of the extensive pathway system and open space and reduce
reliance on motorized transport.
Reduce the impact on environmentally sensitive areas by designing a road network to
preserve and protect more of the natural vegetation, drainage courses, and slopes.
Establish the siting of buildings to reduce impacts on sensitive areas.
Incorporate 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.
Incorporate a well designed system for potable and non-potable water conservation and
treatment.
Incorporate a state-of-the-art sewage and effluent treatment plant to deliver Class A
water.
Eliminate the risks to Hood Canal from the eutrophication effects of poor development.
Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells.
2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE SEIS ALTERNATIVES
In 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 three development alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3), and a No Action
Alternative.
SEIS Alternatives Summary
In 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, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 for
illustrations of the site plans for potential development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
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); a modification of Alternative 1 to make more
efficient use of the site and to minimize environmental impacts (Alternative 2); and, a
modification of Alternative 2 to reduce the size of the golf course and preserve more natural
area on the site (Alternative 3).
Comparison of SEIS Alternatives to 2007 EIS Proposed Action
The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a master plan for a golf course resort on the Black
Point campground and the marina area. Since 2008, the applicant has revised the master plan
to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the
BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan buffer of 150 feet. The SEIS
Alternatives have been drafted to conform to these 30 conditions and the SMP buffer, and
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: David Hamilton Architects, 2014 Figure 2-7
Alternative 1 Site Plan
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: David Hamilton Architects, 2014 Figure 2-8
Alternative 2 Site Plan
PUMPED WATER
FEATURE STREAM
*Figure modified since Draft SEIS publication to remove water feature connection to Wetland D at direction of applicant
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: David Hamilton Architects, 2015 Figure 2-9
Alternative 3 Site Plan
PUMPED WATER
FEATURE STREAM
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-20 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
reduce the potential for environmental impacts associated with the proposed Master Plan. While
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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. The golf course
under Alternative 3 is reduced to 9-holes in order to increase the amount of undisturbed natural
area on the site. See Table 2-1 for a basic comparison between the 2007 EIS Proposed Action
and the SEIS Alternatives.
Table 2-1
2007 EIS AND SEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
2007 EIS
Proposed
Action
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Site Area 256-acres 231-acres 231-acres 231-acres
Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units 890 units 890 units
Total Retail/Commercial
sq. ft.
73,000 sq. ft. 49,772 sq. ft. 56,608 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
Same as
Alternative 1
Golf Course Area 220-acres 220-acres 220-acres 220-acres
Residential Units 739 units 828 units 822 units 822 units
Commercial Sq. Ft. 63,000 sq. ft. 36,000 sq. ft. 36,000 sq. ft. 36,000 sq. ft.
Maritime Village Area 36-acres 11-acres 11-acres 11-acres
New Residential
Units
151 units 60 units 66 units 66 units
Commercial Sq. Ft. 16,000 sq. ft. 13,772 sq. ft. 20,608 sq. ft. 20,608 sq. ft.
Golf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 2.2 million cy 1 million cy 1 million cy
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-21 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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 EIS, 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
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 Maritime Village area of
the site. In 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 EIS, the staff quarters and maintenance building was located in the
northwestern corner of the site. Under the current proposal analyzed in the SEIS, t he staff
quarters and maintenance building has been relocated to the northeast corner of the site, but
still contains 52 units and remains at 3 stories in height. Golf course fairways have been
modified from the 2007 FEIS proposal, particularly under Alternative 2 to more closely follow
existing site topography. Tennis courts have also been added, as well as a swimming pool
within the Golf Resort area.
FEATURES COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2
Alternatives 1 and 2 include development of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, and
commercial development for resort-related services. The location, configuration, and type of
residential units and commercial space differ somewhat between the alternatives, as do the
amenities to be provided within the development. Under both alternatives, significant clearing of
vegetation, demolition of existing structures, and grading would be required in areas of the
Black Point campground not designated as sensitive or protected.
Structures within the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina 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 fairways would be developed along the eastern side of the site. The
second nine fairways would be developed along the south and west sides of the property (see
Figures 2-7 and 2-8). Golf course fairways would be located in areas of permeable soils to
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-22 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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
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 Maintenance 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 EIS, in which the Maritime/Marina Village was located
closer to the waters of Pleasant Harbor. In 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. It 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-23 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Table 2-2
SEIS ACTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON – RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Residential Units
Golf Resort Area
Golf Terraces 500 units 520 units
Sea View Villas 200 units 206 units
Golf/Alpine Vistas 76 units 44 units
Staff Quarters 52 units 52 units
Maritime Village Area
Reunion House 12 units 0 units
Harbor View House 12 units 0 units
Maritime Village Building 36 units 66 units
Existing Residences – to
remain
2 units 2 units
Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units
Total Retail/Commercial 49,772 sq. ft. 56,608 sq. ft.
Golf Resort Area 36,000 sq. ft. 36,000 sq. ft.
Maritime Village Area 13,772 sq. ft. 20,608 sq. ft.
Total Surface Parking 533 stalls 663 stalls
Golf Resort Area 268 stalls 413 stalls
Reunion & Harborview
House
32 stalls N/A
Maritime Village Area 88 stalls 104 stalls
Transit Stop 60 stalls 60 stalls
Maintenance/Staff/Water
Treat.
85 86
Total Structured Parking 1,003 stalls 887 stalls
Golf Resort Area 999 stalls 817 stalls
Maritime Village Area 4 existing
stalls
70, including
4 existing
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.
Site Access
Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, improvements would be made to Black Point Road, and to the
intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Hwy 101. A 12-ft wide (with turn-outs) Marina Access
Drive is proposed parallel to the east side of U.S. Hwy 101 between Black Point Road and the
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-24 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
existing marina. In 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. The applicant is in the process of negotiating an easement or purchase of property to
allow installation of the Marina Access Drive. See page 3.9-6 (shaded area, bottom of page) for
more details.
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.
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.
Sanitary 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.
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-25 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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 suit able,
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.
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.
Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3
Under Alternative 3, the Golf Resort, Maritime Village, architectural concept, site access,
parking, utilities and shoreline buffer would all be the same as described for Alternat ive 2. The
number of residential units, the amount of commercial space and the number and configuration
of buildings in the Maritime Village and the Golf Course area would also remain the same as
Alternative 2. The amount of cut and fill would be the same as Alternative 2; 1 million cubic
yards.
Comparison of Action Alternatives
While both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 include a golf course and the same total number of
residential units, the layout of the golf course and the distribution of the residential units within
Alternative 2 are revised to reduce the amount of disturbed area, reduce the amount of cut and
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-26 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
fill necessary, preserve more natural vegetation, and to more closely follow the existing
topography. Alternative 3 includes a smaller, 9-hole golf course and associated putting green
practice area, which preserves more natural area on the site.
Alternative 1 clearing and grading would be greater than that of Alternative 2 because of the golf
course design philosophy difference. In 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 80-acres of natural area (33 percent of the total
site acreage) will be preserved under Alternative 2, compared with only 33-acres (or 14 percent)
under Alternative 1.
Under Alternative 2, Kettle B would not be significantly reconfigured by mass grading as would
occur under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have a total water volume of 60
million gallons, whereas under Alternative 2, Kettle B would have double that capacity 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 Master Program (SMP) update of December 2010 (see Figure 2-7). Site
plan modifications associated with the BoCC conditions generally relate to reducing the
impervious surface on the site by consolidating the residential units into fewer buildings. Site
plan modifications associated with the SMP update primarily relate to the relocation of the
Maritime Village from the shoreline area to an upland area near the intersection of Black Point
Road and U.S. 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 EIS, utilizing large gentle graded sloping
areas of play. The orientation of the fairways would be similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action,
with the exception of the fairways in the far southeastern corner of the property (Fairways 7-9),
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-27 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
which would be aligned in a more north-south orientation than the east-west orientation
proposed in the 2007 EIS.
Golf Resort
A total of 828 residential units would be provided in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site
under Alternative 1. In 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
gatherings (Reunion House and Harbor View House). These would provide a common area and
kitchen facilities for rental residents staying in 12 individual rooms. The Marina Access Drive
would be upgraded to provide access to these two buildings from the Maritime Village building
as well as the marina.
Surface parking would be provided at the U.S. 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
1 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 Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-28 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Under Alternative 1, the landscaping proposal includes re-vegetating disturbed areas using
healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be cleared. Consideration
would be given to the use of native vegetation as well as ornamental shrubs, perennials and
annuals in select locations at the Maritime Village, Terrace Buildings, and along meandering
pathways. The proposal includes creating a temporary native plant nursery south of the
wastewater recovery plant site in the area of Fairway 14, as these fairways will be developed
during later construction of the project. A sprinkler irrigation system would be installed to
temporarily maintain plants kept in this area for relocation during phased development of the
site.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The Alternative 2 site plan was modified from Alternative 1 to improve constructability by refining
the development to further minimize environmental impacts. The primary modification under
Alternative 2 is the golf course design which uses existing site topography with limited areas of
grading.
Maritime 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 at the 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.
Golf Course
Compared to Alternative 1, the golf course under Alternative 2 is designed to more closely
follow existing site contours and to minimize site disturbance. Accordingly, the fairways are
more angular in nature and with varying orientations, compared to Alternative 1, with substantial
elevation differences.
Golf Resort
A total of 822 residential units would be provided in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site
under Alternative 2. In 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
2 The Bed-and-Breakfast, which is owned by others, would remain with a corresponding minor redu ction in the
overall developable land area within the MPR compared to the approved FEIS.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-29 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The Alternative 3 site plan was modified from Alternative 2 to reduce the size of the golf course
from 18 holes to 9 holes, with associated putting green practice area. The number of residential
units, the amount of commercial space and parking and the number, configuration and heights
of all buildings would remain the same as Alternative 2. Discussed below are the features
where Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2.
Golf Course
Compared to Alternative 2, the golf course under Alternative 3 is designed with 9 fairways as
compared to 18.
Landscaping
The landscaping proposal under Alternative 3 includes re-vegetation of disturbed areas using
healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be regraded, as described
for Alternative 2. However, the amount of disturbed areas would be reduced as compared to
Alternative 2 because fewer fairways would be built. 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 three action alternatives.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-30 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Table 2-3
ACTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
Number of Buildings and Units:
Golf Resort: Fifty-two buildings, 828
residential units
Maritime Village: Three new buildings, 60
new residential units
Total New Buildings 55
Existing Buildings Included In 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 Included In MPR 890-Unit
Count:
Pleasant Harbor House – 1
Bed and Breakfast House – 1
Number of Buildings and Units:
Same as Alternative 2
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
Number of Buildings and Units:
Same as Alternative 2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-31 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
Building Heights and Square Footage:
Golf Resort:
Golf Terraces: Four buildings, 4 stories (47 ft.
9 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
(28 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.
9 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).
Building Heights and Square Footage:
Same as Alternative 2
Number and Type of Residential Units
Proposed within the Maritime Village:
Maritime Village Building: 36 units located up
the hillside away from the waterfront
Reunion House and Harbor View House: 24
units in two buildings located up the hillside
Number and Type of Residential Units
Proposed within the Maritime Village:
Maritime Village Building: 62 units located up
the hillside away from the waterfront.
Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House –
Number and Type of Residential Units
Proposed within the Maritime Village
Same as Alternative 2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-32 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
away from the waterfront.
Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House
Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House
(owned by others)
same as Alternative 1
Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House
(owned by others)
Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units:*
Short Term Tourist Residential Units: 560
(67%)
Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278
(33%)
Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units:
Short Term Tourist Residential Units: 560
(67%)
Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278
(33%)
Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units:
Same as Alternative 2
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 Commercial Development: 56,608 sq.
ft.
Commercial Development Proposed:
Same as Alternative 2
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
Proximity of Structures to Pleasant Harbor
OHWM:
Same as Alternative 1.
Proximity of Structures to Pleasant Harbor
OHWM:
Same as Alternative 2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-33 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
would also occur.
Length of Project Roads Proposed:
Overall length of project roads approximately
12,700 lf. Combined WDFW boat launch
access road with Maritime Village access.
Does not include approximately 1750 lf of
combined golf cart, service road, EMS access
through east side fairways.
Length of Project Roads Proposed:
Overall length of project roads approximately
13,750 lf. Relocated WDFW boat launch
access road 1000 feet east of current location.
Length of Project Roads Proposed:
Same as Alternative 2
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
Marina Access to/from Black Point Road:
Same as Alternative 1
Main Entrance to the Golf Resort:
Resort main entrance control gate 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.
Main Entrance to the Golf Resort:
Same requirements as Alternative 1
Main Entrance to the Golf Resort:
Same requirements as Alternative 1
Provisions for Transit Service:
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:
Same requirements as Alternative 2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-34 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
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.
Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters:
Same requirements as Alternative 2.
Domestic Water Supply Proposal:
Ground water supply from on-site wells. Two
options for second well location: west of
Fairway 2 or west of Fairway 7 (rather than
west of Fairway 9) as a result of water right
negotiations.
Domestic Water Supply Proposal:
Ground water supply from on-site wells. Two
options for second well location: east of
Fairway 2 or west of Fairway 8.
Domestic Water Supply Proposal:
Same requirements as Alternative 2.
Wastewater Recovery Plant (WRP):
Nutrient Removal Activated 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.
Wastewater Recovery Plant (WRP):
Same requirements as Alternative 2.
Energy Proposal:
Electrical supply up to the limit of availability
from Mason County PUD; on-site biodiesel co-
generation, propane and geothermal sources
proposed.
Energy Proposal:
Electrical supply up to the limit of availability
from Mason County PUD; on-site propane and
geothermal proposed.
Energy Proposal:
Same as Alternative 2
Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement
of Fill in the Large Kettle:
Create a replacement wetland in the bottom of
Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement
of Fill in the Large Kettle:
Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement
of Fill in the Large Kettle:
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-35 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
the smaller of the two Kettles (Kettle C) and
retain this Kettle feature within the
development.
Same requirements as Alternative 1. Same requirements as Alternative 1.
Amenities (4):
Golf Terrace 1 building to have a restaurant,
lounge, spa, conference and meeting rooms,
chapel and billiards room. The Maritime
Village building near Black Point Road/U.S.
Hwy 101 intersection would provide
approximately 13,772 sq. ft. of
retail/commercial space, including a restaurant
and the relocated deli, grocery, convenience
store from the marina upland area.
Amenities (4):
Golf Terrace 1 building would be the same as
Alternative 1. The Maritime Village building
near Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101
intersection would increase to approximately
20,608 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space,
including a restaurant and the relocated deli,
grocery, convenience store from the marina
upland area.
Amenities (4):
Same as Alternative 2.
Recreational Amenities (4) (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.
Recreational Amenities (4) (in addition to the
golf course, driving range and putting green):
One new swimming pool on the golf resort
side, two tennis courts, a Bocce ball court,
billiard and game rooms, a common-use fire
pit, and amphitheater. Walking paths
throughout. Turn Building (Halfway House
shown in graphics) by Hole #9. Tree Top
Adventure and Zip Line in the Maritime Village
area.
Recreational Amenities (4) (in addition to the
golf course, driving range and putting green):
Impervious Area:
30 Ac (13% of total site area)
Impervious Area:
28 Ac (12% of total site area)
Impervious Area:
Same as Alternative 2
Pervious Area
Total Pervious Area: 201 Ac or 87% of site
Pervious Area
Total Pervious Area: 203 Ac or 88% of site
Pervious Area
Total Pervious Area: 203 Ac or 88% of site
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-36 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE 1 (2010-2011) ALTERNATIVE 2 (2012) Alternative 3 (2015)
Pervious Disturbed Area: 170 Ac
74% of total site area or
85% of total pervious area
Natural Area: 31 Ac
13% or total site area or
15% of total pervious area
Pervious Disturbed Area: 123 Ac
53% of total site area or
60% of total pervious area
Natural Area: 80 Ac
35% or total site area or
40% of total pervious area
Pervious Disturbed Area: 100 Ac
43% of total site area or
49% of total pervious area
Natural Area: 103 Ac
45% or total site area or
51% of total pervious area
Perimeter Buffers:
Maritime Village: 25 ft. Minimum building
setback
Golf Resort: 25 ft. Minimum building setback
Perimeter Buffers:
Same requirements as Alternative 1.
Perimeter Buffers:
Same requirements as Alternative 1.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-37 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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 and Alternative 3 is as follows (see Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-
11):
Phase 1:
Construct U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements
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
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 Infrastructure for Resort Site (Mason County PUD
Improvements)
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
Create wetland in Kettle C
Construct storm pond at Fairway 10 with stormwater pumps
Clearing and grading of site
Begin Golf Course construction (grading/contouring) and create plant/tree nursery
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: David Hamilton Architects, 2014 Figure 2-10
Alternative 2—Phasing Map
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: David Hamilton Architects, 2015 Figure 2-11
Alternative 3—Phasing Map
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-40 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Construct Wastewater Recovery Plant
Construct Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters (52 units)
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 Fairway 9
Reconstruct Black Point Road
Golf Course opens
Phase 4:
Construct Seaview Villas (206 units)
Construct Golf Vistas (44 units)
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that the site’s current land use designations
would remain (Comprehensive Plan MPR and Rural Residential zoning designations) and the
site would remain primarily in rural residential use. Two scenarios are analyzed for this
alternative in this Final SEIS; Scenario A – Continuation of existing conditions; and, Scenario B
– Redevelopment of the site under existing land use designations. Further descriptions of these
No Action scenarios are provided below.
