The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About134roB No [^J-4o g - tgB CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I make the following certification: I am competent to testify and make this certification based upon personal knowledge. On this 8fu o^y ofW.grilpr4ZOfi deposired into the U.S, Mail with first class postage affixed, true and correct copies of tice be A.vil t ee t.-SodP<)S + in the above matter, addressed to: Adjacent Property Owners: See attached list. (Notices Only) Agencies: See attached list. Interested Parties: See attached list. JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD this t, lr/ other:\[,; r ?us?.Jl Ol,t€-s&L- I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing certification is true and correct. 1ih,of e O {utPort Townsend, Washington. P:\DavidWJ\Planner Info2\Forms\CERTIFICATION OF MAILING.docx August 10,2015 zoN08-00056 PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & GOLF LLP 308913 HIGHWAY 101 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 HOULIHAN LAW ATTN: JT COOKE 3401 EVANSTON AVE N SUITE C SEATTLE, WA 98103 zoN08-00056 ESAADOLFSON ATTN: LLOYD SKINNER 5309 SHILSHOLE AVE NW SEATTLE, WA 98107 zoN08-00056 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47775 OLYMPIA, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 DOE - WASTEWATER FACILITIES ATTN: DAVE DOUGHERTY POBOX47775 oLYMPtA, WA 98504-777s zoN08-00056 BOCC zoN08-000s6 BRINNON SD #46 46 SCHOOLHOUSE RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 DEPT OF COMMERCE PO BOX 42525 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 zoN08-00056 DOE - WATER RESOURCES VICKICLINE P O BOX 47775 oLYMPtA, WA 98504-7775 zoN08-00056 JEFFERSON COUNry HEALTH DEPARTMENT LINDA ATKINS zoN08-00056 PT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31974 LITTLE BOSTON RD. KINGSTON, WA 98346 zoN08-00056 QUILCENE SD #48 PO BOX 40 QUILCENE, WA 98376 zoN08-00056 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY BRANCH PO BOX 375s SEATTLE, WA 98134 zoN08-00056 WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH SUSAN CLARK PO BOX 47823 oLYMPIA, WA 98504-7823 zoN08-00056 WDFW SEPA REVIEW 1111 WASHINGTON ST. SE oLYMPIA, WA 98504-3135 zoN08-00056 * DOE SEPA REVIEW PO BOX 47703 oLYMP|A, WA 98s04-7703 zoN08-00056 * DOE SHORELANDS OFFICE JEFFREE STEWART PO BOX47775 oLYMPIA, WA 98504-7775 zoN08-00056 * JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE LEANN JENKINS 1033 OLD BLYN HIGHWAY SEQUIM, WA 98382 zoN08-00056 * JEFFERSON CO PUBLIC WORKS ERIC KUZMA zoN08-00056 * JEFFERSON TRANSIT 1615 W. SIMS WAY PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 * PENINSULA DAILY NEWS CHARLIE BERMANT 1939 E SIMS WAY PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 * PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE KARA HORTON 31912 LITTLE BOSTON RD NE KINGSTON, WA 98346 zoN08-00056 * WA STATE DEPT OF ARCH & HIST PRES GRETCHEN KAEHLER 1063 S. CAPITOL WAY, SUITE 106 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 zoN08-00056 * WA STATE DNR SEPA REVIEW PO BOX 47015 oLYMPTA, WA 98504-701s zoN08-00056 " WSD OF TRANSPORTATION OLYMPIC REG SEPA REVIEW PO BOX47440 oLYMP|A, WA 98504-7440 zoN08-00056 - SUQUAMISH TRIBE ALISON O'SULLIVAN PO BOX 498 SUQUAMISH, WA 98392 zoN08-000s6 DAVE SATTERLEE PO BOX 249 QUILCENE, WA 98376 zoN08-00056 HAL & JANICE RICHARDS PO BOX 626 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 WAYNE SCHLAEFLI PO BOX 130 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 BOB FOSTER PO BOX 291 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 - POINT NO POINTTREATY COUNCIL JACKIE MCLAUGHLIN 7999 NE SALISH LANE KINGSTON, WA 98346 zoN08-00056 * SKOKOMISH TRIBE RANDY LUMPER 80 N TRIBAL CENTER RD SKOKOMISH, WA 98584 zoN08-00056 - WA STATE DNR ROSS GOODWIN 5310 EAGLEMOUNT RD CHIMACUM, WA 98325-9720 zoN08-00056 * WDFW EAST END HABITAT & SEPA CHRIS BYRNES 332 E 5TH ST, STE #1OO PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 zoN08-00056 JCFPD #4 PO BOX 42 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 MARILYN FORD PO BOX 536 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 TOM CROMPTON PO BOX1214 GRANITE FALLS, WA 98252 zoN08-000s6 WENDELL STROUD 1208 EAST D ST TACOMA, WA 98421 zoN08-000s6 DICK & DOTTIE THOMPSON 51 POINT VIEW AVE BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 MIKE & JOY MCFADDEN 288982 HWY 101 QUILCENE, WA 98376 zoN08-00056 GENE & KAREN FARR 570 MCMINN RD PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 MIKE DONLEY PO BOX s51 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 EARL & NANCYTHOMPSON 1085 BLACK POINT RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 ELEANOR SATHER PO BOX 170 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 BARBARA MOORE LEWIS PO BOX 303 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 JESSICA COYLE 31912 LITTLE BOSTON RD KINGSTON, WA 98346 zoN08-00056 ANDREA MITCHELL FR 2510 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 WILLIAI\4 I\4ILLER 2023 E SIMS WAY #360 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 TOM BROTHERTON 255 CASCARA DRIVE QUILCENE, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 LISA JOHNSTON PO BOX 251 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 FELICIry CHRISTENSEN PO BOX271 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 LOUIS & RUTH DOMENICO 315 BLACK POINT RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 JOHN MCKAY PO BOX 168 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 PATRICIA R IOLAVERA REGIONAL COMMUNIry PLANNING 1,I01 TAUTOG CIRCLE T076 SILVERDALE, WA 98315 zoN08-000s6 GERALD DILLON 4244 DUCKABUSH RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 STEVE TODD 7999 SALISH LANE KINGSTON, WA 98346 zoN08-000s6 ROSSANDERSON 164 QUINAULT LOOP PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 LINDATUDOR PO BOX 184 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 KELLY BERINGER PO BOX 639 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 GEORGE SICKEL PO BOX 228 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 PAUL LORENZEN PO BOX 217 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 STEVE PETERSON PO BOX 128 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 DENISE LEONARD 221 FOREST DRIVE BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 22OO 6TH AVE SUITE 707 ATTN: RICH SCHIPANSKI SEATTLE, WA 98121 zoN08-00056 * HOH INDIAN TRIBE BOB SMITH PO BOX 2196 FORKS, WA 98331 zoN08-00056 * JEFFERSON CO PUD #1 ATTN: BILL GRAHAM PO BOX 929 PORT HADLOCK, WA 98339 zoN08-00056 * OLYT/PIC ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL PO BOX 2664 SEQU \I, WA 98382 zoN08-00056 NORTH OLYMPIC SALMON COALITION 205 W. PATISON PORT HADLOCK, WA 98339 zoN08-00056 JOHN CAMBALIK PUGET SOUND ACTION TEAM PO BOX 3622 SEQUIM, WA 98382 zoN08-000s6 * JEFFERSON COUNry SHERIFF ATTN: DAVID STANKO zoN08-00056 JOHN CHRISTENSEN PO BOX 271 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 JOAN HENDRICKS PO BOX 969 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 MARK ROSE PO BOX 687 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 * CIry OF PT -SEPA RESP OFFICIAL 250 MADISON ST, STE 3 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 LYNN WALL COMMUNIry PLANNING LIAISON OFFICER NAVAL BASE KITSAP 1101 TAUTOG CIRCLE SILVERDALE, WA 9831 5-1 1 O1 zoN08-00056 * PORT OF PORTTOWNSEND PO BOX 1180 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 WILD OLYMPIC SALMON 205-4 WEST PATISON PORT HADLOCK, WA 98339 zoN08-00056 " WA STATE DEPT OF ARCH & HIST PRES GRETCHEN KAEHLER 1063 S. CAPITOL WAY, SUITE 106 OLYIVIPIA, WA 98501 zoN08-00056 - JEFFCOMM 911 COMIVIUNICATIONS CHIC STOUT 81 ELKINS RD PORT HADLOCK, WA 98339 zoN08-000s6 * PORTTOWNSEND LEADER TRISTAN HIEGLER PO BOX552 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 KITSAP COUNW DCD 614 DIVISION ST. MS.36 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 zoN08-00056 PORT LUDLOW VILLAGE COUNCIL ATTN: LARRY NOBLES P O BOX 65012 PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365 zoN08-00056 US COAST GUARD P.O. BOX 582 PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368-0582 zoN08-00056 FORKS FORUM P O BOX 3OO/490 S. FORKS