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, no redevelopment of the site would occur. The existing buildings (Pleasant
Harbor House, Bed & Breakfast, campground structures, etc.), roadways, paths, and
infrastructure would remain. Many of the existing buildings and facilities would continue to age,
with some degradation over time. The amount of vegetated area on the site would remain as
existing conditions.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Reflecting the No Action Alternative described and analyzed in the 2007 EIS, Scenario B
assumes that the site would develop as a single-family residential area along with a 9-hole golf
course and retail area consistent with underlying Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations.
Under this scenario a total of 30 single-family residential homes would be developed on the site,
including 24 homes associated with a 9-hole golf course south of Black Point Road and six
homes in the Maritime Village area. A 9-hole golf course is assumed to be located in the Black
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-41 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
Point Campground area and an approximately 5,000 square foot retail facility on the west side
of U.S. Highway 101 is assumed (no longer part of the site area). Table 2-4 compares
development assumed under No Action Alternative Scenario B with the development
alternatives analyzed in the SEIS (Alternative 1, 2 and 3).
Table 2-4
ASSUMED NO ACTION SCENARIO B/SEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action –
Scenario B
Site Area 231-acres 231-acres 231-acres 256-acres
Total Residential Units 890 units 890 units 890 units 30 units
Total Retail/Commercial
sq. ft.
49,772 sq. ft. 56,608 sq. ft. 56,608 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.
(Tudor/Jupiter
property, no longer
part of SEIS site
area)
Maritime Village location Black Point
Road/U.S. Hwy
101 intersection
Same as
Alternative 1
Same as
Alternative 1
NA
Golf Course 18-holes 18-holes 9-holes 9-holes
Residential Units 828 units 822 units 822 units 24
Commercial Sq. Ft. 36,000 sq. ft. 36,000 sq. ft. 36,000 sq. t. NA
Maritime Village Area 11-acres 11-acres 11-acres 36 acres
New Residential
Units
60 units 66 units 66 units 6
Commercial Sq. Ft. 13,772 sq. ft. 20,608 sq. ft. 20,608 sq. ft. NA
Golf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 1 million cy 1 million cy Less than Alts 1-
3
The overall number of residential units under Scenario B of the No Action Alternative would be
860 units less than under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, and site population and associated vehicle
trips would be less. The amount of clearing and grading would be less than under Alternatives
1, 2 and 3, and the amount of retained open space would be greater.
It is assumed under this scenario that the site would be developed by others over time. Due to
staggered development and potentially multiple property owners/developers, this scenario could
include piecemeal residential development (i.e. multiple short plats), less control over design
standards, uncoordinated utility systems (i.e. individual septic systems). Development
standards under local and state regulations would apply.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-42 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
2.6 SEPARATE ACTIONS
Two separate projects would occur independent of the Proposed Actions/EIS 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:
Float Plane Dock at the Pleasant Harbor Marina for regularly scheduled flights
Renovation/Reconstruction of Marina Buildings
FLOAT PLANE DOCK
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. It 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.
Upon consultation with the U.S. Navy, the applicant has agreed to limit aerial access to the
resort to helicopters for emergency medical purposes only. No float plane docking services,
including the sale of aviation fuel, will be provided by the resort/marina.
RENOVATION/RECONSTRUCTION OF MARINA BUILDINGS
As noted in Section 2.1 and 2.3 above, the marina area has been removed from the SEIS site
boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan which does not require
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:
Potential impacts from development on the transportation network;
Potential impacts from development on public services providers due to demand for fire
and police services, from employees and visitors to the site;
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2
December 2015 2-43 Description of Proposal and Alternatives
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.
Chapter 3
Affected Environment, Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Significant
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-1 Earth
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVES,
MITIGATION MEASURES, AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
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 Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical Investigation, the 2012 SEIS Soil
and Earth Impacts and Mitigation report, and the 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (Appendix E).
2007 EIS
Within the 2007 EIS, a technical report, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort – EIS Soils
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 EIS.
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 has 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-2 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 intermitte nt 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.
SEIS
The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical Investigation (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 Resort Grading and Drainage Engineering Report
indicated that groundwater at the Golf Course and Resort site, and for most of the Black Point
area, 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.
In the Maritime Village area, it is anticipated that low-permeability till is directly underlain by
bedrock. In 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 Ice 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-3 Earth
The soil within the WDFW -owned property north of Black Point Road exhibits 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.
3.1-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
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 fairways 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 EIS, 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.
In 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.
SEIS
In addition to the 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical Investigation
(Appendix E), a Soils and Earth Impacts 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 EIS, under Alternatives 1 and 2, significant clearing of
vegetation and grading would be required. Over the entire site, it is anticipated that under SEIS
Alternative 1, approximately 200 acres, or 87 percent of the site, will be cleared and graded.
SEIS Alternative 2 would have less surface area disturbance than SEIS Alternative 1 with
approximately 151 acres, or approximately 65 percent of the site, cleared and graded. Under
Alternative 3 approximately 128 acres, or 55 percent of the site, would be cleared and graded.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-4 Earth
The majority of the areas not designated as protected would be cleared and topography would
be significantly altered. 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 (see
Figure 3.1-1). The total site grading under SEIS Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative
2, approximately, 1 million cubic yards (see Figure 3.1-2).
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 fairway 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 feet from 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). It 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 stum ps would be stockpiled
for reuse in stream and wetland restoration projects both on- and off-site. Multiple 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.
In 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.
Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 Figure 3.1-1
Alternative 2—Grading Plan
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2015 Figure 3.1-2
Alternative 3—Grading Plan
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-7 Earth
MARITIME VILLAGE AREA
As noted in Chapter 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 EIS,
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, 2 and 3 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 (2,340 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 the 2007 EIS. 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 EIS, SEIS Alternatives 2 and 3 quantities
have been substantially reduced from about 2 million cubic yards to about 1 million cubic yards.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and topography,
subsurface soil conditions, would remain relatively unchanged. Since no redevelopment would
occur, no excavation or fill would be required.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-8 Earth
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Reflecting the No Action Alternative described and analyzed in the 2007 EIS, Scenario B
assumes that the site would develop as a single-family residential area along with a 9-hole golf
course and retail area consistent with underlying Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations.
While some grading would be required, given the lesser amount of roadway and building
construction, it is assumed that grading would be less than that which would occur under SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.1-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
No mitigation measures were specifically proposed relating to topography and soils in the 2007
EIS.
BOCC CONDITIONS
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2.
MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLETED
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 Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical
Investigation 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.
Kettle C will be preserved with a created wetland at the bottom.
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 onsite well within the Black Point campground would
be rehabilitated plus a second well would be drilled in one of two potential
locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to
serve the resort.
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 Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical
Investigation (Appendix E) was completed and infiltration rates to be used for
final design of stormwater facilities are illustrated in Appendix B of that report.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.1
December 2015 3.1-9 Earth
SEIS
In 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.
3.1-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would permanently alter the site’s natural
topography as described in Section 3.1-1 above. Alternative 2 would have less impact than
Alternative 1 due to the lower area of site clearing and quantity of cut and fill, and Alternative 3
would have less impact than Alternative 2. With implementation of the identified mitigation
measures, significant impacts to earth would not be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-1 Water Resources
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 Marina and Golf Resort
Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (Appendix E), Groundwater Impact Addendum
(Appendix F), and the 2010 Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memo (Appendix F).
3.2-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
Surface Water
Hydrologic Setting
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 Quality
The 2006 Marina Impact 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-2 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. In 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 within a Seawater Intrusion 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 otherwise
(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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-3 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 Inventory Area (WRIA 16).
Two streams have been identified within the SEIS site area north of Black Point Road in the
Maritime 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 EIS. No additional information was gathered pertaining to existing surface water
quality for purposes of the SEIS.
Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge
In 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-4 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 E) 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).
In 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.
3.2-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
Surface 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.
Irrigation 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. Irrigation 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.
Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Figure 3.2-1
Existing Drainage Basins
Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 Figure 3.2-2
Soil Infiltration
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-7 Water Resources
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 Impact
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 d irect 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 Code 18.20.190 Gold
Course Performance Standards. In 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 throug h 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 Impact 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-8 Water Resources
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.
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 runoff 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.
SEIS
This section identifies and analyzes impacts to water resources on and in the vicinity of the
Pleasant Harbor site with proposed development. In general, the potential for impacts to water
resources from SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, and remains similar to the potential impacts
described in the 2007 EIS. Alternatives 2 and 3 consolidate development into fewer buildings,
thereby reducing impervious surface area and increasing aquifer recharge compared to the
2007 EIS.
Surface Water
Compared to the 2007 EIS, 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 EIS, 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).
In 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-9 Water Resources
Practices (BMP) Plan (Appendix F) was drafted that includes water quality management
measures.
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 EIS, the Washington State Department of Ecology
issued a memo in response to the Pleasant Harbor Resort application for additional water rights.
Part II 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
Condition 63(r).
BoCC Condition 63(p) within the 2007 FEIS required that a Neighborhood Water Program
(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
1,804 acre-feet per year under Alternative 2 and __ acre-feet per year under Alternative 3,
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 3.2-4 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.
Source: Bender Consulting, Inc., 2014
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Figure 3.2-3
Alternative 1—Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge
During Resort Build-out and Completion
Source: Bender Consulting, Inc., 2014
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Figure 3.2-4
Alternative 2—Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge
During Resort Build-out and Completion
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-12 Water Resources
Table 3.2-1
Annual Recharge to Aquifer Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
Existing
Conditions
(Acre-feet)
Alternative
1
(Acre-feet)
Alternative
2
(Acre-feet)
Alternative
3
(Acre-feet)
Total Annual Rainfall 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,189
(Minus Actual Evapotranspiration) 430 3222 3482 348
(Minus Pond Evaporation) 9 11 11
(Minus Consumptive Use) 01 1213 1213 121
(Minus Irrigation) 120 120 80
Plus Wastewater Generated 121 121 121
Plus Impervious Runoff 102 94 94
Total Aquifer Recharge 759 840 804 844
Source: Bender Consulting, Inc., 2014.
1 No consumptive use loss 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.
3Consumptive 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. In 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.
Under Alternative 3, aquifer recharge would be the highest at 844 acre-feet per year due to the
smaller 9-hole golf course reducing irrigation demands. Because the irrigation demand would
be less (80 ac-ft versus original 120 ac-ft), the pond would stay fuller during the year. Excess
water/overflow then recharges.
Stormwater
Alternative 1 would result in 87 percent of the overall site being retained in pervious area in the
form of the golf course, natural areas, and buffers, and Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in
approximately 88 percent of the site being retained in pervious area. Natural areas, those not
being initially cleared and graded, would total approximately 31 acres (13% of the total site)
under Alternative 1, 80 acres (35% of the total site) under Alternative 2, and 103 acres (44% of
the site) under Alternative 3. The basis for stormwater management on the site for the three
alternatives would be similar due to the similarity in total pervious area.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-13 Water Resources
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
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, 2 and 3, 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 fairways rather than
larger facilities with larger conveyance systems. 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 minimize runoff.
The intent of proposed stormwater management on the site is 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. 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
Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, January 2005.
Infiltration (groundwater recharge) from the irrigation pond would begin to occur when the
irrigation pond water surface rises above the pond liner elevation. If 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 fairways that discharge to adjoining properties
Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 Figure 3.2-5
Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage Basins
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
16 15
14
13 10
9
11
12
1
6
4 5
3
2
7
8
21
19
18
17 20
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-15 Water Resources
would be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that complies with State
requirements.
In 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 Fairway 10. This redirection of runoff away from Hood
Canal is intended to address BoCC Condition 63 (q) by eliminating direct golf course fairway
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 runoff 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 Impacts
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. If 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 Impacts
Operational impacts associated with stormwater can be characterized as changes in the
function of the existing drainage 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 Quantity Changes. 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-16 Water Resources
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
recharge into the groundwater by approximately 10 percent as a result of removing existing
vegetation (Subsurface Group, LLC, December 9, 2008).
Stormwater Quality Changes. 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
mechanical fluids 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
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, the site would remain in its present condition, and there would be no new
temporary or permanent impacts to surface water or groundwater and aquifer recharge. The
existing stormwater collection system which discharges directly into Pleasant Harbor would be
maintained.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
As described in the 2007 EIS, Scenario B assumes that the site would continue to develop as a
single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and that a 9-hole
golf course would be built on Black Point area of the site. The potential impacts to water
resources under the No Action Alternative would be as described in the 2007 Final EIS with the
sites’ 28 acre feet of water rights per year remaining from past uses assumed to be sufficient to
serve residential uses. Overall, the amount of required water rights, water use and potential for
impacts would be less than under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. New residential lots would be served
by individual wells and septic systems. Because pumping to allowed limits has not created salt
water intrusion risk in the past, and given the water profile for the area, water use for domestic
purposes would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact. The golf course would
require approximately 31 acre feet of additional water rights, which would place additional
demand on the aquifer, but to a lesser extent than under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
3.2-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2
and 3. The stormwater mitigation measures listed in Section 3.5.3, Shellfish, would also apply.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-17 Water Resources
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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.
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-18 Water Resources
The project will require a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Low Impact 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 zero discharge criterion, except at the Maritime Village where zero discharge to the
Harbor cannot be achieved because of topography.
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 Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation 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 E) 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 E) 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-19 Water Resources
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 E).
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).
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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.
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.
SEIS
In 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.2
December 2015 3.2-20 Water Resources
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.
Implement 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 Impacts
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.3
December 2015 3.3-1 Plants
3.3 PLANTS
3.3-1 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 Marina and Golf Resort Forest Report, the 2012
Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix G), and the 2012 Habitat Management
Plan (Appendix H).
2007 EIS
Existing plants and vegetation were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
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
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) with occurrences of Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Black Cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa), Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata), Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum),
and Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Broadleaf shrubs and other plants found in the
understory include: Red‐Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguineum), Scotch Broom (Cytisus
scoparius), 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 silverweed, Baltic rush, Lyngby sedge and seaside arrowgrass. Golden
paintbrush is noted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to occur within the limits of
Jefferson County. However, there is no documented on-site occurrence of this species in the
DNR NHP rare plants list, nor was suitable habitat or individual plants observed during the site
investigation.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.3
December 2015 3.3-2 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, a nd 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 3.3-1). 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.
3.3-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation.
Source: Resource Management Group, 2013 Figure 3.3-1
Forested Subareas
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Not to Scale North
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.3
December 2015 3.3-4 Plants
SEIS
Through clearing and grading of the project site, the proposed development would disturb
existing plant communities. Under Alternative 1, approximately 74 percent of the site would be
disturbed, compared to approximately 53 percent under Alternative 2, and approximately 43
percent under Alternative 3. These areas would be cleared of existing vegetation and new
maintained landscaping would be provided in pervious areas. Approximately 31acres of natural
area would be retained under SEIS Alternative 1, 80 acres would be retained under Alternative
2, and 103 acres would be retained under Alternative 3.
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 EIS, 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.3
December 2015 3.3-5 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
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, the site would remain in its existing condition, and there would be no new
temporary or permanent impacts to existing plant habitats and species. Existing habitats that
are intact would remain intact and degraded habitat would remain degraded.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is assumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and that a 9-hole golf course
would be developed in the Black Point area. Development under this scenario would result in
the removal of plants and vegetation but at a lower level than under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, and
it is assumed that more natural area would be retained on the site than under SEIS Alternatives
1-3.
3.3-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The 2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation.
BoCC Conditions
The following plant mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (a) [The SEIS shall include] an analysis of environmental impacts to be based on
science and data pertinent to the Brinnon site.
o The 2012 Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan is a template for
development of a Tree Hazard Control Program that relies on historical
methodology, combined with science-based research and literature, to support
tree hazard identification and assessment. The program design would enable
evaluation (grading) of the degree of risk and recommend mitigation treatments
for individual circumstances.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.3
December 2015 3.3-6 Plants
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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
a 200 foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the south Canal shoreline, the strip
of mature trees between U.S 101 and the Maritime Village wetlands and wetland buffers.
Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as
natural forest land buffers. Statesman at its expense shall manage these easements
including removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees and replanting to retain a
natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101.
o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina
Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building
footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit.
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) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
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. In 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) In 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.3
December 2015 3.3-7 Plants
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.
SEIS
In addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measure 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).
3.3-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With proposed development under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3, areas of existing vegetation
would be removed: 201 acres under Alternative 1, 152 acres under Alternative 2, and 132 acres
under Alternative 3. Areas of retained natural vegetation and new vegetation in the form of the
golf course and new landscaping would be provided.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-1 Fish & Wildlife
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 Resort
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 EIS
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 Bull Trout.
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 Species
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-2 Fish & Wildlife
SEIS
The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H)
included a file review of available information on existing and historic sensitive fish, wildlife and
plant species occurring in the vicinity of the site, and two site visits to gather direct observations
of habitat features (snags, nests, burrows, trails, dens, streams, marine shoreline habitat, etc.)
and visual observations of fish and wildlife. Two additional site visits were conducted to
delineate the location of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OWHM) along the Hood Canal and
Pleasant Harbor shorelines.
Fish
Consistent with the 2007 EIS, 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 EIS, 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-3 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. It 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 -tail
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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-4 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,
although there is the chance that they would be attracted to the grass on the golf course to feed
and calf in the winter months. 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 EIS
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 be expected to be impacted
from the development, due to the protection of the southern bluffs from human intrusion and the
treatment of water to avoid contaminated discharge from the site. The water quality in Pleasant
Harbor, as it pertains to the proposed development, would be monitored and adaptive
management programs would identify additional mitigation as required.