AVE. FORKS, WA 98331 zoN08-00056 HOOD CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL PO BOX 87 SEABECK, WA 98380 zoN08-00056 SCOTT BURNS 294 SEAMOUNT DR BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 JOHN & DALILA DOWD PO BOX 142 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 K. KENNELL PO BOX 398 BRINNON, WA 98376 zoN08-00056 BRENDA MCMILLIAN 2929 SHERIDAN ST PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 RICHARD MOORE 313094 HTGHWAY 101 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 WILLIAM & ROXANNE MORRIS PO BOX 444 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 GREG TYLER 350 E. BALLYCASTLE WAY SHELTON, WA 98584 zoN08-00056 STEVEN J WALKER 331 DOSEWALLIPS RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 PATSY WELLS PO BOX 384 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 DAVID NEUENSCHWANDER 142 OLD LINDSAY HILL RD QUILCENE, WA 98376 zoN08-00056 DON SKANCHY 2OO WILDWOOD SHORES BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 CORRINE MCM 315 DECANTER ST PORTTOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 TOM COYNER 234 NEVERGIVEUP ROAD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 KEN BROCKWAY 684 SEAL ROAD RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 ROBERT BIRD 2OO NEVERGIVEUP RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 ELLEN KIMMITT 110 DOGWOOD LANE BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 PATRICK NICHOLSON PO BOX 42 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 MIKE FISHER PO BOX 654 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 PHIL THENSTEDT PO BOX 323 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 LINDA MANTLE JEFFCO ASSESSOR zoN08-00056 ALVIN WOOD 207 SYLOPASH BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 MAGGIE WILHEMI 294 SEAMOUNT DR BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 MARTHAWOOD 207 SYLOPASH LANE BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 RICHARD WHITCOMB 313788 HIGHWAY 10't BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 PAT GAUL 246 ROBINSON RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 VICTORIA MARSHALL 81 CANAL LANE BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 MARryWARNER 712 JUPITER LOOP BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 JOY BAISCH 3485 DOSEWALLIPS RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 DON & MERRY HERRIN 90 E WILDWOOD LANE BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 WALLY LIS 46 SCHOOLHOUSE RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 FRIENDS OF MILLER PENINSULASTATE PARK PO BOX 2664 SEQUIM, WA 98382 zoN08-00056 KIRIE PETERSON 687 PULALI POINT RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 NORTHWEST WATERSHED INSTITUTE ATTN: PETER BAHLS 3407 EDDY ST PORTTOWNSEND, WA 98368 zoN08-00056 PETER SIEFERT PO BOX 573 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 GARY & PAT MYHRS 4O3O NW BROWN DRIVE WOODLAND, WA 98674 zoN08-00056 DAVID GALLE PO BOX 428 HOODSPORT, WA 98548 zoN0&00056 MIRIAM MURDOCK PO BOX 33 BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 ROB MITCHELL 4246 DUCKABUSH RD PORTTOWNSEND, WA 98320 zoN08-000s6 JUDD TUBERG 5401 NE 2OOTH PLACE LAKE FOREST PARK, WA 98155 zoN08-00056 LOUIS & RUTH DOMENICO 315 BLACK POINT RD BRINNON, WA 98320 zoN08-00056 TOM COYNER 510 NEWPORT WAY NW ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 Members: Alison Arthur aarthur@ptleader.com Andrea Mitchell andreaSS@embarqmail.com Ann Tuberg AnnTuberg<annmcctu@comcast.net> Arnold Swan ArnoldSwan@netzero.net Barbara Buchman barbarabuchman@gmail.com Barbara Moore Lewis mooreleb@gmail.com Belinda Graham BelindaGraham<sgraham002@yahoo.com> BigelowSchirato,MargaretM(DFW) Margaret.BigelowSchirato@dfw.wa.gov Bob Betts rsbetts@comcast.net Bob/Gloria Allingham gallingham@yahoo.com Bonnie Beaudion BonnieBeaudoinjjcbeaudoinjj@yahoo.com> BrinnonAreaChamberofCommerce contact@emeraldtowns.com Bud Schindler BudandValSchindler<schindlerbudval@embarqmail.com> Byron Rot brot@amestowntribe.org Cesar Caycedo cesar@aguiargroup.com Charlie Bermant