The sensitivity of the Duckabush River delta area for shellfish and sea life of all kinds reinforces
the importance of maintaining a riparian buffer along the southern shoreline, assuring retention
and treatment of all water affected by construction or development to assure water quality of all
waters and seeps on the peninsula affecting or affected by the development. The sensitivity of
the area was also the rationale for the proposed closing of any efforts to access or use the
southern beaches.
Wildlife
The construction of a Master Planned Resort would inhibit use of the site by larger mammals,
but as noted particularly the elk are not noted in the Black Point area, but typically utilize land
farther north in the river plains. Project-level review was directed to protection of riparian habitat
on the south boundary, the vegetation buffer along US HWY 101, appropriate vegetation and
tree buffers along the Pleasant Harbor shoreline, and the maintenance of functions and values
of the wetland and stream critical areas in the appropriate sub basins.
An adaptive management program to address water quality and upland issues was identified as
being planned to be part of the marina water quality program to address issues as they may
arise in the future.
A potential osprey nest may exist in the Pleasant Harbor area. Plans to protect the nest, as
appropriate, would be addressed during permitting if the nest is still active or capable of
providing support to local populations.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-5 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. The
retention of a significant riparian area on the south shore would retain existing snags for
perching.
SEIS
This section identifies and analyzes impacts to fish and wildlife on and in the vicinity of the
Pleasant Harbor site with proposed development. Impacts are expected to be generally similar
for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, except that development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
consolidated into fewer buildings, thereby potentially providing additional wildlife habitat
compared to Alternative 1 and the 2007 EIS. Additionally, more natural area would be left in an
undisturbed condition under Alternative 3, potentially providing additional wildlife habitat as
compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
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 Maritime 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.
Source: GeoEngineers, 2013
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Figure 3.4-1
Wildlife Corridors
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-7 Fish & Wildlife
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 Roosevelt Elk do not currently utilize the site or may to a limited extent, elk could
be discouraged from utilizing this site by the installation of an exclusion fence because there is
potential for them to be attracted to the golf course grass for feeding and calving .
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
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, the site would remain in its present condition, and there would be no new
impacts to fish and wildlife.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-8 Fish & Wildlife
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Scenario B assumes 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 be as described in the 2007 Final EIS.
The small 9-hole golf course would retain more open space as compared to the SEIS
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Because this scenario assumes that single family homes would be built
along the southern site boundary, greater impacts to the natural habitat on the southern
beachfront riparian edge could result. However, on an overall basis, the potential for impacts
under this scenario would be less than under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.4-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2
and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
A habitat management plan will be prepared at the project-permitting phase to identify
and address mitigation for any potential impacts to streams and associated buffers.
o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resort Habitat Management Plan
(Appendix H) fulfills this requirement.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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. However, the marina redevelopment will include stormwater treatment.
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. Per JCC 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-9 Fish & Wildlife
Site Plan Permit. As well, the JCC 18.15.315 code reference should be JCC
18.22.270, and streams require a 50 to 75-foot buffer of native vegetation.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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. In 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
The following fish and wildlife mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (l) A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in
the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local
tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area
Plan (e.g., 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 Management Plan
(Appendix H) fulfills this condition.
SEIS
In 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 Implemented 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.
Instead of the JCC 150-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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.4
December 2015 3.4-10 Fish & Wildlife
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
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.
Implement 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 Impacts
Development of the site would result in the loss of some existing upland wildlife habitat.
However, the proposed development would retain areas of habitat onsite (approximately 31
acres, 80 acres and 103 acres of the site would be undisturbed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3,
respectively). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-1 Shellfish
3.5 SHELLFISH
3.5-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
Section 3.2.1 of the 2007 EIS (within the Water Resources section) outlines the methodology
and information sources for the DEIS Shellfish subsection, including shellfish closure zones,
marine water quality data records, current and tidal records, field assessments, and a marine
survey. Shellfish resources, including mussels, clams, and oysters were observed within
Pleasant Harbor and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor Marina. The southerly beach of the
project site is adjacent to important tidelands and the mouth of the Duckabush River, which is
considered an important shrimp nursery area, and important habitat and nursery for juvenile
stages of Dungeness crab.
Water Quality
As noted in the 2007 EIS, Pleasant Harbor is vulnerable to water quality issues, as is the
adjoining Hood Canal. A shallow sill, approximately 150 feet deep, exists at the entrance of the
Hood Canal that restricts the exchange of water between Hood Canal and the Puget Sound. A
detailed discussion of water quality outside of Pleasant Harbor in the vicinity of the site is found
in the report titled Shoreline Characterization Report Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
(2007 DEIS Appendix 3).
Water circulation in Pleasant Harbor is limited by a narrow (100 feet wide) and shallow (10 feet
deep at low tide) inlet located at the east end of the harbor. The harbor area itself rang es 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 Impact 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
In the 2007 EIS, 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-2 Shellfish
As part of the 2007 EIS, 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 (W DFW 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 Invasive 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). In 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. In order to facilitate the management
and/or ultimate eradication of Styela clava in Pleasant Harbor, the WDFW is seeking to have all
the wooden docks and those with Styrofoam billets to be replaced over time with concrete docks
and concrete floats.
SEIS
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 EIS.
Aquatic Invasive Species Tunicates
To address the issue of invasive tunicates, Pleasant Harbor Marina embarked on a program of
dock replacement consistent with WDFW guidance. In February of 2009, Pleasant Harbor
Marina replaced the D-dock, that was wood & styrofoam construction, with wood frame "enviro-
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-3 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 end-tie. The new construction included a new dry fire
standpipe system, new power pedestals and wiring, new water lines, and a new fuel building at
the end of the dock. Creosote pilings were removed along with a large landing at the upland
end of the ramp. New pilings are steel, with a much smaller landing to minimize shading over
the tideland.
In February of 2013 Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced the E and F-docks and the headwalk that
connects them to the D-dock. The construction was the same as D-dock, with better grating to
provide more light penetration to meet DNR requirements. The new docks are connected to the
pumpout system that was installed with the D-dock and provides pumpout fittings to
accommodate each slip. Electrical wiring and power pedestals was upgraded to accommodate
modern boats and improved the 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 I-dock is older concrete float construction. I, J,
and K-docks were installed in the late 90's; no timeframe has been set for replacement of the I,
J, and K docks.
3.5-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
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. Identification 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 EIS, to protect fish and shellfish resources, the applicant pulled all development
back from the southern shoreline (including closing the current dangerous trail access) to retain
the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. This closure to direct public
access would reduce the potential for harm to the significant shellfish beds located to the south.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-4 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.
In 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 EIS, 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 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 is now relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the
intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-5 Shellfish
A similar amount of clearing, and the risk of runoff, would occur under SEIS Alternative 1
compared to the 2007 EIS. There would be less clearing resulting in a lower potential for runoff
under SEIS Alternatives 2 and 3.
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.
In compliance with BoCC Condition 63(q), direct stormwater runoff to Hood Canal from the golf
course fairways would not occur through the construction of embankments that change the
direction of surface flow. These embankments would direct runoff away from Hood Canal and
into natural and created detention areas including the lined stormwater pond on Fairway 10.
The wastewater treatment system and proposed stormwater management system under the
SEIS Alternatives would be similar to that proposed under the 2007 EIS, contributing to
enhanced water quality.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, the site would remain in its present conditions and there would be no new
impacts to shellfish.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, 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 be as described in the 2007 Final EIS. This alternative would permit
the development of individual lots along the southern shore of the site. Impervious surfaces
would be less than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but single-family residential development would be
served by septic tanks which have historically been a problem on Hood Canal. Buffers and
setbacks would be necessary to protect fish and shellfish. Overall, significant impacts to
shellfish would not be expected if residences are properly permitted, and a vegetated buffer is
maintained to protect the southerly bluff and control stormwater. Septic tanks and drainfields
would need to be built or upgraded to meet current water quality protection standards.
3.5-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2
and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-6 Shellfish
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 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
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.
o 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 Implemented During Operation
Marina Mitigation 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-7 Shellfish
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
marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as
the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan.
The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from State sources so long as
available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately
reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with the County
in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any
changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime Village.
Golf Course Mitigation Measures
The golf course shall be operated in accordance with the best practice standards of the
King County golf course management guidelines, or substantial equivalent, including,
but not limited to, American Golf Association standards.
The golf course/resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive
management programs required by the County as a result of the water quality monitoring
program described above and any changes caused by the resort operations.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.5
December 2015 3.5-8 Shellfish
BoCC Conditions
The following shellfish mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (t) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory
regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with
the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate,
minimize, and full mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant
Harbor or the Maritime Village.
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 An Invasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the
Department of Fish and Wildlife was drafted in October 2010 (Appendix I). This
agreement shall be finalized prior to the BoCC signing of the Development
Agreement.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no
additional mitigation measures for shellfish would be necessary.
3.5-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to shellfish would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.6
December 2015 3.6-1 Shorelines
3.6 SHORELINES
3.6-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
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 Impact 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 30-foot minimum or
100-foot maximum setback from steep slopes such as those along the southern Hood Canal
shoreline.
SEIS
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 EIS.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.6
December 2015 3.6-2 Shorelines
An update of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) began in 2005 and has
been approved by DOE. The buffer from Pleasant Harbor increased to 150 feet under the new
SMP compared to the previous SMP. The 150-foot buffer from the southern Hood Canal
shoreline remains the same as under the previous SMP.
3.6-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
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.
In 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. In 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.6
December 2015 3.6-3 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.
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 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 EIS, 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 EIS, 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 maintain ed
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 EIS, 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
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and shoreline
conditions would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, 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 be as described in the 2007 Final EIS. As indicated in the 2007
Final EIS, homes would be located in the southern portion of the site, compared to this area in
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.6
December 2015 3.6-4 Shorelines
golf course under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Homes in this area would need to be set well back
from the bluff to meet geological hazard requirements and limit water quality concerns. It is
possible that the construction of single family residences could lead to demand for single-
purpose docks. In the Maritime Village area, six additional homes would result in potential
shoreline impacts; septic systems would need to be carefully sited to avoid impacting Pleasant
Harbor. However, in general, no additional shoreline impacts would be anticipated.
3.6-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2
and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor.
Public access to the southern shoreline should be curtailed and direct access eliminated.
All stormwater generated in the upland marina area shall be captured and treated to
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
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.6
December 2015 3.6-5 Shorelines
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) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
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.” In 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.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no
additional shoreline mitigation measures would be necessary.
3.6-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to shorelines would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-1 Critical Areas
3.7 CRITICAL 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 EIS
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 II. 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 II
wetland and 50 feet from a Class III 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
jurisdictional for 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 Recharge Areas
As noted in Section 3.10 of the 2007 EIS, 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.
1 Note: the correct code reference is JCC 18.22.300
2 Note: the correct code reference is JCC 18.22.330.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-2 Critical Areas
Frequently Flooded Areas
The site has no flood plains or frequently flooded areas and these provisions do not apply to the
Pleasant Harbor site.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
The 2007 EIS included a geologic hazard analysis (see 2007 DEIS Appendix 4). The principal
geologic hazard feature on the site is the steep bluffs along the southern shore. See Section
3.1.1, Earth, of this SEIS for a summary of this steep bluff described in Appendix 4 of the 2007
DEIS.
SEIS
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 III wetland in accordance with the Jefferson County Code with
a high score for habitat value.
In general Wetland B scores moderate to high for water quality functions due to it being a closed
depressional system that holds back water to allow sediments to settle out and emergent plants
to remove pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals and toxic organics. Because Wetland B has
no outlet, it was not evaluated for reducing peak flows or decreasing downstream erosion.
However Wetland B is considered to function highly for groundwater recharge because there is
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-3 Critical Areas
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 Recharge 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.
Frequently Flooded Areas
As noted in the 2007 EIS, there are no frequently flooded areas on the site.
Geologically 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 Impacts
2007 EIS
Wetlands
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.
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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-4 Critical Areas
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 Recharge 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 EIS. The
impacts were also detailed in a site-specific Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated July 20,
2006, contained in 2007 DEIS Appendix 7.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
The Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (JCC 18.22.170) requires a 30-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 bluff in the event of wet seasons or upset.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-5 Critical Areas
SEIS
In general, the potential for impacts to critical areas from SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 would be
similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 EIS. Wetland B would be filled and the steep
slope area at the south end of the property would be preserved under Alternative 1, 2 or 3, as
under the 2007 EIS. Impacts to aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and
geologically hazardous areas under Alternative 1 would generally remain the same as under the
2007 EIS. Alternatives 2 and 3 consolidate development into fewer buildings, thus retaining more
existing habitat, reducing impervious surface area and increasing aquifer recharge compared to
the 2007 EIS.
Wetlands
Development under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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.
Reclaimed water would not be discharged to wetland areas.
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 III 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 150-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 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
form the basis of the preparation of the plan. It 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, 2 or 3 would retain existing Wetlands C and D. The
existing hydrologic conditions associated with wetlands C and D would be maintained and no
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-6 Critical Areas
impacts to the functions of these wetlands would be anticipated. However, development under
either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would encroach on wetland buffer areas. Buffer averaging consistent
with Jefferson County Code is proposed to minimize impacts to wetland buffers.
Aquifer Recharge 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.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Potential impacts to the steep slope on the southern site boundary are detailed in Section 3.1-2,
Earth, of this SEIS.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and critical areas
including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas and geologically
hazardous areas, would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
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 be as described under the 2007 Final EIS. This scenario assumes that
existing wetlands and wetland buffers would be retained consistent with applicable regulations.
Upgrades to stormwater management would be piecemeal, in contrast to the construction of a
new coordinated system that would occur under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. It is assumed that
new residences on the south portion of the site would be set back the minimum distance to assure
safe construction consistent with County code.
3.7-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2
and 3.
Mitigation 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-7 Critical Areas
protection districts. An approved preconstruction aquifer protection plan shall demonstrate
retention of sheet flow water and ground wells onsite.
o See Section 3.2, Water Resources, and Appendix F of this SEIS for the
stormwater management plan and aquifer protection plan.
Wetlands shall be protected from development (except the central kettle used for reuse
and recycling) and a wetland buffer and mitigation plan shall be developed which
demonstrates, under best available science principles, that the wetland functions and
values of the resort area have been maintained through a combination of retained,
enhanced, and constructed wetlands and buffers. The plan shall demonstrate no net loss
to overall wetland area function and value.
o The 2012 Wetland 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 an y
grading onsite. The wetland mitigation report for the central kettle shall be approved and
demonstrate how the overall system will operate, both during construction and operation
to assure overall no net loss of function and value for the resort area wetland system.
o The 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J).
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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. In 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.7
December 2015 3.7-8 Critical Areas
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 Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) specifically applicable to critical areas that are not addressed in other sections (e.g.,
Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife).
SEIS
In addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures (with the exception of
enhanced wetlands) and the BoCC conditions, the following critical areas mitigation measures
would also apply:
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
The mitigation of Wetland B shall be implemented in accordance with the 2012 Wetland
Mitigation Report (Appendix J).
The buffer reduction/averaging for Wetlands C and D shall be mitigated in accordance
with the 2012 Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J).
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Concurrent with Operation
Post-construction monitoring of the created wetland will occur on an annual basis for a
minimum of 5 years and up to 10 years based on the success of the project, in accordance
with the 2012 Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J).
Maintenance of the wetland creation areas will be conducted throughout the monitoring
years and will be the responsibility of Statesman to ensure completion. Maintenance
during the first two years will include periodic watering (irrigation) and control of
undesirable species. Maintenance during the subsequent years will be focused on
invasive plant removal.
3.7-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Site development under Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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, new 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.8
December 2015 3.8-1 Energy and Natural Resources
3.8 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
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 Intent of
LEED Standards (Appendix K) and Mason County PUD letter dated November 18, 2013
(Appendix K), and Pleasant Harbor Conceptual Load Estimates (Appendix K).
3.8-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
Energy and natural resource conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
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 EIS
As noted previously, energy and natural resource conditions and impacts were not evaluated in
the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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, 2 or 3 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.8
December 2015 3.8-2 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. Improvements 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.
The SEIS Alternatives, include geothermal exchange as an alternative energy source.
Geothermal exchange would use the ambient temperatures in the ground to improve efficiency
and operation cost of heating and cooling. Earth, groundwater, and pond water have more
consistent temperatures and can exchange temperature better than the air; thus is more
efficient. The earth will be used as a heat source in cold weather and a heat sink in warm
weather. The reclaimed water reservoir would provide a medium for the exchange of heating
and cooling for the geo-exchange mechanical systems.
Under SEIS Alternative 1, on-site biodiesel co-generation is proposed. Reduced energy
consumption would be achieved with the tri-generation of collecting the waste heat from the
combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration unit and relaying this heat for pool and spa
heating. Waste heat collected from the CHP cogeneration unit would contribute to heating in
common areas, further reducing energy demand. This cogeneration unit is not part of SEIS
Alternative 2 or 3.
LEED
In 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.
In 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, Indoor Environmental Quality, plus an additional six
points for Innovation in Design and an additional four points for Regional Priority. The goal of
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.8
December 2015 3.8-3 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 Intent of LEED Standards). 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, Materials and Resources, Indoor
Environmental Quality, plus two extra categories: Innovation 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 Island Effect – 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; Innovate Water Technology; and Water Use Reduction (further increase water
efficiency).
Within the Energy and Atmosphere category, the project would have a potential of 25 points
(see Appendix K). The project would meet the three prerequisites of Fundamental
Commissioning of Building Energy Systems, Minimum Energy Performance, and Fundamental
Refrigerant Management. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following
subcategories: Optimize Energy Performance, On-Site Renewable Energy, Enhanced
Commissioning, Enhanced Refrigerant Management, Measurement and Verification, and Green
Power.
Within the Materials and Resources category, the project would have a potential of 25 points
(see Appendix K). The project would meet the prerequisite of Occupant Waste Reduction. The
proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Waste
Management; Recycled Content; Regional Materials, and Rapidly Renewable Materials. The
two subcategories under Materials and Resources for which this project would not earn points
are Building Reuse and Certified Wood.
Within the Indoor Environmental Quality category, the project would have a potential of 14
points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the two prerequisites of Minimum Indoor Air
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.8
December 2015 3.8-4 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;
Increased Ventilation; Construction Indoor 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; Indoor Chemical and Pollutant
Source Control; Controllability of Systems – Lighting and Thermal Comfort; Thermal Comfort –
Design; and Daylight and Views.
Within the two extra categories, Innovation in Design and Regional Priority, the project would
potentially earn 5 and 4 points, respectively in each category.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and limited
existing uses of energy and natural resources would continue.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 single family residences and a 9-hole golf course based on the
underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to energy and natural resources would
be less than the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.8-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
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 EIS.
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measure identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.8
December 2015 3.8-5 Energy and Natural Resources
Mitigation Measures To Be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
o The Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the Intent of LEED standards
(Appendix K) addresses this condition. Implementation of the measures noted in
Appendix K fulfills this condition.
SEIS
With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for energy
or natural resources would be necessary.
3.8-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-1 Transportation
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 EIS, 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 EIS
Section 3.4 of the 2007 EIS describes the existing transportation system within the study area,
including an inventory of existing roadway conditions, traffic volumes, intersection levels of
service, collision history, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation facilities,
and planned roadway improvements.
Roadways
U.S. 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 EIS. 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-third 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 EIS. All intersections operated at LOS B or better. Detailed LOS summary worksheets
were provided in Appendix 6 of the 2007 EIS.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-2 Transportation
Collision History
Table 3-7 of the 2007 EIS summarizes historical collision data as provided by W SDOT 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/Irondale/Chimacum Tri-
Area. Service at US HWY 101 and Black Point Road is provided between 7:10 a.m. until 7:55
p.m. with stops every 2 to 3 hours. Saturday service is provided at the US HWY 101 and Black
Point Road intersection from 8:55 a.m. until 7:10 p.m. with stops every 4 to 5 hours.
Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities
US HWY 101 consists of 3- to 10-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 Roadway Improvements by Others
Jefferson County’s 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-3 Transportation
3.9-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
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-Project Traffic Forecasts
For the purpose of the traffic analysis in the 2007 EIS, 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.
Project 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 approximately 4,100 daily and 363 p.m. peak hour vehicular
trips (186 entering and 177 exiting) would be generated at full build-out and occupancy of the
Statesman Plan MPR Alternative.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
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 Island.
• 30 percent to the south via US HWY 101 to Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle.
• 7 percent local to 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-4 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 Impact 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 t he Pleasant
Harbor properties. At the time of the 2007 EIS, 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 Impacts
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).
Intersection Level of Service Impacts
In Table 3-9 of the 2007 EIS, intersection LOS impacts during the p.m. peak hour were
evaluated at study intersections in 2017 without the proposed project and under all development
Alternatives. All stop-controlled movements at study intersections would operate at LOS C or
better with and without the development Alternatives in 2017. All intersections would meet
adopted local and state LOS standards.
The 2007 EIS noted that a project-specific LOS evaluation update would be required at the time
of the preliminary plat application to identify specific mitigation requirements, but the studies
completed for the 2007 EIS show traffic at all levels and affected intersections operating well
within acceptable limits and no significant capacity improvements were anticipated as a result of
the project. The 2007 EIS also noted that significant right of way and intersection improvements
would be required at the immediate vicinity of the project to accommodate left turns and the
revised access to the master plan area, reducing the overall number of entry points onto US
HWY 101. The 2007 EIS indicated that design of these sections and WSDOT approval for all
work on State Right of Way would be required at the time of preliminary Plat approval.
Safety
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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-5 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.
In 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 EIS, Black Point Road was originally constructed in
the late 1980s with a 12-inch Class B gravel base and two shots of bituminous surface
treatment. Based upon increased traffic loads during construction and at full buildout and
occupancy, the structural section and roadway do not meet current road standards for a
collector and would be brought up to current standards during final plat development for the golf
course.
Access Management Standards
Access management standards identified in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
Chapter 468-52-040-2 – Highway Access Management – Access Control Classification System
and Standard were evaluated in relation to the proposed action. US HWY 101 in the site vicinity
is classified as a Class 2 facility under W SDOT’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 EIS, the proposed private access connections would be located
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-6 Transportation
more than 660 feet away from other existing private access connections. Therefore it complies
with minimum access management standards.
Marine Resort Internal 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 the SEIS Alternatives from those analyzed in the 2007 EIS,
and the resultant changes in potential traffic impacts. In general, the overall trip generation
under SEIS Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would generally remain the same as those alternatives
evaluated in the 2007 EIS. The level of service (LOS) at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road
intersection would not change from the 2007 EIS, even with the potential reductions from
implementation of a shuttle bus system. Site access and internal circulation would be slightly
modified under the SEIS Alternatives.
Changes to Proposed Circulation System
Modifications to the proposal subsequent to the 2007 FEIS consolidate 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 90-degree intersection angle, providing optimal intersection geometry.
Immediately east of US Hwy 101 along Black Point Road, a new intersection would be
constructed to provide access to the north and south portions of the site, provide access to a
new transit stop/layover area, and serve as emergency vehicle/maintenance access to the main
Golf Course Resort area (see Figure 2-8 in Chapter 2).
Under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, it is assumed that a marina access drive would be built and
available for walking, biking, electric vehicles, and management/maintenance for circulation
between the Resort/Golf Course and Maritime Village and the existing Marina Building and
Pleasant Harbor boat slips. As shown below in Figure 3.9-1, beyond the Maritime Village and
supporting parking, the new access drive is proposed to be constructed parallel to SR 101 and
feed into an existing paved/gravel access roadway system that serves an existing single-family
residence (currently operated as a bed-and-breakfast owned by others), the existing Pleasant
Harbor House (owned and operated by the applicant), and the existing Pleasant Harbor and
Marina. An existing access roadway that connects directly onto SR 101 approximately 750 feet
north of the Black Point Road intersection would be abandoned as part of the project.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-7 Transportation
Figure 3.9-1
As part of the trip generation analysis completed for the SEIS, a portion of new trips were
assumed to remain internal to the site and not generate traffic impacts onto SR 101 , due to the
use of this marina access drive. This internalization assumption included trips that would occur
between the existing Pleasant Harbor House and Pleasant Harbor Marina and new land uses
within the Maritime Village and Golf Resort area.
In the event that easements cannot be obtained across private property to construct the marina
access drive, increased vehicle trips would occur on SR 101. Proportionally, the loss of the
internal connection could divert an estimated 175 daily vehicle trips, with 9 p.m. peak hour
vehicle trips onto SR 101 under full occupancy and utilization of all proposed land uses on-site.
Because the Pleasant Harbor House and Pleasant Harbor & Marina are existing uses, no new
trips associated with these uses would use SR 101, however, the reduction in on SR 101
resulting from the internal site roadway trips previously assumed in the DEIS and SEIS analysis
would not occur. The relative difference in trips added to SR 101 as a result of this loss of
internal connectivity would range between 3 and 5 percent of all new trips and fall between
those trip levels evaluated in the SEIS and those considered in the DEIS, thus not resulting in
the potential for impact and triggering the need to evaluate level of service impacts.
With the Shoreline Master Plan changes, the shoreline development did not occur as originally
planned during the 2007 FEIS process within the existing Marina upland area. As the Marina is
now limited to providing a service mainly to boating and yachting enthusiast, the exchange of
trips between this use and the remainder of the Resort Area would be reduced accordingly.
Furthermore, the Resort operator would not encourage or direct patrons to the Marina in
personal vehicles due to limited parking at the Marina. To further limit the potential for vehicle
trips between the Resort Area and the Marina for this, the Resort would provide regular shuttle
service between the Marina and the project site, if pedestrian or bicycle alternatives available to
guests are not options for individuals.
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-8 Transportation
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.
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 t he 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, 2 or 3 would generally remain the same as
those evaluated in the 2007 EIS. 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. Implementation 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. It should be noted that these
potential reductions were not used in design support thresholds at US Hwy 101 and Black Point
Road.
Level of Service
The level of service (LOS) at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection would not
change from the 2007 EIS, 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, 2 or 3, 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).
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-9 Transportation
Based on procedures and guidelines in WSDOT’s Design Manual, a 100-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, 2 and 3 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 100-foot taper was warranted
based on the WSDOT Design Manual. SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 include this intersection
improvement.
WDFW Driveway Access to Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch
As noted previously, the existing alignment of the WDFW driveway for the Pleasant Harbor Boat
Launch does not provide adequate entering sight distance for safe egress onto Black Point
Road. As such, two driveway access alternatives are considered as part of the SEIS
Alternatives.
Alternative 1
Under this alternative, the existing traffic and access driveway onto Black Point Road from the
state (WDFW) Boat Launch would be realigned to intersect with the common frontage road to
the Maritime Village north of Black Point Road as a “T-intersection” interior to the site. Under
this access configuration, both traffic associated with the Maritime Village and the WDFW Boat
Launch driveway would utilize a common new intersection constructed as part of the project
east of US Hwy 101 on Black Point Road (see Figure 2-7). To construct this realignment of the
WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch driveway, substantial fill material and topography changes
would be required to construct this interior T-intersection. In addition, property transfer or
stringent access easements across private property would be needed to allow for public access
to occur within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort properties. This configuration would
mix both project-generated traffic and WDFW boat launch traffic within a closely spaced
intersection system, and potentially cause traffic congestion during peak use of the boat launch
utilization. Initially, 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.1
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
1 Personal electronic communication between Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant’s engineer) and Penny Warren and John
Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, March 18, 2011.
2 Personal electronic communication between Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant’s engineer) and Penny Warren and John
Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, August 19, 2011.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-10 Transportation
Construction Impacts
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 t rips,
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.g., 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.
In 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.
Parking 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 Alternatives 2 and 3 proposes 1,550 stalls (see Appendix C for a
breakdown of parking stalls by use/location).
Table 3.9-1
Proposed Parking Capacity By Alternative
Structured Parking Surface Parking Total Parking
Alternative 1 1,003 stalls 533 stalls 1,536 stalls
Alternative 2 and 3 887 stalls 663 stalls 1,550 stalls
Source: David Hamilton Architects and the Statesman Corporation, 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-11 Transportation
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 all Alternatives.
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
and 3
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 all Alternatives.
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 Surplus(+)/
Deficit(-)
Alternative 1 1,613 stalls 1,406 stalls +207 stalls 1,521 stalls +92 stalls
Alternative 2
and 3
1,627 stalls 1,430 stalls +197 stalls 1,557 stalls +70 stalls
Source: TENW, December 2013; SEIS Appendix L.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and the existing
circulation system and existing traffic volumes and LOS would continue.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residential units and a 9-hole golf course based on the underlying rural
residential zoning, with fewer modifications to the existing circulation system on the site.
Potential impacts to transportation would remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Scenario B
would have less traffic impacts and parking demands as compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2
and 3. Total gross trip generation was estimated at 1,100 daily trips, approximately 20% of
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-12 Transportation
which were assumed to be internal to the site, resulting in a net project trip generation of
approximately 900 daily trips (compared to approximately 4,100 under Alternatives 1 and 2).
3.9-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Fully fund and construct associated improvements for Black Point Road to meet County
standards from US HWY 101 to the project entrance.
Provide adequate site distance to the east of the proposed main site driveways onto
Black Point Road and the egress from Maritime Village in US HWY 101 to improve and
maximize entering and exit sight distance.
At the US HWY 101 and Black Point Road intersection, provide a southbound left-turn
lane as part of project development in all scenarios except the no action alternative. With
the Statesman proposal, the expansion of the existing T-intersection would also provide
for a median refuge area for left turns from Black Point Road onto US HWY 101.
Provide a northbound right-turn pocket or taper at US HWY 101 at the Black Point Road
intersection under the Statesman proposal.
Residents of the Maritime Village shall be given access to the golf course resort wit hout
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 W SDOT and Jefferson County.
Reconstruct the Black Point Road approach to US HWY 101 with adjacent left turning
lanes, a widened approach onto US HWY 101, and an “entry treatment” on Black Point
Road at US HWY 101. The proposed site access concept would also include a
consolidated intersection onto Black Point Road with a realignment of the WDFW boat
launch at Pleasant Harbor either in a combined or separate intersection.
Provide all access roads and internal roads available for public use to County road
standards. Private drives may be to a lesser standard approved by the Public Works
Department and emergency service providers during the preliminary plat phase if
desired by the applicant.
Provide an internal pathway and circulation system within the site that would not impact
County or State highways, would provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation between
the two main development districts, and would allow US HWY 101 bicycle traffic bypass
through the resort (i.e. Black Point properties and Maritime Village).
In 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-13 Transportation
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 Board of
County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
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).
SEIS
All transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS
either Alternative 1, 2 or 3. 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.
In 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.9
December 2015 3.9-14 Transportation
between Jefferson and Mason Transit systems as well as access to public
transportation systems.
o Regular shuttle service between the Marina and the project site.
3.9-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Construction and operation of the site development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would
generate increased traffic on area roadways, including SR 101. With implementation of
identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would
be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-1 Air Quality
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 Emissions Report (May 2012), included in Appendix M.
3.10-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
Air quality conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of warming and
cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental,
with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000
years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated
across the globe. Scientists have observed, however, an unprecedented increase in the rate of
warming in the past 150 years. This recent warming has coincided with the Industrial Revolution,
which resulted in widespread deforestation to accommodate development and agriculture, and
an increase in the use of fossil fuels, which has released substantial amounts of GHG emissions
into the atmosphere.
GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by both natural
processes and human activities and trap heat in the atmosphere. The accumulation of GHG in
the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. While research has shown that the earth’s
climate has natural warming and cooling cycles, evidence indicates that human activity has
elevated the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally- occurring
concentrations resulting in more heat being held within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists from 130 governments, has
concluded that it is “very likely” - a probability listed at more than 90 percent - that human activities
and fossil fuels explain most of the warming over the past 50 years.”1
In 2007, IPCC 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;
Potential for more intense and frequent heat waves, tr opical cycles and heavy
precipitation; and,
1 IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report, February 2, 2007.
2 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, April 30, 2007.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-2 Air Quality
Impacts to biodiversity, drinking water and food supplies.
The Climate Impacts Group (CIG) -- 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. In 2009, CIG issued the Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment,
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 2ºF by the 2020s, 3.2º F by the 2040s, and 5.3º
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.
Regulatory Context
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act and
has established air quality standards for common pollutants.
On September 22, 2009, EPA released final regulations that require 29 categories of facilities to
report their GHG emissions annually, starting in 2011. Facilities covered by these regulations
include oil refineries, pulp and paper manufacturing, landfills, and a variety of other manufacturing
and industrial sources of emissions. Individual development projects, such as the Pleasant
Harbor project, are not subject to these regulations.
Western Regional Climate Action Initiative
On February 26, 2007, the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Washington signed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) 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 Initiative. 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,
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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-3 Air Quality
In 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.
In 2007, the Washington legislature passed SB 6001, which among other things adopted the
Executive Order No. 07-02 goals into statute.
In 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.
In 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.
In 2009, Executive Order 09-05 was signed ordering Washington state actions to reduce climate-
changing GHG emissions, to increase transportation and fuel-conservation options for
Washington residents, and protect the state’s water supplies and coastal areas. The Executive
Order directs state agencies to: develop a regional emissions reduction program; develop
emission reduction strategies and industry emissions benchmarks to make sure 2020 reduction
targets are met; work on low-carbon fuel standards or alternative requirements to reduce carbon
emissions from the transportation sector; address rising sea levels and the risks to water supplies;
and, increase transit options, such as buses, light rail, and ride-share programs, and, give
Washington residents more choices for reducing the effect of transportation emissions.
On June 1, 2010, Ecology issued draft guidelines entitled, Guidance on Climate Change and
SEPA. These draft guidelines included: guidance regarding the types of GHG emissions that
should be calculated; a discussion of how to determine if emissions surpass a threshold of
"significance"; and, a description of different types of mitigation measures. Guidance was also
provided regarding the requirement to discuss the ability of a proposal to adapt to climate changes
as a result of global warming. In 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 Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
SEPA Reviews and SEPA GHG Calculation Tool. Ecology began using this guidance document
in June 2011.
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
3 http://www.governor.wa.gov/execorders/eo_07-02.pdf
4 Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals, April 30, 2008.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-4 Air Quality
(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 Impacts
2007 EIS
As noted previously, air quality conditions and impacts (including GHG emissions) were not
evaluated in the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
This section focuses on the probable GHG emissions impacts that could result with development
of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3. New development under either
Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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, 2 or 3 would occur gradually over the approximately 10-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
CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Mobile Power Generation Combustion Power to run construction tools and equipment, and to
provide providing heating and lighting
Land Use Change – Deforestation Clearing and grading activities.
Land Use Change – Below Grade Carbon
Loss
Removal of below grade (root to shoot) organic carbon
stocks.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-5 Air Quality
Table 3.10-1 continued
Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources
Source: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. May 2012. See Appendix
M.
Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 1 sources are estimated at 5,483.62
tCO2e for construction sources and 1,096.80 tCO2e for operational sources.5 With mitigation, it
is estimated that GHG emissions could be reduced to approximately 4,743.10 tCO2e for
construction and to 931.48 tCO2e for operational sources, representing a reduction of
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.
5 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Land Use Change – Soil Organic Carbon
Loss
Emissions from movement and stockpiling of topsoil for use
throughout the site (one-time tillage event resulting in soil
organic carbon release)
OPERATIONAL 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 Combustion Equipment used for golf course operations, consisting of
small horsepower off road diesel and gasoline combustion
engines for material hauling, mowing, topdressing, edging,
spraying and turf repair.
Non-Combustion Fugitive Emissions Traditional refrigerants used in coolers, chillers, freezers, air
conditions units and propellants used for fire suppression
Fertilizer Application The unwanted chemical reaction that turns a portion of
beneficial surface applied nitrogen fertilizer into the GHG,
nitrous oxide.
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-6 Air Quality
Table 3.10-2
SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSION SOURCES
CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Purchased Electricity Approximately 440MWh of grid electricity could be used
each year during construction.
OPERATIONAL SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Purchased Electricity Purchased electricity from the electrical grid would be one
of the largest non-combustion operational emissions
source. Peak electricity demand is estimated to reach
nearly 3MW
Source: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. 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 46%,
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
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 W aste (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% to 15%
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.
Landfill Waste Emissions related to solid waste pickup for the site.
6 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-7 Air Quality
Organic Waste Emissions related to organic waste created from
landscaping and golf course maintenance.
Electricity T&D Losses Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can
range from 0% to 15%.
Source: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. May 2012. See Appendix
M.
Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 3 sources are estimated at 9,673.66
tCO2e for construction sources and 26,459.72 tCO2e for operational sources.7 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 37%,
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 3.10-4 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 EMISSIONS
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 Operational Emissions 26,459.72 -9,870.54
TOTAL 51,032.98 -15,138.78
Estimated Total Emissions with
Mitigation
35,894.20 tCO2e
Source: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. May
2012. See Appendix M.
7 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-8 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.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, excavation and grading would be the same as Alternative 2 (1 million cubic
yards). However, more natural area would be preserved on the site (103 acres under Alternative
3 v. 80 acres under Alternative 2). Construction-related GHG emissions would, therefore, be
expected to be less than those accounted for under Alternative 2. Operational emissions could
also be expected to be similar to or slightly less than those described for Alternative 2 due to
smaller, 9-hole golf course.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing limited levels of air
quality impacts, energy use and GHG emissions would be expected to continue.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning with 30 single family residences
and a 9-hole golf course. Potential impacts regarding greenhouse gas emissions would be limited,
as compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.10-4 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS. No air quality
mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 EIS.
BoCC Conditions
The following air quality mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
December 2015 3.10-9 Air Quality
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, 2 or 3 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, 2 or 3 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 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 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 2, or 3 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-1 Housing and Employment
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
Housing
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.
Employment
Existing employment conditions on the site were not addressed in the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
Housing
Site
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. In 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-2 Housing and Employment
Table 3.11-1
JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2010
Jefferson County
Total Housing Units 17,767
Occupied Housing Units 14,049 (79%)
Vacant Housing Units 3,718 (21%)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 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, 2010
Brinnon
Total Housing 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 Housing Units, for Sale Only 22
Vacant Housing Units, Sold, not
Occupied
1
Vacant Housing Units for Seasonal,
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 Demographic Profiles
Summary File. Census Designated Place Summary.
Employment
Site
Currently, there are eleven full and part-time 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).1 According to the U.S.
1 Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch .
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-3 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 Employees
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 3.11-4 for details.
Table 3.11-4
JEFFERSON COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE – RESIDENT LABOR FORCE AND
EMPLOYMENT
Location Labor
Force
Persons
Employed
Persons
Unemployed
Unemployment
Rate
Washington State, January 2013 3,447,640 3,154,840 292,800 8.5%
Jefferson County, January 2013 11,780 10,500 1,280 10.9%
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department. Labor Market and Economic Analysis.
3.11-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
Housing
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
2 U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts.
3 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, October 2014. Appendix N.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-4 Housing and Employment
addressed both the increased demand represented by the proposal and provided the
infrastructure to support the higher densities necessary to address affordability.
Employment
The 2007 EIS noted that during construction, approximately 80 to 125 people would be
employed onsite periodically through the five-year construction period. It 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 30% direct increase in local employment. It was also anticipated that
seasonal employees would typically be students with the advantage to local students.
SEIS
In comparison to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the total number of residential units proposed
under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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, or 67%, would be for short-term visitors and 33% would be for permanent residents.
Regarding employment, subsequent to publication of the 2007 EIS, a jobs report has been
prepared and the number of permanent and seasonal positions associated with construction
and operation of the resort has been revised up, as detailed below under the Employment
section.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
In general, employment and housing impacts would be relatively similar under Alternatives 1, 2
and 3; all alternatives would include 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
Alternatives 2 and 3). 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 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Housing
Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions
Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort 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. It 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.4 As noted in the 2007 EIS, 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-5 Housing and Employment
Long-Term Housing Conditions
Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, 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 (refer to Section 3.18, BoCC Conditions, for a discussion on provisions for
affordable housing under condition 63g).
Indirect Housing Conditions
Operation of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort could result in 225 new permanent
employees at the site. Although staff housing would be provided on the site, employees on the
site could result in some additional demand for housing in the area.
Employment
Construction Employment
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. The number of jobs anticipated per construction
phase is detailed below:
Phase 1: 399 jobs
Phase 2: 289 jobs
Phase 3: 342 jobs
Phase 4: 720 jobs
Based on analysis completed in 2014, it is estimated that approximately 342 of 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).5
Operational Employment
Based on analysis conducted subsequent to 2007, development of new employment-generating
land uses under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 could result in approximately 225 direct and indirect
jobs. Actual amount of added employment from the proposed development would be generated
5 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, May 2014. Appendix N.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-6 Housing and Employment
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).6
Table 3.11-5
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER JOB SECTOR
Job Sector Employees
Phase 1
Food Services 13
Marina 11
TTA (fun center) 31
Suites 5
Village 5
Phase 2
Suites 44
Food Services 21
Wedding 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: Wright 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.
Indirect Employment Impacts
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.
6 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, May 2014. Appendix N.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-7 Housing and Employment
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
limited housing (2 residences) and employment conditions (approximately 11 jobs) on the site
would remain.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with a 9-hole golf course. Limited additional construction and permanent
employment could be added to the site as allowed under the Planned Rural Residential
Development (PRRD) process and as compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Housing stock
could increase by approximately 30 new residences.
3.11-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2
and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
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.
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.11
December 2015 3.11-8 Housing and Employment
63 (aa) In 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).
63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups
to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be
created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon
area average median income (AMI). The developer shall provide affordable housing
(e.g., 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
AMI. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in
lieu fee, or onsite housing development.
o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was
completed: An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners’ Condition 63g for the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort (Appendix N). It is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of
construction jobs and 99 percent of operational jobs that would be created by the
Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMI. The
availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 80% of
the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no
additional mitigation measures for housing and employment would be necessary.
3.11-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-1 Rural Character and Population
3.12 RURAL CHARACTER and POPULATION
This section of the SEIS describes existing rural character and population characteristics on the
site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these
characteristics.
3.12-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
Population
The 2007 EIS noted that according to the 2000 Census, there were 107 permanent residents on
Black Point within 57 full time dwelling units, suggesting that the remaining 101 residential lots
were for seasonal or recreational use.
Rural Character
The 2007 EIS describes the rural character of Hood Canal and notes that it includes a mixture
of open spaces and more densely packed residential and tourist areas, including both public
and private facilities. The Maritime Village and golf resort area were noted to occupy areas that
have historically been tourist oriented, particularly during the summer.
In 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-2 Rural Character and Population
SEIS
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 at 29,872. The County has experienced strong population growth since 2000. Over
this 10 year period, Jefferson County’s population increased by approximately 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.1
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 EIS. 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 Impacts
2007 EIS
Population
The 2007 EIS indicated that during construction, an estimated 80 to 125 people would be
employed onsite periodically through the five-year construction period, and that much of this
work force would be found within the County. The 2007 EIS was based on the assumption that
development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent residential units to the
community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development’s winter (or permanent population)
was projected to be 200 to 300 people. During the peak summer season (June-September), a
resort population of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated, when the resort was anticipated to
operate at 85% occupancy. During the mid-season, (April, May and October), 50% resort
occupancy was anticipated, and during the low season (November, December, January,
February, March) 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
1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistrict Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File.
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Figure 3.12-1
Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity
Source: EA, 2013
SEIS Site Boundary
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-4 Rural Character and Population
boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR" (JCC
18.15.126(5)).
The 2007 EIS noted that overall gross density for the proposal of 890 residential units on 256
acres would be approximately 3.5 units per acre. This density was noted to be less than but not
dissimilar to some of the existing densities in the immediate area. The primary difference was
observed to be that the residences proposed for the resort would be clustered into a number of
townhouses or attached structures, rather than single family homes on individual lots. The EIS
stated that rural character would be retained under the Proposed Action by scaling the size of
residential structures consistent with local construction (less than 35 feet in height); clustering
the more intense development internal to the project site and at the marina where dense activity
already occurs and a suburban shoreline designation suggests higher levels of anticipated
activity on the shoreline; locating the hotel and Maritime Village topographically so the buildings
are set into the hill and do not project above the average tree height; retaining the buffer on the
shoreline; locating the bulk of the housing away from local roads and out of site from U.S. Hwy
101 except the node at Black Point Road; retaining a tree buffer along U.S. Hwy 101 adjacent to
the marina; and devoting more than half of the site to open space (including the golf course),
wetlands, buffers and natural areas all of which would reduce the visual impact of the resort on
the surrounding community and help retain the overall rural character of southern Jefferson
County.
SEIS
In comparison to the 2007 EIS, while all Alternatives include a golf course and the same total
number of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, however 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. And the golf course is reduced to 9-holes under Alternative 3 to
reduce clearing and preserve more natural area on the site. 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. In comparison to the 2007 EIS, more
housing for permanent residents is specified for Alternative 1, 2 and 3.
The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and approximately 79,000 square feet of
commercial uses. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 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 EIS, with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
In general, rural character and population impacts would be similar under either Alternatives 1, 2
and 3; all alternatives would develop the same number of residential units (890), and would
provide comparable levels of recreational amenities (18 hole golf course under Alternatives 1
and 2, and 9 hole golf course under Alternative 3) and retail/commercial space (49,772 sq. ft.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-5 Rural Character and Population
under Alternative 1 and 56,608 sq. ft. under Alternative 2 and 3). The discussion of rural
character and population impacts, below, applies to either Alternative 1, 2 or 3.
Construction Population
Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Resort 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 10-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 temporary, no permanent residents are anticipated
to migrate to the area.
Operational Population
Under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, 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.). It 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 up to four people could reside in each unit year round, resulting in a permanent
staff population of 208; thus, a total of 764 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 764 individuals moved to Brinnon to reside in the Pleasant Harbor
Resort on a permanent basis, this would result in a population increase of approximately 95
percent (from 797 to 1,561). Of the 764 permanent residents, 208 are assumed to be resort
employees living in the 52 units of worker housing. It is assumed that a number of these
employees would be drawn from the local community, although exact numbers cannot be
predicted. 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 to 1,232 persons,
depending on the season. It 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 EIS.
Rural Character
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-6 Rural Character and Population
recreational land uses and activities. The changes to the site are anticipated to occur gradually
over the approximately 10-year buildout period.
In general, the relationship of the Pleasant Harbor MPR development under either Alternative 1,
2 or 3 to surrounding uses would primarily be a function of the intensity of the new uses (such
as the types of uses, density of the development, and levels of activity associated with the
development), the intensity of surrounding uses, the proximity of new uses to surr ounding uses,
and the provision of buffers between new uses and surrounding uses.
The Pleasant Harbor resort under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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, 2 or 3 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 employ approximately 225 people, up to 208 of whom could live
onsite in the 52-units of staff housing; resulting in a total of 764 permanent residents on the site.
In 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, 2 or 3. It is also possible (if an easement can be negotiated) that
resort residents could 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 (Marina 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). If an easement
cannot be negotiated to construct the Marina Access Drive, then regular shuttle service would
be provided between the Golf Course/Resort and the marina.
In general, the type, character, and pattern of land uses on the site would change substantially
from a primarily vegetated/forested site with minimal existing uses (real estate office and two
single family homes) to a denser, resort development. The rural character of surrounding land
uses are intended to be preserved in a number of ways, including limiting the visibility of the
resort from offsite viewers; preserving natural area and open space; limiting the heights of
buildings; and, clustering the more intense development internal to the site.
Limited visibility of the site to offsite viewers would in part occur naturally as a result of the site’s
location on a peninsula (Black Point), and the site’s topography. Limiting views 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).
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-7 Rural Character and Population
As with the 2007 EIS, 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
Alternatives 2 and 3; 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 at higher elevations to the northwest (see Figures 2-7 and 2-8 in Chapter 2 for
reference). The remainder of the residential buildings would be one to two stories in height. In
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 Maritime Village (Maritime
Village Building) would be three stories in height. However, this structure would be built into the
existing topography, with two stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories
visible internal to the site.
Approximately 31 acres of natural area (13 percent of the total 231 acre site) would be
preserved under Alternative 1, 80 acres (35 percent of the total 231 acre site) would be
preserved under Alternative 2, and 103 acres (45 percent of the total 231 acre site area) would
be preserved under Alternative 3 Under Alternative 1, another 170 acres of the total site area
would be in pervious area with landscaping, the golf course fairways and pedestrian trails, 123
acres would be pervious under Alternative 2, and 100 acres would be pervious under Alternative
3. The preservation of natural area together with open space on the site would further serve to
limit offsite impacts to rural character.
Indirect Impacts
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would contribute
to the cumulative residential and employment growth, and intensification of land uses in
Jefferson County and the Brinnon community. An increase in on-site resident, visitor and
employment population would also contribute to a cumulative increase in vehicular traffic on
surrounding roads. The increase in population, visitors and employment could also result in an
increased demand for goods and services. While it is likely that a majority of this demand would
be fulfilled by commercial/retail uses on the Pleasant Harbor site, a portion of this demand could
also be fulfilled by surrounding businesses in the vicinity of the site.
To the extent that area property owners perceive an opportunity for development based, in part,
on new employees, visitors and residents associated with the Pleasant Harbor site, some new
development in the area could be indirectly generated. Any development in the area generated
indirectly by development of the Pleasant Harbor site would likely occur incrementally over time
and would likely be limited due to the measures proposed to maintain the resort as a self-
contained community (with amenities and commercial/retail onsite). Any new development in
the site vicinity would also be controlled by existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan
regulations, which would preserve the local rural character of the surrounding area. As a result,
significant indirect/cumulative impacts would not be anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur existing rural
character and population conditions, which are generally characterized by low density
residential development with a remote, rural character, would remain relatively unchanged.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-8 Rural Character and Population
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning with a 9-hole golf course and
up to 30 single family residences. Potential impacts to population and rural character conditions
would be as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Population on the site would be much less than
SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, with a permanent population increase of approximately 15-20
people.
3.12-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant
sections of this SEIS, as applicable.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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. Increasing 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 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 US HWY 101 and the new access
road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
December 2015 3.12-9 Rural Character and Population
- With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the
Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height
from higher grade elevations.
- 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).
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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 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.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no
additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary.
3.12-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.13
December 2015 3.13-1 Cultural and Archaeological Resources
3.13 CULTURAL and ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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.
Information in this section is based on the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and
Inadvertent Discovery Protocol (Appendix O).
3.13-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
The 2007 EIS noted that prior archaeological field investigations of the site area did not result in
the identification of any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. However, background
research and preliminary on-site reconnaissance suggested a high probability for pre-contact or
ethnographic archaeological sites in the development areas. This determination was based on
the nature of the onsite landforms and the proximity of the project to two ethnographic village
sites. Those environments most likely to contain naturally buried archaeology, identified in
collaboration with cultural resources staff of the Skokomish Tribe, were determined to be kettles,
vantage points, and bluff edges.
SEIS
The potential for archaeological and cultural resources to be present on the site has generally
remained the same as presented in the 2007 EIS; therefore, no changes to the discussion of
existing conditions is warranted in this SEIS (see Section 3.9 and Appendix 8 of the 2007 EIS
for a description of the existing archaeological conditions).
3.13-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
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 3.13
December 2015 3.13-2 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 EIS. 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
Alternatives 2 and 3, the potential to encounter archaeological deposits would be less than
under Alternative 1 and the Preferred Alternative identified in the 2007 EIS.
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
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site and no excavation or grading
would occur and therefore, no impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be
anticipated.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
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 be as described in the 2007 Final EIS. That is,
the construction of residences and a small golf course on the Black Point area would cover
much of the same area as SEIS Alternatives 1-3, and therefore the potential to encounter
cultural resources during construction could be similar to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. It is likely that
individual cultural resources monitoring programs would be necessary during construction;
these individual monitoring programs could be less coordinated than under Alternatives 1, 2 and
3.
3.13-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative
1, 2 or 3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.13
December 2015 3.13-3 Cultural and Archaeological Resources
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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 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.
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternative 1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation 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 Inadvertent 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
Inadvertent Discovery Protocol, and for correspondence with DAHP and local
tribes.