CharlieBermantccbermant@peninsuladailynews.com> Chris Dunagan cdunagan@kitsapsun.com City of PT Library bshelton@cityofpt.us Clallam County DCD dcdplan@co.clallam.wa.us Dale Johnson sea_for_two@hotmail.com Dalila/John Dowd dalila@olypen.com Dan & Merry Herrin merryanddon@embarqmail.com Dana Starfire dana_starfire@yahoo.com Darlene Schanfald DarleneSchanfald<darlenes@olympus.net> Dave Sadler DaveSadler<davyp@q.com> David Galle DavidGalle<viniferaman@yahoo.com>DelWeron delweron@aol.com Department of Ecology Mendoza,Sonia(ECY)<Smen461@ECY.WA.GOV> Don Coleman diane@pleasantharbormarina.com Don Zimmerman (donald.zimmerman@navy.mil) donald.zim merman@navy. m il Donna Frostholm DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us Donna Simmons nana@hctc.com Elizabeth Bindschedler egordonl23@aol.com Ellie Sather INFO@WHITNEYGARDENS.COM Eric Hendricks EricandJoanHendricks<overbrookfarm@embarqmail.com> Forest Towne TowneFG@hotmail.com garth@statesmancorporation.com garth@statesmancorporation.com Gary & Pat Myhr myhrs@icloud.com Gene Thompson hoodcanalnan@gmail.com George Sickel gkprofsvc@gmail.com Gerald Olsen GeraldC.Olsoncjerryo@donobi.net> Gretchen Kaehler Kaehler,Gretchen(DAHP)<Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov> Hans Daubenberger hans@pgst.nsn.us Hood Canal Environmental Council donna@hoodcanalenvironmentalcouncil.org l. Thaxton Cedarcove@att.net lan McFall, EDC director@edcjc.com J HalBeattie jhalbt@gmail.com Jack Turner jturner@skokomish.org Janet Sugino jsugino@aol.com Jean Johnson kellyberinger@uno.com Jeff Heinis jheinis@skokomish.org Jessica Coyle jcoyle@pgst.nsn.us Joan Garrow jgarrow@skokomish.org Joanie Hendricks overbrookfarm@embarqmail.com Joe Baisch elk@tscnet.com Joe Breskin joe.breskin@gmail.com John Adams JohnA@taylorshellfish.com John McKay mckayshrimp@hotmail.com Kathy Ackerman baysidegardengal@hotmail.com Katie Whitman katiewhitmancoboyle@olympus.net> Keith Dublanica keith@skokomish.org 2 Kirie Pedersen kiriepedersenckirie.pedersen@gmail.com> Kitsap County DCD pcharnas@co.kitsap.wa.us Kline, Randy (PARKS) Randy.Kline@PARKS.WA.GOV Kris Miller shlanayl@skokomish.org Laurence Dimino cobalt@olypen.com Laurie Mattson LaurieMattson<lmattsonT2@yahoo.com> Leanne Jenkins ljenkins@amestowntribe Lisa Johnston applevallyfarm@msn.com Lorinda Anderson - State outdoor recreation Lorinda.Anderson@rco.wa. gov Lynda Wilson LWilsonl26@aol.com Lynn Leon claylady@embarqmail.com Lynn Robinson LynneRobinsonclynnerpt@live.com> Mark Rose mark@markrose.org Marty Ereth marty@skokomish.org Mason County DCD badkins@co.mason.wa.us Mike & Eloise Langenbach Mike&Eloiselangenbach<langenbachme@earthlink.net> Mike McFadden lelandlakehouse@wildblue.net Miriam Murdoch MiriamMurdoch<miriamclaire@embarqmail.com> Miriam Newsom Newsom,MiriamB<miriam.newsom@providence.org> Monica Fletcher monicaflet@gmail.com Morgan Oslake MorganOslakecoslake@yahoo.com> Paul Lorenzen zenlorr@earthlink.netpeckassoc@comcast.net peckassoc@comcast.net Peter Bahls PeterBahls<peter@nwwatershed.org> Peter Siefert rstlss49@aol.com Pleasant Harbor Marina info@pleasantharbormarina.com Pleasant Harbor SEIS Ralph Woodall ralphw@americanlegendsracing.com Rob Mitchell RobMitchellcduckabushrob@gmail.com> Roma Call romac@pgst.nsn.us Ron Eber ronaldeber@comcast.net Ron Holsman rhh@pacificpointe.com Ruth DiDomenico RuthDiDomenico<intheharbor@msn.com> Sarah Clawson-Schuch saclawso@gmail.comseversd@wsdot.wa.gov seversd@wsdot.wa.gov Shirley Towne TowneShirley@hotmail.com Spencer Horning spencer.horning@navy.mil Steve Todd - Point No Point Treaty Council rom Boatman iJ::fl,@J.B:";:!