SEIS
In 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 Implemented Prior to and During 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 3.13
December 2015 3.13-4 Cultural and Archaeological Resources
3.13-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.14
December 2015 3.14-1 Light and Glare
3.14 LIGHT and GLARE
This section of the SEIS describes existing light and glare characteristics on the site and in the
site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these characteristics. This
section includes information contained in the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High
Efficiency Lighting Standards report prepared for the project (Appendix P).
3.14-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
Existing light and glare conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS.
SEIS
Site
Under existing conditions, the Black Point Campground area of the project site is currently
primarily comprised of existing vegetation and vacant buildings. The property is not actively in
use therefore it produces no light. Limited glare may occasionally occur from stationary
specular surfaces (i.e. windows on vacant buildings). The Marina area contains two single
family homes, one of which is a bed and breakfast. Limited, rural residential light and glare
conditions occur, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and mobile sources
including roadway lighting along certain existing streets such as Black Point Road, vehicle
headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from the existing residences.
Site Vicinity
In the immediate vicinity of the site, development is generally limited to rural residential uses or
is undeveloped and forested and produces limited light or glare. Light and glare conditions are
typical of a rural residential area, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and
mobile sources including roadway lighting along certain existing streets, vehicle headlights, and
interior and exterior lighting from existing single family residential housing.
Immediately 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 Impacts
2007 EIS
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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.14
December 2015 3.14-2 Light and Glare
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.)
SEIS
In general, the potential for light and glare impacts from either SEIS Alternative 1, 2 and 3
remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 EIS, in that comparable levels of
development are proposed (i.e. golf course, 890 residential units and commercial/retail
development). However, as noted in Chapter 2, the site area has been reduced (the marina
upland area is no longer part of the project), and less development is proposed in the marina
upland area (the area to the north of Black Point Road). Following is a more extensive
description of potential impacts.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
In general, light emanates from both stationary sources (e.g., interior and exterior building
lighting, street lighting, pedestrian-level lighting and illuminated signage) and mobile sources
(e.g. 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.g. 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.g., cloud cover); building
height, width and orientation of the façade; percentage of the façade 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 façade (e.g., glass inset from the sash,
horizontal and vertical modulation); the color and texture of building materials that comprise the
façade; and the proximity of other intervening structures, topography or significant landscaping
The Pleasant Harbor project under either Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would develop a largely
undeveloped, rural site with a golf course, 890 residential units, and commercial development
for resort-related amenities and services. The golf course would be 18-holes under Alternatives
1 and 2, and 9-holes under Alternative 3. 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.14
December 2015 3.14-3 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 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, new sources of glare on the site would primarily include
reflections from building façades 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. In 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.
In 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 the Resort and adjoining property, and to provide a guide for
adequate lighting used for navigation within the Marina area and to suggest lighting
policies that may be applied to the Resort boundaries.
2) To protect the operation of the Resort from deterioration by surrounding light pollution
3) Minimize 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 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to minimize potential
light and glare impacts include the following:
Illumination 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.
Illumination 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. The alternative with the greatest amount of natural area preserved
would be Alternative 3 (103 acres, 45 percent of total site area), followed by Alternative 2 (80
acres, 35 percent of total site area). Alternative 1 would have preserve the least natural area (31
acres, 13 percent of total site area). The preservation of more natural area under Alternatives 2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.14
December 2015 3.14-4 Light and Glare
and 3 could provide a greater visual buffer at the site borders, and could possibly prevent more
offsite light trespass than Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing light
and glare conditions would remain relatively unchanged. The Black Point Campground area of
the project site is not actively in use therefore it produces no light a nd the Marina area contains
limited, rural residential light and glare conditions, with some light and glare emanating from
stationary and mobile sources.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with a 9-hole golf course 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. On an overall basis, the level of light and glare
generated on the site would be less than that under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.14-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative
1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented 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.)
BoCC Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternative 1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (z) Statesman shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.14
December 2015 3.14-5 Light and Glare
SEIS
In 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.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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).
3.14-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Site Development would result in an increased level of light and glare on the site and in the
surrounding area. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant
unavoidable adverse light and glare impacts would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-1 Aesthetics
3.15 AESTHETICS
This section of the SEIS characterizes the existing and future aesthetic conditions on and in the
vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site.
3.15-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
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 west/southwest of the site.
SEIS
The existing aesthetic character of the project site has generally remained as described in the
2007 EIS.
Views to the Site
Views of the Pleasant Harbor site 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 Impacts
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 fairways
would be preserved, planted and maintained with native trees and understory. Forested open
spaces were to be dedicated along the bluff of the Black Point Peninsula and wetland areas
were to be preserved and enhanced as necessary. The EIS stated that portions of the
subdivisions at the mouth of the Duckabush River had the greatest potential for visual impact to
the rural landscape.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-2 Aesthetics
SEIS
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 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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 Resort 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 total 232 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 200-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
Canal to the south.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-3 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.
In 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
In terms of total development, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort 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 80 acres of natural
area (33 percent of the total site acreage) would be preserved.
Buildings within the Golf Resort area would range from one to five stories in height and would
be in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled
roof elements. The main building at the Golf Resort would be the Golf Terrace and Conference
Center/Spa; at five stories in height (70 feet), this would be the tallest building within the
development (this is one story taller than the building under Alternative 1).
As with Alternative 1, a riparian buffer would be preserved along the south/southwest bluff of the
peninsula and the existing aesthetic character of this area of the site would remain as under existing
conditions.
Under Alternative 2, Kettle B would not be significantly reconfigured by mass grading as would
occur under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have a total water volume of 60
million gallons, whereas under Alternative 2, Kettle B would have double that capacity at 123
million gallons.
The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural
area containing mature vegetation and several single family homes, to a more densely
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-4 Aesthetics
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. The 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.
Alternative 3
The Alternative 3 site plan was modified from Alternative 2 to reduce the size of the golf course
from 18 holes to 9 holes, with associated putting green practice area. The number of residential
units, the amount of commercial space and parking and the number, configuration and heights
of all buildings would remain the same as Alternative 2, and aesthetic impacts with respect to
the built environment would be similar.
The landscaping proposal under Alternative 3 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 further reduced as compared to Alternative 2.
Approximately 103 acres of natural area (45 percent of the total site acreage) would be
preserved compared to approximately 31 acres under Alternative 1 and approximately 80 acres
under Alternative 2. Although more of the site would be left in a natural area, this would
primarily be concentrated internal to the site, and views to the site would generally remain
similar to Alternative 2.
As with Alternatives 1 and 2, 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.
The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural
area containing mature vegetation and several single family homes, to a more densely
developed site with a larger building massing and scale and surface parking lots, generally as
described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
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, generally as described for
Alternative 2.
Summary
Although the visual character and views of the Pleasant Harbor site would extensively change
under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, 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 cons istency of building design,
landscaping, and open space areas.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-5 Aesthetics
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
aesthetic conditions and views to the site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment Under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residences and a 9-hole golf course based on the underlying rural
residential zoning. The aesthetic character of the site would generally be more consistent with
the surrounding area as compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.15-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
The following aesthetic mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 or 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site
perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fairways, and the upper
portion of the development.
The proposal shall ensure retention of selected stands of significant trees along the bluff
of the golf course to reduce the visibility of the site from the south.
The proposal shall provide landscaping between U.S. Hwy 101 and the new access road
proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village.
With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the
Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from
higher grade elevations.
o 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.
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-6 Aesthetics
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 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) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
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.” In 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) In 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.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional
aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.15
December 2015 3.15-7 Aesthetics
3.15-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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. Changes to
the character of the site would occur incrementally over the full buildout period. However, with
implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic
impacts would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-1 Utilities
3.16 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).
3.16-1 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). It 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 EIS.
SEIS
Water
The private water system infrastructure within the Pleasant Harbor site area presently includes
supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. In 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 Supply – 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.
Water Storage – One highly deteriorated wood stave storage tank on top of the hill in the
southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground currently serves the site. A metal
storage tank and a concrete storage tank outside of the site boundary in the marina
upland area serve 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-2 Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The site presently has no existing centralized wastewater collection or treatment/disposal
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. In 2012, a total of 17,543 tons of municipal solid waste were collected
through these two facilities, with 160 tons collected from the Quilcene drop box site. The county
also processed 3,785 tons of recyclables, of which 84 tons and 98 tons came from the Quilcene
and Brinnon collections sites, respectively.1 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.2
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.3
Currently, solid waste generation on the Pleasant Harbor site is limited to the existing single
family residences (B&B and Pleasant Harbor House). Solid waste generated at the Pleasant
Harbor House is presently collected by Murrey’s Disposal.
3.16-2 Impacts
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
1 Jefferson County Department of Public Works. DSEIS Comment Letter from Richard Talbot. 30 December 2014.
2 Jefferson County Department of Public Works: http://jeffersoncountysolidwaste.com/3 -recycling-services/.
3 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities Element.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-3 Utilities
and employment on the site. Increases in on-site population and employment would create
related increases in demand on water and sewer systems. Development of the Pleasant Harbor
site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. In general, water and
sewer impacts would be similar under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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 EIS
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 for water storage (110 million gallons) by grading and lining
the bottoms of the kettles.
The estimated daily potable water demand was approximately 87,300 gpd total, from 62,300
gallons per day (gpd) at 70 gpd per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for residential uses and
25,000 gpd for commercial uses. The EIS noted that total conventional water storage
requirements were approximately 189,530 gallons for an average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU.
Sewer
The 2007 EIS noted that an onsite waste treatment and disposal system would be used for the
Pleasant Harbor site in order to avoid wastewater discharge to Hood Canal or the harbor.
Several alternatives capable of creating water that could be recycled and reused on the site
were presented in the 2007 EIS, 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
In comparison to the 2007 EIS, 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 EIS, 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 EIS. All wastewater within the development under the SEIS Alternatives is proposed to be
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-4 Utilities
treated to a Class A reuse standard and reused onsite for nonpotable purposes, as was the
case with the 2007 EIS. 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, 2 and 3. 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). In 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, 2 and 3, it is anticipated that a multi-purpose utility district would own,
operate and maintain the new water system, however, the new water system would be required
to comply with the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Section 5.6 Utility Service
Review Procedure. 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 400,000-gallon water storage
tank would be constructed on the property near the 9th Tee (6th Tee under Alternative 3) 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 EIS, 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 of 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).
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-5 Utilities
The above referenced water demand does not include golf course irrigation or fire protection,
which would be provided with rainwater and water reuse from the sanitary sewer treatment
plant that would be stored in the Kettle B irrigation pond, when completed. During initial phases
of development (i.e. before the Kettle B pond is completed), fire protection in some areas would
require potable water use, but during later phases, fire protection and irrigation water will be
provided from the irrigation system.
Kettle B would be partially filled and lined with synthetic liners to receive site stormwater runoff
along with Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment plant for irrigation and fire protection.
Kettle C, which would be reconstructed as a new created wetland, would also receive site runoff
if Kettle B reached capacity. The Kettle B irrigation pond would accommodate recycled water
from the wastewater treatment plant and surface runoff water collected from annual
precipitation. After construction of the irrigation pond, reclaimed water would be used for
irrigation of the golf course, percolation from infiltration fields to groundwater for aquifer
recharge, and irrigation within the naturally vegetated areas of the resort for a Fire-Smart
Preservation program. Recycled non-potable water pressure transmission piping system
throughout the resort would be used for firefighting and landscaping irrigation.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 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 Alternatives 2 and 3, Kettle B would have double that capacity at 120
million gallons. This is similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, which would have reconfigured
the kettle to have a 110 million gallon capacity.
Sewer
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 Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3, 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 Impacts
The new sewer collection system would be constructed within easements located under or
adjacent to roadways or across golf course fairways for efficient conveyance. The existing
septic and pump tanks and subsurface drainfields would be decommissioned in place or
removed 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-6 Utilities
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 2 for more information on phasing).
Operational Impacts
As noted above, in order to serve the development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, 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 approxim ately 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
Satellite internet service would be provided on the redeveloped site under Alternatives 1-3.
Internet access can be obtained via satellite without any impact to existing internet access
systems.
Solid Waste
Under the Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3, 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-7 Utilities
commercial/retail uses would generate 5 lbs/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%). It 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.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
water system infrastructure, telecommunications, sanitary sewer and solid waste conditions and
demands on the site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with 30 residences and a 9-hole golf course based on the underlying rural
residential zoning. The potential impacts to utilities would generally remain as described in the
2007 Final EIS. Water would continue to be provided existing community wells or individual
wells, and sewage and wastewater would continue to be treated by individual septic systems
and drainfields. Solid waste pickup and disposal would need to be coordinated with a local
provider. Overall, utility demands would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, but
coordinated systems to serve the site would not be developed. Individual septic systems with
drainfields that leach nutrients into surface waters are believed to contribute to low oxygen
levels in Hood Canal.4
3.16-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
Mitigation 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.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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
4 Washington Sea Grant Program – University of Washington
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-8 Utilities
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 Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water
rights and an adequate water supply.
63 (n) Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health,
and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be
required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new
development.
63 (0) Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that water
quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is
based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU) for the development using a standard 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.
SEIS
In addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions,
the following utility mitigation measures would also apply:
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
Water
All proposed water system improvements would be designed and constructed in
compliance with applicable local and State regulations, including: Jefferson County,
Washington State Department of Health, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4.
Actual domestic water service requirements will be determined at the time of specific
land use applications, based on population projections, 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 com pletion 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.16
December 2015 3.16-9 Utilities
Over the course of the projected 10-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.
3.16-4 Significant 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-1 Public Services
3.17 Public Services
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 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
3.17.1-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
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.
Fire Station 41 – Headquarters - 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon WA
Fire Station 42 – Duckabush Fire Station – 51 Shorewood Drive, Brinnon, WA
Fire Station 43 – Maury Anderson Station – 341 Beemill Road, Brinnon, WA
Station 42, located approximately within a mile of the site (to the west), is the closest station to
Pleasant Harbor. The EIS stated that on average, EMS calls accounted for approximately two-
thirds of the annual call volume, and that call volumes in the Brinnon/Black Point area increase
significantly in the summer, when more people are in the area to stay at their summer homes,
take extended vacations on local properties, and visit State parks and other recreation
amenities.
The 2007 EIS noted that District #4 crews must bring their own water when responding to a fire
anywhere in the district, which results in a limited water supply for fighting fires, and potential
fire truck maneuverability and access issues on narrow, steep roads. Also, the existing
Pleasant Harbor Marina complex was noted to pose a particular challenge for District #4
firefighters because of the narrow, steep access road, which will be remediated under an
amendment to the existing Marina 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 has been closed due to flooding1. 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-2 Public Services
Updated fire and EMS call information is provided in below Table 3.17-1 for Fire District #4. As
shown, the majority of calls are for EMS.
Table 3.17-1
FIRE DISTRICT #4 – FIRE AND EMS CALLS 2008-2012
EMS Calls Fire/Rescue
Calls
Total Calls
2008 146 82 228
2009 171 93 264
2010 146 103 249
2011 155 65 220
2012 44 29 73
2013 161 88 249
Source: Brinnon Fire Department: http://brinnonfire.org/.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a goal of
having 1.25 fire units and 0.5 EMS units in service per 1,000 population.
3.17.1-2 Impacts
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. Increases 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 EIS
The 2007 EIS noted that development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent
residential units to the community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development’s winter or
permanent population was projected to increase by 200 to 300 people, which would translate
into a few additional calls for service, but was determined to be well within the capacity of the
existing facilities and services and anticipated growth. During the summer, a resort population
of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated to strain existing personnel and services and
equipment. Accordingly, the 2007 EIS identified measures (outlined in Section 3.17.1-4, below)
to mitigate impacts to fire and EMS services.
SEIS
Compared to the 2007 EIS, impacts to fire and EMS services under either SEIS Alternatives 1,
2 or 3 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, 2 or 3, 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 3 and less than 50,000 square feet under Alternative 1. As well, the
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-3 Public Services
site acreage has been reduced to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 EIS,
with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.2 In general, new
development under either SEIS Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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
EIS, 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 Impacts
During the development and construction process for the Pleasant Harbor site under either
Alternative 1, 2 or 3, 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 Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would occur gradually
over the assumed 10-year buildout of the site and associated demands on fire and EMS
services would increase incrementally over that time period. Under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3,
890 residential units would be provided onsite, including 560 short term tourist residential units
and 278 long term units. The 278 permanent units, plus 52 units for staff housing could result in
a permanent onsite population of 764 (including 208 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, 2 or 3 would, therefore, result in an increase in on-site
residents, visitors and employees as compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that the
increased on-site population (both permanent and temporary) would result in an increase in the
number of calls for fire and emergency medical service from the Pleasant Harbor site; demand
for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be
operating at peak capacity. Based on historic calls for service over the last five years (see
Table 3.17-1), it would be expected that the majority of the calls generated from new
development on the Pleasant Harbor site would be EMS calls.
As noted previously, Jefferson County’s goal for Brinnon is to maintain 1.25 fire units and 0.5
EMS units per 1,000 population. Accordingly, 0.83 fire units and 0.33 EMS units could be
required for the permanent site population of 660 residents and employees. An MOU is being
negotiated with the Brinnon Fire Department to address potential impacts resulting from
increased demand for services.
The MOU currently states that the Resort shall provide to the Department the sum of
$10,000.00 per quarter commencing 45 days before the anticipated start of construction or
demolition in order to offset the cost of providing EMS and fire responses during the
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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-4 Public Services
construction time period. This amount will continue until the increase in Property Value
Assessment is reflected in the Resort’s tax payments and the Resort has paid their property
taxes for the year of the increase. Such financial contributions would be expected to help offset
potential increases in calls for service as related to the new Pleasant Harbor resort
development.