%,,on *, ,, Tom Strong tstrong@skokomish.org Tom Tiersch thiersch-public@usregs.com Victoria Heinrich vickyh@hctc.com WA State Assoc of Realtors comment@warealtor.orgWEC rein@wecprotects.org William Stewart memostewart@gmail.com 3 David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments David W. Johnson Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:31 PM David W. Johnson Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort - Notice of Availability for Final SEIS & Planning Commission Public Hearing Final SEIS Notice of Availability.pdf Please see the attached notice for information on how to view or download a copy of the Final SEIS, and regarding the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the project scheduled for January 6, 201.6 at the Brinnon School Gym starting at 6:30pm. Please let me know if you have any questionsl David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.446s Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of lfe in Jefferson County bv promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 5fi SOU, PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-mqil unless obsolutely necessory All e-mail may be considered sublEct to the Publk Records Act and as such may be drsclosed to a third-pafi requestor. Jefrenon Counfy Oepartment ol Commuaity Dewloprnenl 5 , UARr ,, Better Euilding Strrtl Xere. allllrrid.n,r*|t&Eanll'*l tlr.. l r{gj?9ral{ | OndGojrthrs.rr$ 1 LE[O l.l0 David W. Johnson From To: Sent: Subject Microsoft Outlook Ann Tuberg; Belinda Graham; Bonnie Beaudion; Bud Schindler; Charlie Bermant; Darlene Schanfald; Dave Sadler; David Galle; Mendoza,Sonia(ECY)<Smen461@ECY.WA.GOV>; Eric Hendricks; Gerald Olsen; Kaehler,Gretchen(DAHP)<Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>; Katie Whitman; Kirie Pedersen; Laurie Mattson; Lynn Robinson; Mike & Eloise Langenbach; Miriam Murdoch; Miriam Newsom; Morgan Oslake; Peter Bahls; Rob Mitchell; Ruth DiDomenico Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:31PM Undeliverable: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort - Notice of Availability for Final SEIS & Planning Commission Public Hearing Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: Ann Tuberq The format of the email address isn't corred. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Belinda Graham The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Bonnie Beaudion The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address look like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Bud Schindler The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Charlie Bermant The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Darlene Schanfald The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Dave Sadler The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. David Galle The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Depatment of Ecoloqy The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Eric Hendricks The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. 1 Gerald Olsen The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's emailaddress and try to resend the message. Gretchen Kaehler The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Katie Whitman The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Kirie Pedersen The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Laurie Mattson The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Lynn Robinson The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Mike & Eloise Langenbach The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Miriam Murdoch The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Miriam Newsom The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Morgan Oslake The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Peter Bahls The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address look like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Rob Mitchell The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. Ruth DiDomenico The format of the email address isn't correct. A correct address looks like this: someone@example.com. Please check the recipient's email address and try to resend the message. 2 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating seryer: mail20l3mbxl.internal.cou nty.domain AnnTuberg <annmcctu@comcast. net> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' Bel indaG raham <sgra ham002@ya hoo,com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' BonnieBeaudoinjj < beaudoi njj@yahoo.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' BudandValSchindler<schindlerbudval@embarqmail.