Proposed new development under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 would be constructed in compliance
with applicable codes, including the Uniform Fire Code and the International 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
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
public services demands on the site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, 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 be as described in the 2007 Final EIS. Public service demands from
an additional 30 housing units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1,
2 and 3, but with correspondingly less revenue to support additional services. The addition of
30 homes would represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the population in the
overall service area, and a corresponding increase in calls for fire and EMS services would be
anticipated. Such an increase would be within the range of expected normal growth and attrition
patterns for the area, and no impacts would be anticipated.
3.17.1-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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.
All resort buildings to include internal sprinkler systems with FDC connections.
Incorporate 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-5 Public Services
Install hydrants, two portable fire pumps with hoses and related fire suppression
equipment at the marina and maintenance area as approved by the local fire authority.
Develop an “emergency action plan” with the Fire District [# 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 Condo-tel/Conference Center Building.
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
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63(c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-6 Public Services
SEIS
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 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
3.17.2 POLICE SERVICES
3.17.2-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
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 Sheriff’s Office
is located at the Justice Center in Port Hadlock and also maintains an office at the Cour thouse
in Port Townsend, a substation in Clearwater, and an annex in Quilcene. The Brinnon/Black
Point area is in the Sheriff’s Patrol District S5. 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 S5 District primarily related to traffic
violations, DUI arrests and burglaries.
SEIS
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 Impacts
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. Increases 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-7 Public Services
2007 EIS
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. It 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 EIS, 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
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 Alternatives 2 and 3, and less than 50,000 square
feet under Alternative 1. In general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1, 2 or 3
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 EIS, 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 Resort could result in an
increased demand for police services during the 10-year construction period. Service calls
could increase during construction due to trespassing, construction site theft, vandalism and
traffic incidents due to construction traffic. The construction site would be secured to prevent
trespassing, vandalism and to avoid accidents involving the public. As well, the Resort’s
existing security staff and security systems would be maintained and increased as needed.
With the implementation of these measures, overall construction impacts on police services
would be short-term and would not be substantial. Existing staffing and equipment are
expected to be sufficient to handle increased calls for services associated with construction
activities over the buildout period.
Operation
Potential increases in on-site population and employment associated with new development
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be incremental and could result in associated incremental
increases in demand for police services. It is anticipated that annual call volumes to the
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office could increase under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. In order to
reduce potential impacts to the Jefferson County Sherriff’s Office, the Resort would maintain
security staff sufficient to provide twenty four hour a day, seven day a week service to the site
including roving patrol, video systems, intrusion systems and gated entry, as necessary.
Consistent with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LOS guidelines, a 500 sq. ft. “public
service room” would be provided on the resort for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-8 Public Services
enforcement room and implementation of onsite security measures, significant impacts to the
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office would not be anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing,
limited public services demands on the site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with a 9-hole golf course based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The
potential impacts to police services would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS.
Public service demands from an additional 30 housing units would be less than Alternatives 1-3,
but with correspondingly less revenue to support additional services. The addition of 30 homes
would represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the population in the overall
service area, and a corresponding increase in calls for sheriff services would be anticipated. As
stated in the 2007 EIS, such an increase would be within the overall planned growth of the area
through normal growth and attrition patterns, and no impacts would be anticipated.
3.17.2-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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. Onsite security
and surveillance systems for the protection of resort guests, residents, and property
coordinated with local service providers to assure appropriate communication and
control systems are in place.
Community level: Explore the use of a development agreement or other assurance to
provide a mechanism for the County to provide some public safety funding to the
Brinnon area from the revenues received from the resort to assure that the funds will n ot
be diverted to the more populous north county.
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-9 Public Services
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.
3.17.2-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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.
3.17.3 PUBLIC SCHOOLS
3.17.3-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
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 2005/2006 school
year, and 49 students in 2006/2007. 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-10 Public Services
Table 3.17-2
BRINNON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 2008-2012
Date Student
Enrollment
2006 56
2007 49
2008 31
2009 29
2010 33
2011 38
2012 35
Source: State of WA Office of
Superintendent of Public
Instruction
Besides declining enrollment and increased excess capacity, existing school conditions have
generally remained as described in the 2007 EIS.
3.17.3-2 Impacts
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. Increases in the permanent on-site population and employment could
result in new students to the area school district. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site
would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period.
2007 EIS
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
In comparison to the 2007 EIS, the specific number of housing units that would be devoted to
permanent residents versus short term visitors has been defined for SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and
3.
Residential development and associated increases in the on-site population under Alternatives
1, 2 and 3 would generate some additional student enrollment in the Brinnon School District. It
is assumed that only permanent residents of the site would potentially have children that could
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-11 Public Services
be enrolled in the Brinnon School District, as the rest of the site units would be occupied by
temporary, short-term visitors. Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, 52 staff housing units and 276
resort units would be reserved for permanent use. The remaining 562 units would be for
seasonal/occasional use.
Increases 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, 2 or 3. 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, 2 or 3. Table 3.17-3 summarizes the potential students
that could be generated from development of the Pleasant Harbor site at buildout.
Table 3.17-3
PLEASANT HARBOR ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION
– ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
Potential
Permanent
Site
Population
Grades K-8
Students1
High School
Students3
Total
Students
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 660 24 20 44
Source: 2010 US Census and EA Engineering, 2013.
1 Approximately 3.7 percent of the total population (2010 US Census).
2 Approximately 3.1 percent of the total population (2010 US Census).
As noted previously, the Brinnon School District only accommodates students in grades K-8.
Based on existing school capacity and current enrollment data (see Table 3.17-2), the Brinnon
School District currently has excess capacity that could accommodate an additional 24 students
in grades K-8. Development under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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. Implementation of this MOA would
help to offset any potential impacts resulting from increased student population as a result of
resort development. It 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-12 students.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-12 Public Services
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing,
limited public school demands related to the site would remain unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area with a 9-hole golf course based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The
potential impacts to police services would generally remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS.
Public school demands from an additional 30 housing units would be less than Alternatives 1-3,
but with correspondingly less revenue to support additional services. The addition of 30 homes
would represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the population in the overall
service area, and a corresponding increase in school age children could be anticipated. As
stated in the 2007 EIS, such an increase would be within the overall planned growth of the area
through normal growth and attrition patterns, and no impacts would be anticipated.
3.14-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
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.
BoCC Conditions
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
SEIS
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-13 Public Services
3.17.3-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 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 SERVICES
3.17.4-1 Affected Environment
2007 EIS
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.
SEIS
Health care service conditions have generally remained the same as described in the 2007 EIS.
3.17.4-2 Impacts
2007 EIS
The 2007 EIS noted that the proposal included 500+ sq. ft. of clinic space in the development of
the Maritime Village for a certified nurse and/or a general practitioner. Selected staff would also
be provided with basic emergency medical training.
SEIS
Compared to the 2007 EIS, impacts to health care services under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 or 3
would likely be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action in that the same
number of residential units are proposed (890), which would likely result in similar numbers of
people on-site. However, the number of units devoted to a permanent residential population has
been specified for the SEIS, and the permanent population would be likely to make more regular
use of health care services in the vicinity.
In general, new development under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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. It 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. In 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-14 Public Services
Pleasant Harbor resort. In addition, select resort staff would receive training to the level of first
responder with ongoing training in CPR, AED, Oxygen Administration and First Aid. With the
implementation of these measures, significant impacts to health care services would not be
anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Scenario A – Continuation of Existing Conditions
Under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing,
limited health services demands related to the site would remain unchanged.
Scenario B – Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Designations
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The addition of 30 homes and
a 9-hole golf course would represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the
population in the overall service area, and a corresponding increase in healthcare services
would be anticipated. The potential impacts to health services would be limited compared to
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.17.4-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 EIS
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During 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
Mitigation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
December 2015 3.17-15 Public Services
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 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-1 BoCC Conditions
3.18 BoCC Conditions
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 EIS, as
well as the status of compliance with each of the BoCC conditions. Since publication of the
2007 EIS, 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, to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) buffer of 150 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), and to respond to comments received on the Draft SEIS
(Alternative 3).
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.
BoCC Conditions 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. In 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.
In 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 MPR proposal (including environmental review of the
proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement required to implement
the proposal). Accordingly, this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW provides project-level environmental review to
supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 EIS.
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, as well as changes
initiated by the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts. 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. A new alternative (Alternative 3) has been added for analysis in this Final SEIS
which reduces the size of the golf course from 18-holes to 9-holes, and preserves more natural
vegetation on the site (100 acres, as compared to 31 acres under Alternative 1, and 80 acres
under Alternative 2. While Alternatives 1 2 and 3 include 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
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-2 BoCC Conditions
layout of the golf course in Alternatives 2 and 3 is also revised to reduce the amount of cut and
fill necessary as compared to Alternative 1, and more closely follow the existing topography.
As well, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 relocate 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 EIS.
Compliance with BoCC Conditions
Table 3.18-1, below, outlines all thirty BoCC conditions, indicates measures intended to comply
with the conditions, and indicates the status of actions intended to comply with the conditions.
As indicated below, 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
BoCC CONDITIONS
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
a Any analysis of
environmental impacts is to
be based on science and
data pertinent to the Brinnon
site. This includes rainfall
projections, runoff
projections, and potential
impacts on Hood Canal.
The analysis of environmental
impacts contained in the SEIS is
based on site specific data,
including rainfall projections,
runoff projections and potential
impacts to Hood Canal. See
SDEIS Section 3.2, Water
Resources, and Appendix F for
more information.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
b All applications will be given
an automatic SEPA threshold
determination of
Determination of Significance
(DS) at the project level
except where the SEPA-
responsible official
determines that the
application results in only
minor construction.
The proposal was automatically
given a Determination of
Significance, initiating this
project-level Supplemental EIS.
The Marina redevelopment was
determined by the SEPA
responsible official to be minor
construction and therefore not
included in the SEIS.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
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,
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).
Measure intended
for compliance
partially fulfilled.
The following
MOU’s are in draft
form and/or have
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-3 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
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.
No MOU has been negotiated
for parks and recreation;
however, public amenities are
proposed within the
development (see Conditions
63d below). Some of 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.
yet to be signed by
the agency/district:
Fire District;
Sherriff’s Office;
Jefferson Transit;
and Housing
(County).
The MOU 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 Agreement
between the Applicant and the
County.
Intended to 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.
Intended to be
addressed in the
Development
Agreement
f Statesman will prioritize the
sourcing of construction
materials from within
This condition shall be
negotiated in the Development
Agreement between the
Intended to be
addressed in the
Development
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-4 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
Jefferson County. Applicant and the County.
Agreement
g The developer shall
commission a study of the
number of jobs expected to
be created as a direct or
indirect result of the MPR that
earn 80% or less of the
Brinnon area average median
income (AMI). The developer
shall provide affordable
housing (e.g., 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 AMI. The
developer may satisfy this
condition through dedication
of land, payment of in lieu
fee, or onsite housing
development.
A study on the number of jobs
expected to be created as a
result of the MPR was
completed: Summary of
Pleasant Harbor Impacts: Job
Creation and Value Added to
National Economy (2012). The
report is included in 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.
Measures intended
to comply with
conditions partially
completed. The
availability of
affordable
employee housing
for positions
earning less than
80% of 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.
The 2012 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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
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
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
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-5 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
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.
these analyses.
j Tribes should be consulted
regarding cultural resources,
and possibly one kettle
preserved as a cultural
resource.
Six tribes were consulted
regarding the proposed Cultural
Resource Management Plan and
three tribes concurred. See
Appendix O for copies of email
correspondence.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
k As a condition of
development approval, prior
to the issuance of any
shoreline permit or approval
of any preliminary plat, there
shall be executed or recorded
with the County Auditor a
document reflecting the
developer's written
understanding with and
among the following:
Jefferson County, local tribes,
and the Department of
Archaeology and Historical
Preservation, that includes a
cultural resources
management plan to assure
archaeological investigations
and systematic monitoring of
the subject property prior to
issuing permits; and during
construction to maintain site
integrity, provide procedures
regarding future ground-
disturbing activity, assure
traditional tribal access to
cultural properties and
activities, and to provide for
community education
opportunities.
To avoid potentially adverse
impacts to cultural resources,
periodic archaeological
monitoring would be carried out
during construction excavations
and other below-fill, ground-
disturbing project actions.
Monitoring would occur at those
locations within the site area that
have previously been identified
as high probability areas (i.e.,
kettles, vantage points, and bluff
edge) until it could be
determined with greater
assurance that continual
monitoring would not be
necessary. Monitoring results
would be reviewed with
Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation staff and
tribal representatives prior to
adjusting the monitoring
schedule. See Appendix O of
this SEIS for details of the
monitoring plan.
Measures intended
for compliance
partially completed:
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.
l A wildlife management plan
focused on non-lethal
strategies shall be developed
A Habitat Management Plan was
completed January 27, 2012 by
GeoEngineers. See Appendix H
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-6 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
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.g.,
deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl,
osprey, eagles, and bear), to
reduce the potential for
vehicle collisions on U.S.
Highway 1Q1, to reduce the
conflicts resulting from wildlife
foraging on high-value
landscaping and attraction to
fresh water sources, to
reduce the dangers to
predators attracted to the
area by prey or habitat, and
to reduce any danger to
humans.
and Section 3.4, Fish and
Wildlife, of this SEIS for
additional detail.
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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
o Detailed review is needed at
the project-level SEPA
analysis to ensure that water
quantity and water quality
issues are addressed. The
estimated potable water use
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
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-7 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
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.
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.
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 Neighborhood Water Policy
was drafted and reviewed on
January 2011, but is not yet
finalized (SEIS Appendix F).
The NWP intended
to be finalized prior
to approval of the
development
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. November 21, 2008) and
the infiltration rates to be used
for final design of stormwater
facilities are presented in the
2012 Grading and Drainage
Report (SEIS Appendix E). No
stormwater from the golf course
fairways would discharge to
Hood Canal. See Section 3.2,
Water Resources, of this SEIS
for additional detail.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-8 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
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.
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).
Intended to be
addressed through
the Development
Agreement
process: The draft
Plan requires
finalization and
approval prior to
approval of the
Development
Agreement
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
The proposal includes
preserving a riparian buffer
along the south/southwest bluff
of the peninsula. This buffer
would permanently preserve the
200-ft wide Shoreline
Environment and a steep slope
setback (up to an additional 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.
Intended to be
addressed through
the Development
Agreement
process: These
easements shall be
finalized and
recorded prior to
approval of the
Development
Agreement.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-9 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
development from Highway
101.
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 Invasive Tunicate Monitoring
Agreement between the
applicant and the Department of
Fish and Wildlife was drafted in
October 2010 (SEIS Appendix
I). See Section 3.5, Shellfish, of
this SEIS for additional detail
Intended to be
addressed through
the Development
Agreement
process: This
agreement shall be
finalized prior to
final BoCC
approval of the
Development
Agreement.
u In keeping with the MPR
designation as located in a
setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the
requirements of the Shoreline
Master Program (JCC
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."
In 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
The proposal includes
preserving a riparian buffer
along the south/southwest bluff
of the peninsula. This buffer
would permanently preserve the
200-ft wide Shoreline
Environment and a steep slope
setback (up to an additional 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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-10 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
rural areas." Evergreen trees
and understory should remain
as undisturbed as possible.
Statesman shall infill plants
where appropriate with
indigenous trees and shrubs.
v In keeping with an approved
landscaping and grading
plan, and in order to satisfy
the intent of JCC
18.15.135(6), and with
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.
In 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, and 3.15, Aesthetics, of
this SEIS for additional detail.
The landscape plan for the
single Marina Village Building
will provide 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 buffer to take
advantage of the sloped area of
the site. The stream buffer
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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
w Construction of the MPR
buildings will be completed in
An individual tree survey has not
been completed for health and
Intended to be
addressed through
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-11 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
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.
size, but during construction,
viable trees within proposed
development areas that can be
transplanted would be relocated
on a temporary basis to an on-
site nursery located in the
western edge of the
development. These trees would
be irrigated and cultivated until
replanting is possible within
designated areas of the
development. See Section 3.3,
Plants, for additional detail.
development
approval process:
Individual trees 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
"Green Built" green building
rating system standards.
These standards, applicable
to commercial and residential
dwellings respectively,
"promote design and
construction practices that
increase profitability while
reducing the negative
environmental impacts of
buildings, and improving
occupant health and well-
being."
The Narrative Demonstrating
Compliance with the Intent of
LEED standards is provided in
Section 3.8, Energy and
Natural Resources, and
Appendix K of this SEIS and
addresses this condition.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
y 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
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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed. The
development
agreement will
address the
maintenance of the
golf course
chemical
application log.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-12 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
available to the public.
z Statesman shall use the
International Dark Sky
Association (IDA) 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:
Illumination 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.
Illumination 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
information.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
aa In 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).
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 include
890 units, including 52 units for
staff housing. 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. See Section 3.11,
Housing and Employment, of
this SEIS for additional detail.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
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,
The Applicant in
conjunction with
Mason County
PUD will complete
the report on the
capacity of
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-13 BoCC Conditions
BoCC
#
Condition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
capacity and availability of
electric power from the PUD.
See Section 3.8, Energy and
Natural Resources, for
additional detail.
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
Draft SEIS 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.