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' CharlieBermant<cbermant@peninsuladailynews.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' DarleneSchanfald<darlenes@olympus " net> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' DaveSadler< davyp@q.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.SUbmiI; invalid recipient address' DavidGalle<viniferaman @yahoo.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' Mendoza,Sonia(ECY) <Smen46 1 @ ECY.WA.GOV> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' Erica ndJoan Hendricks < overbrookfarm@em ba rqma il.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submi! invalid recipient address' Gera ldC. Olson <jerryo@donobi. net> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' Kaehler,Gretchen( DAHP) <Gretchen. Kaehler@DAHP.wa. gov> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' katiewhitman <oboyle@olympus. net> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' kiriepedersen < kirie.pedersen@gmail.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' LaurieMattson < lmattsonT2@yahoo.com > Remote Server returned'550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' Lyn neRobinson < lynnerpt@live.com > Remote Server returned'550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' /TuV.'.{1 ,T*art /Tr.2.;*l + WW lDwrl Go-tr< /(-irt-' Pet€ (e1- M-Ace*'ez kp /N-l.-i"ra^^ u/ VW f,.-^icrs U"l 4c-\-" S te€rr ,/kb b,,U,{rl,e-q 3 Mike&EloiseLangenbach < langenbachme@earthlink.net> Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.SUbm|t; invalid recipient address' M iriamMurdoch < miriamclaire@embarqmail.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' Newsom,M iriamB< miriam.newsom@providence.org > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' MorganOslake<oslake@yahoo.com > Remote Seryer returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' PeterBahls< peter@nwwatershed.org > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' RobMitchell <duckabushrob@gmail.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' RuthDiDomenico< intheharbor@msn.com > Remote Server returned '550 5.1.3 STOREDRV.Submit; invalid recipient address' 0riginal message headers: Received: from mai12013mbx1. internal. county.domain ( [ f eB0 : : dc37 : a500 : bb1 1 : b3 f 1 ] ) by mai12 013mbx1 . internal . county. domain([fe80::dc37:a500:bbl1:b3fl%L2]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.032; t"nJed, 9 Dec 2015 L2:31-:12 -0800 Content*T1pe : applrcation/ms-tnef ; name="winmai1 . dat" ContenL-Transf er-Encoding : binary From: "David V,i. Johnson" <djohnson@co. jefferson.wa.us> To: "David v,l . iohnson" <djohnson@co. jefferson.?ca.us> Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned ResorL - Notice of Availability for Final SEIS & Planning Commission Public Hearlng Thread-Topic: Pleasant. Harbor Plaster Planned Resort - Notice of AvailabiliLy for !'inal SEIS & Planning Commission Public Hearing Thread-fndex : AdEyqnO4T fJ14ZMFQ5+Urlnl,^Ii3Bq!VQ== Date: V'Jed, 9 Dec 2At5 L2:31:11 -0800 Message-fD: <ed5244e2cc1574e3ea?l-fb6aa46750721Gmail2013mbx1.interna1.counLy.domain> Accept-Langruage : en-US Content-Language : en-US X-MS-Has-Att.ach: yes X-MS -TNEF-Correiator : <ed5244e2cd5 7 4e3 ea7 1 ih6aa4 6 7 5A7 Zl@mai 1 2 0i 3mbx1 . internal . county. domain> MII4E-Version: 1 . 0 X-Originating-IP: [10.10.12. 90] 4 David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Gc: Subject: Attachments: David W. Johnson Monday, December 14,2015 8:38 AM Planning Commission Desk David W. Johnson FW: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort - Notice of Availability for Final SEIS & Planning Commission Public Hearing Final SEIS Notice of Availability.pdf Haylie, Please forward to the Planning Commission members From: David W. Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 20L5 12:3L PM To: David W. Joh nson <djohnson @co.jefferson.wa. us> Subiect: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort - Notice of Availability for Final SEIS & Planning Commission Public Hearing Please see the attached notice for information on how to view or download a copy of the Final SEIS, and regarding the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the project scheduled for January 6,2Ot6 at the Brinnon School Gym starting at 6:30pm. Please let me know if you have any questions! David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 Misston: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jef.ferson Cottnty by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 5fi SOVE PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-moil unless obsolutely necessory All e-mail may be consrdered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor. Je*erson County Departrntn't of Camrnunlty Oevtloprn*at Better Sutlding Startt Here. 1 atl, ,lrrld.r ta.lo,l brmndr Wf X*r I td4Jrtral4 | *.rrqlrrtrs.s.s ],lD David W. Johnson From: To: Sent: Subject MAILER-DAEMON Beaudobj@plu.edi Tuesday, December 15,2015 7:56 AM Undeliverable: Pleasant Harbor Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: Beaudobi@plu.edi A problem occurred and this messge couldn't be delivered. Check to be sure the email address is correct. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk. Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: MAIL2.co.jefferson.wa. us Beaudobj@plu.edi Remote Server returned '< #5.4.4 X-Spam-Firewall; Host or domain name not found. Name service error for ns6s=plu.€di type=A: Host not found>' Original message headers: Return-Path: <djohnsonGco. jef ferson.wa.us> X-ASG-Debug- rD : 1 45 019 49 3 3 - 0 5 6 f 2 0 7 49 ae2df A0 0 1 - 9aStAcl Received: from mail-2013mbxl-.internal .county.domain (mai12013mbxl-.internal-.county.dornain [10.10.L5.L21-1) by MAIL2.co.jefferson.wa.us with ESMTP id lKnevlJxSB4PAyAu for <BeaudobjGplu.edi>; Tue, 15 Dec 20L5 07:55:33 -0800 (PST) x-Barracuda-Envelope-From: djohnsonGco. jef ferson.wa. us X-BarracuCa-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder : 1 0 . 1 0 . l- 5 . 12 1 Received: from mai12013mbx1. internal.county.domain (10. l-0. 15. 121) by mai12013mbx1 . internal.county.domain (10.1-0 .15.].2L) with Microsof t SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 15 Dec 20L5 01:49:51 -0800 Receirred: from mail-2013rnbx1. internal.counly. domain ([fe80::dc37:a500:bb1]-:b3f 1l ) by rnail2013mbx1 .int.ernal .county.domain ( [fe80::dc37:a500:bb11:b3f1t12] ) with mapi id 15.00.0995.032; Tue, 15 Dec 20L5 07:49:5L -0800 X-Barracud.a-RBl-Trusted-Forwarder: 10. 10. 1-5. 121 From: "David bJ. Johnson" <djohnson@co. jefferson.wa.us> To: "Beaudobj@plu.edi" <Beauciobj@plu.edi> Subject: Pleasant Harbor Thread-Topic: Pleasant Harbor X-ASG-Orig-Sub; : Pleasant Harbor Thread- I ndex : AdE3 UKXApB1,JPkGUKSkqE><,n3 7 I i KA/ Q= = Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:49:50 +0000 Message-ID: <43e0dd.a0d8974ba8a6f 96653dbde1ee0@;nai120l-3mbx1 .internal .county.dornain> Accepi-Language : en-US Cont"ent*Language: en-iIS X-MS-ilas-Attach: yes X-i/is-f i'ieF-Cor reI atr:r: 1 x-originating-ip: |10. 10.12. 901 x-esetresult : c1ean, i-s OK x-esetid: 2CE9D839DCCF?4377CAC85 Content.-T1rpe : text/p1ain MIME*Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: mail20l3mbxl.internal.county.domain[10.10.15.12L) X-Barracuda-Start-Time : i450194933 X-Barracuda-URl: https : / /1,0. 10. i4 .24A : 443 / cgi-mod/mark. cgi X-Barracuda-Scan*Msg-Size : 4759 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status : 1 X-Virus-scanned: by bsmtpd at co. jefferson.wa.us X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0. 00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE-LEVEL=1OOO. O KILL-LEVEL=8. O TESLS=HTML_MESSAGE X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.25284 Rule breakdown below -&^ *..1-vL5 lurc II?I1€ description O. OO HTI,ff._MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message I it::, a,L,t ,.'{ b , 'f,:- 'r''f'' i..