Measures intended
for compliance
completed.
dd Statesman Corporation is
encouraged to work with
community apprentice groups
to identify and advertise job
opportunities for local
students.
Related to condition (e) At the discretion of
the Developer
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, 2 and 3 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
Alternatives 2 and 3).
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-14 BoCC Conditions
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 drinking/eating
establishments; staff/service apartments; resort-related gallery and retail uses; resort-related
indoor and outdoor recreation facilities (including swimming, tennis, spa, amphitheaters, pools,
and playgrounds); multi-family dwellings (both long-term and 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 Alternatives 2 and 3. All structures over 50 feet in height must be set back 100
feet from the MPR boundary lines. The tallest Golf Terrace building is proposed to be located
300 feet from the northern property line. The uses and heights proposed within the Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Golf Resort comply with the standards for the MPR-GR zone.
The purpose of the Open Space Reserve zone (MPR-OSR) is to provide a natural buffer
between the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canal. T he JCC indicates that this zone
shall consist of a tract of land located south of the MPR-GR zone and extend landward 200 feet
from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as measured under the Shoreline Management
Act or 25 feet from the top of the bank as measured under Chapter 18.22 JCC, whichever is
greater. The MPR-OSR zone permits restoration and maintenance of existing development
intrusions (roads and campsites) and passive recreation. The Pleasant Harbor Resort proposal
includes a 200 foot buffer within this zone, which would be restored and planted with native
vegetation, consistent with the purpose of this zone. The trail 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 overwater structures; Marina Village related upland mixed use,
commercial and service facilities, including restaurant and shops, as well as marine service
facilities and marina office; yacht club and recreational facilities; structures providing long and
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 Maritime Village building at 39 feet under
Alternative 1 and less than 53 feet under Alternative 2 and 3. All structures over 30 feet in height
shall be set back at least 20 feet from the external property lines and comply with the setback
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The bulk of the Maritime Village building
would be approximately 140 feet from U.S. Highway 101, but the northern portion would angle
Source: Craig A. Peck & Associates, 2013 Figure 3.18-1
Zoning Map
Pleasant Harbor
Final SEIS
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-16 BoCC Conditions
closer to the property line within 47 under Alternative 1 to 67 feet under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 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 MPRs, and
are consistent with the permitted uses noted in the three zones in the Brinnon MPR outlined
above. The existing MPR regulations noted that short-term visitor accommodations shall
constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units. As noted in Section
3.11, Employment and Housing, the Pleasant Harbor proposal meets this requirement.
The draft Development and Agreement and zoning regulations are included in Appendix S of
this SEIS. The BoCC would adopt the MPR-Brinnon zoning regulations subsequent to a
Planning Commission recommendation.
Preliminary Development Agreement
A development agreement is required for master planned resorts as prescribed under JCC
18.15.126(2). The development agreement sets forth development standards specific to the
master planned resort, including, but not limited to:
(a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
(b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant;
(c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans;
(d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable),
visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on-site
recreational 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 36.70B.170(3).
A preliminary development agreement between the applicant and Jefferson County was 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 Final Supplemental EIS 3.18
December 2015 3.18-17 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 ten 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.
Chapter 4
Key Topics
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Key Topics
December 2015 4-1 Chapter 4
CHAPTER 4
KEY TOPIC AREAS
Consistent with SEPA requirements, a public comment period was provided for the November
2014 Draft Supplemental EIS. During the public comment period a total of 70 comment letters
were received and public testimony was provided during a Planning Commission meeting. All of
the comments received, as well as responses to the comments, are provided in Exhibits 1 and
2 of this Final SEIS. Chapter 5 contains a summary of comments received.
A number of comments (written and verbal) were received that identified common subjects;
these have been referred to as “key topic areas”. Rather than providing a similar response to
each comment that shares a common theme, this chapter of the Final SEIS identifies the key
topic area and provides a discussion for each topic area. Responses to specific comments
provided in Exhibits 1 and 2 (in Volume 2) of this Final SEIS which pertain to these topic areas
refer back to the applicable discussion provided in this chapter.
The following key topics are discussed on this chapter of the Final SEIS:
4-1 - Fiscal Considerations
4-2 – Salt W ater Intrusion
4-1 FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
Land use development proposals inherently provide both fiscal costs and benefits. Land use
development costs can include increased demands for public services, decreased housing
affordability and increased infrastructure maintenance, while fiscal benefits can include tax
revenues, development fees and job creation. Fiscal costs to local service providers and
corresponding tax/fee revenues both typically occur incrementally, with revenues realized
generally commensurate with costs. It should be noted that these costs and benefits are not
borne or enjoyed equally by all people, but tend to vary by location, socioeconomic
characteristics, general preferences, etc.
Pleasant Harbor Project Conditions of Approval
In November 2007 Jefferson County issued the Final EIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor
Marina and Golf Course Project. Through the public review process for the proposed project
and associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment, public comment was received regarding a
number of issues including the potential to negatively impact local service providers (school,
fire, police, EMS, parks, etc.), ability of the project to foster local job creation, and ability of the
project to provide affordable housing opportunities for new employees on the site.
In response to these public comments, In 2008 the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor project with 30 conditions of
approval (Ordinance 07-0128-08), several of which were intended to address public services,
employment and affordable housing issues.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Key Topics
December 2015 4-2 Chapter 4
The November 2014 Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS reflects revisions to the proposed
master plan to reflect the Jefferson County Commissioners conditions of approval, and provides
discussion on the relationship of proposed site development with the conditions of approval.
Public Services and Utilities
Summary of Draft SEIS Environmental Analysis
As identified in Section 3.17 of the Draft SEIS (Public Services), construction and master plan
operations on the site under the EIS alternatives would result in additional demands on local
service providers including schools, police, fire, EMS and health service.
As is typical of residential and commercial development projects, the costs associated with
incremental increased demand on public service and utility providers in the area would be
balanced by tax revenues and development fees paid by the applicant (construction fees and
construction sales taxes) and future residents and businesses on the site (retail sales tax,
business and occupation tax, property tax, utilities tax, and other fees, licenses and permits);
thus, a portion of the tax revenues generated from site development would accrue to Jefferson
County and area service/utility providers to help offset costs associated with increased
demands.
In addition, as indicated above the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor project with additional conditions intended, in
part, to further mitigate the potential for impacts to area service/utility providers. Conditions of
approval that specifically relate to public service and utility providers include:
(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.
(bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from
the Mason County Public Utility District.
Additional Information Provided for Final SEIS
Costs for infrastructure and service demands generated by the proposal would be offset by
payments and improvements by the project. The following list highlights some of the key
infrastructure improvements and services to be provided by the project:
Realignment of Black Point Road resulting in a safety improvement.
Adding width to Black Point Road at the site entrance.
Providing acceleration and deceleration lanes required by WSDOT at Highway 101 and
Black Point Road.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Key Topics
December 2015 4-3 Chapter 4
Reconstruction of the service road to the WDFW boat launch (this road does not
currently comply with standards).
Creation of a utility district intended to eliminate impact to the surrounding community.
This district would provide the following;
- Pay for management and staffing of the waste water treatment plant.
- Pay for PUD extension of transmission lines and new transformers.
- Monitor the condition of the aquifer.
Provide security services.
Provide a space for a medical clinic that would be available to the community.
Housing Affordability
Summary of Draft SEIS Environmental Analysis
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners conditioned the approval of the Pleasant
harbor project with additional conditions intended, in part, to ensure affordable housing for new
operational employees generated by the proposal. Conditions of approval that specifically
relate to public service and utility providers include:
(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 (AMI). The developer shall provide affordable housing
(e.g., 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
AMI. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in
lieu fee, or onsite housing development.
As identified in Section 3.11 of the Draft SEIS, development of new employment-generating
land uses could result in up to 225 new operational jobs. It is estimated that 223 of the 225 total
operational jobs (99 percent) would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of the Brinnon
area average median income ($34,143). The Draft SEIS also indicates that affordable housing
is defined as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income.
Intended to comply with conditions of approval (g), it is proposed that onsite housing be
provided for up to 208 employees at a cost of no more than 30 percent of employee income.
4-2 – Saltwater Intrusion
Introduction
Redevelopment of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase water
demands by consuming groundwater resources for residential and commercial purposes. The
proposed source for this water is the aquifer underlying the site. The analysis prepared for this
SEIS indicates that the existing aquifer is sufficient to serve the proposal and significant impacts
to the aquifer are not anticipated with implementation of proposed and identified mitigation
measures. Saltwater intrusion, the movement of saltwater into freshwater aquifers, is a concern
in coastal areas, and many Draft SEIS comments raised this as an issue.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Key Topics
December 2015 4-4 Chapter 4
Pleasant Harbor Project Conditions of Approval
In November 2007 Jefferson County issued the Final EIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor
Marina and Golf Course Project. Through the public review process for the proposed project
and associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment, public comment was received regarding a
number of issues including the potential to negatively impact the aquifer and the potential for
causing saltwater intrusion.
In response to these public comments, In 2008 the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor project with 30 conditions of
approval (Ordinance 07-0128-08), several of which were intended to address water quality
issues.
63 (p) An Neighborhood W ater Plan 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.
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).
Summary of Draft SEIS Environmental Analysis
As identified in Section 3.2, Water Resources, of the Draft SEIS, construction and master plan
operations on the site under the EIS alternatives would require the applicant to conduct
groundwater monitoring to ensure saltwater intrusion does not occur in Pleasant Harbor’s wells
or coastal domestic wells. A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is included in Appendix F to comply
with the Department of Ecology recommendation for future continued monitoring of groundwater
levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance which could indicate seawater
intrusion.
A Neighborhood Water Program (NWP) would also be established that requires the applicant to
provide neighboring parcels access to the water system 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
(Ap pendix 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.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Key Topics
December 2015 4-5 Chapter 4
Additional Information Provided for this Final SEIS
The Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for managing the State’s water resources.
Ecology has reviewed applicant’s proposal and hired an independent consultant to perform an
independent analyses. The independent analysis, and the analysis prepared for this SEIS,
document that the existing aquifer is sufficient to serve the proposal and significant impacts to
the aquifer are not anticipated with implementation of proposed and identified mitigation
measures.
The applicant proposes to implement a monitoring program and management plan for potential
saltwater intrusion as approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in the Neighborhood
Water Supply Program (February 24, 2010) included in Draft SEIS Appendix E. The Water
Right Permit (G2-30436) granted to the project incorporates the “Groundwater Monitoring Plan”
prepared by the applicant as a condition of the permit. That plan requires the installation of
water level and salinity dataloggers in eight existing and proposed wells and piezometers across
the site. These wells and dataloggers will monitor water levels and water quality (including
chloride levels) on a periodic basis (20 minutes to hourly) over time. These data will be used to
assess the effects of pumping the water supply wells and to provide a forewarning in the event
that adverse water levels or adverse water quality (including saltwater intrusion) were to
develop.
The primary reason for seawater intrusion to occur in a domestic well would be drawdown at the
well. The Resort has a monitoring program to document drawdown from the Resort wells. As
long as neighboring domestic wells are not over-pumped, the potential for introducing salt water
intrusion is low. As indicated in the SEIS, after completion of the proposed resort, recharge to
the aquifer would increase compared to existing conditions which would reduce the potential for
seawater intrusion.
It is also important to remember that salt water intrusion can be introduced by factors other than
pumping of the Resort wells. Ecology has evaluated a number of wells in the area where wells
owned by others were constructed too deep or have been over-pumped. The monitoring
network to be established under the Groundwater Monitoring Plan would be implemented to
document the effects of Resort pumping on the aquifer, locally and distant from the supply wells.
Chapter 5
Summary of Comments Received on
the Draft SEIS
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Summary of Comments Received on Draft SEIS
December 2015 5-1 Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS
This chapter of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) contains a
general summary of the types of comments received on the Draft SEIS and a table listing all
comment letters and verbal comments received along with an indication of the primary topic
area(s) associated with comment letter/verbal comment.
The Draft SEIS public comment period occurred from November 19, 2014 through January 5,
2015. On December 3, 2014 a public open house was held to provide a description of the
Proposed Actions, answer questions about the SEIS process, and allow opportunities for public
comments; approximately 20 individuals provided verbal comment during the open house.
The individual comment letters and transcript of the verbal comments received along with
responses to each specific comment are contained in Exhibits 1 and 2 to this Final SEIS.
Because a number of comments (written and verbal) were received that identified common
subjects; these have been referred to as “key topic areas”. Rather than providing a similar
response to each comment that shares a common theme, Chapter 4 of the Final SEIS identifies
the key topic area and provides a discussion for each topic area.
The primary topics of comment responses received on the Draft SEIS include:
Water – aquifer recharge, aquifer capacity, saltwater intrusion, stormwater quality and
quantity, Class A effluent use.
Fish and Wildlife/Shellfish – Pleasant Harbor water quality, elk migration.
Transportation – traffic study methodology, vehicular traffic increase, truck trips
associated with construction and solid waste removal, traffic safety.
Public Services – increased demands on police, schools and fire/EMS services.
Fiscal/Taxes – tax payer costs, service/utility provider costs, performance bonding.
Housing and Employment - wage levels associated with employment, housing
affordability.
General Project and Other Topics – general positive/negative opinion of project,
climate change.
The following table presents a listing of all comment letters received on the Draft SEIS and
verbal comments presented at the December 3, 2014 open house, and provides an indication of
the general topic area of comments received. As indicated above, response to each individual
comment is contained in Exhibits 1 and 2 in Volume 2 to this Final SEIS.
Comment Topics Related to SEIS Elements of the Environment
Other Topics of Comment
# Name Earth Water Plants Fish &
Wildlife
Shellfish Shorelines Critical
Areas
Transportation Air Quality
and GHG
Housing &
Employment
Rural
Character
Aesthetics Utilities Public
Services
Cultural
Resources
Fiscal &
Taxes
General
Project and
Other
Topics1
Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Summary of Comments Received on Draft SEIS
December 2015 5-1 Chapter 5
COMMENT LETTERS
1 Jefferson County – Comm. Dev.
2 Jefferson County – Pub. Works
3 Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
4 Wash. St. DAHP
5 Wash. St. DOE
6 Wash. St. DOH
7 Wash. St. DOT
8 Brinnon Group
9 Friends of Miller State Park
10 Hood Canal Environmental Council
11 Norwest Watershed Institute
12 Olympic Environmental Council
13 Sierra Club
14 Joe Baisch
15 Joy Baisch
16 J. Hal Beattie & Rebekah R Ross
17 Bonnie Beaudoin
18 Bonnie Beaudoin #2
19 Barbara Buchman
20 Joseph Buchman
21 Scott Burns and Margaret ___
22 Sarah Clawson-Schuch
23 Ruth Di Domenico
24 Dalila Dowd
25 John Dowd
26 David Galle
27 Terry Germaine
28 Belinda Graham
29 Eric Hendricks
30 Joan Hendricks
31 Jennings Heins & Associates
32 K. Kennell
33 Genene Kluck
34 Laurie Mattson
35 Joy McFadden
36 John McKay
37 Brenda McMillan
38 Rob Mitchell
39 Richard and Sheila Moore
40 William and Roxianne Morris
41 Miriam Murdoch
42 Gary and Pam Myhr
43 Joe and Miriam Newsom
44 Jerry and Susan Olson
45 Joseph and Krystyna Orrico
46 Morgan Oslake
47 Kirie Pederson
48 Lynne Robinson
49 Mark Rose
50 David P. Sadler
51 David P. Sadler #2
Comment Topics Related to SEIS Elements of the Environment
Other Topics of Comment
# Name Earth Water Plants Fish &
Wildlife
Shellfish Shorelines Critical
Areas
Transportation Air Quality
and GHG
Housing &
Employment
Rural
Character
Aesthetics Utilities Public
Services
Cultural
Resources
Fiscal &
Taxes
General
Project and
Other
Topics1
Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Summary of Comments Received on Draft SEIS
December 2015 5-2 Chapter 5
52 Eleanor Sather
53 Eleanor Sather #2
54 Eleanor Sather #3
55 Bud and Valerie Schindler
56 George Selfridge
57 Peter Siefert
58 Mike and Joan Stelte
59 Fred Stern
60 William and Victoria Stewart
61 Phil Thenstedt
62 Judd Tuberg
63 Greg and Tina Tyler
64 Lori Uddenberg
65 Steve Walker
66 Patty Wells
67 Del and Terri Weron
68 Katie Whitman
69 Lynda Wilson
70 Ralph Woodall
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT
71 George Sickel (?)
72 Mike Weld
73 Miriam Burdock
74 Rob Mitchell
75 Janice Richards
76 Victoria Marshall
77 Joe Baisch
78 John Adams
79 Don ?
80 Jason Willouby
81 Mike Weid
82 Stew Engle (?)
83 Nicole Black
84 Richard Whitcom
85 Don Haren
86 John Dowd
87 Phil Dunster
88 Don Skangee (?)
89 Un-named Commenters
TOTAL 3 30 5 8 10 1 7 27 3 26 3 2 5 10 3 31 67
1 General project and other topics primarily consist of both positive and negative comments regarding the nature or size of the proposal. Other comment topics include naval base security, climate change, and noise.
Chapter 6
References
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 6
December 2015 6-1 References
Chapter 6
References
Brinnon Fire Department: http://brinnonfire.org/.
Intergovernmental 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 EIS. September 2007 and November 2007.
Jefferson County, Department of Community Development. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf
Resort Final EIS. November 2007.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 2004.
Jefferson County Code.
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. http://www.jeffersonsheriff.org/.
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 Instruction. Brinnon School District
Enrollment.