}I]{. :r t':'.' tr-r t I .::E!F- &ryij JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 PlanComrn@po.jefferson,tua.us tututu. co.j effer son. LU a. us / comrndeu elop ment / Planning Commission Audience Sign-in Sheet Meeting Date: December 3, 2014 Meeting Time: 6:30 pm Location: Brinnon Community Center, Brinnon Agenda ltems:1) Pleasant Harbor Mastered Planned Resort Please print clearly. Include your e-mail address if you wish to be added to the Planning Commission e-mail distribution Iist. Name:Organization/Street Address :City: Do you wish to speak during Observer Comment? Yes No Maybe 'fl,crr*ca . S/ur[ /Lloon*31308/ t/5 /d//3 /2 t rur't n *t tl,,r-aWtr(r^Ito Dro /5nr"-r,;^J ' Arru I trlozRy il.nu,,.?rt 6 J-) ^., (,1) t L- D o00a c ,4Zrl.lartS x-hhrc,) P lnf ;n o i,r:A?q Se,urrA,,,r-f DY-@,)n fl frt)X xS?q4 f,a;o616q.1nrt b n .--> As-rr,Jnl on] ,{vi\oh" AA"^,Sosfqs A,v /ol Bfronon V\L b -Grl hou* llrA I'-[ d nl c,.JBwA^L^t, 5[\. ,//S?z 73u-/toZutl ,J t(C r,. h*1,,,2.' [-\ r4r,-nrtm^'Jwr-\J- U S/ //f</. -/rl-^- JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 PlanComm@o.jefferson.u)a.us uu w. co.jefferson. u) a. us / commdeu elopment / Plaruing C ommission Audience Sign-in Sheet Meeting Date: December 3, 2014 Meeting Time: 6:30 pm Location: Brinnon Community Center, Brinnon Agenda ltems:1) Pleasant Harbor Mastered Planned Resort Please print clearly. Include your e-mail address if you wish to be added to the Planning Commission e-mail distribution list. Do you wish to speak during Observer Comment? Yes No MaybetG"-.* St-*-,L<-.- \€o G-,. 22=E (Br^, /1 ^G)^>< ']h0 ""o,), o.,(Pn 2,.--1u t P. r>. Q--r-, (^r {-E*r r\, Nr zN V tJ d^^Mt,n*+/2 {jr,Jobrit ( fk-,.t rr, a n)x #6iWthtk Po,tui t//I h)ut,rv-)x )\-4J, trltM*f,*,rrut(J/ Asrrssor- i4rwrc,o--- /-.'J*.=J}r.=cl-l-au\sciYg nJQ*zx,-z,rPs ?D Zr;mrrt(\a" , 9(r u cLt u e,0 lt u ililu cor/ shorc <Zn )'Altvt) hlnoJ\ln snjapeu t"A",ag1p J P,.t t4 t nZ zstt x :A-'fnozS;;ol^r 1tt /rJ,,nt"4'L6 -t- I 4, nt ot ('C,; *'l' L,*{/ Name:Organization/Street Address :City: V14, 1* L,^,-. ^L. L JEFFERSON COUNTY . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 521 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98358 (3601 37e -445s NOTICE OF AVAIIABITIW OF FTNAL SUPPTEMENTAT ENVIRONMENTAT TMPACT STATEMENT (FSE!S) AND NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION PUBTIC HEARING AND NOTTCE OF TNTENT TO AMEND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) FOR PLEASANT HARBOR MARINAAND GOLF RESORT LtC MASTER PTANNED RESORT CASE NO'S: MtA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Application Received: April 16, 2008 Application Substantially Complete: May 22, 2OO8 Notice of Scoping for Preparation of SEIS: October 74,2OO9 Public Notice and Comment Requirement: JCC 18.40.780 - WAC 797-1L-455 & 510 Date of Availability: December 9,zOLs Proponent: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLC, c/o Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 Highway 101, Brinnon, WA 98320 Location of Proposal: Pleasant Harbor, south of Brinnon at the intersection of Black Point Road with US Highway 101 in Jefferson County, Washington. Parcel Numbers 502153002, 003, 023, 022, O27 & 020; APN 502154002; APN 502152005, 0\2,O73,Ot4,O75, & 016 in Sections 15 &22, Township 25, Range 02 West, WM, located in Brinnon, WA 98320. SEPA Lead Agency: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) SEPA Responsible Official: David Goldsmith, lnterim Director and Acting SEPA Responsible Official SEIS contact person: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner SEIS Required: A supplement environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required under Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 to be prepared under Chapter 43.27C RCW State Environmental Policy and Chapter t97-LL WAC SEPA rules, with a final SEIS to be issued pursuant to WAC 797-77-460. Other Relevant/lmportant Documents: a Draft Development Agreement between the County and Applicant, and Draft Development Regulations and Zoning in Appendix S. These documents will be finaled prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Description of Proposa! & Alternatives: The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-level development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the SEIS:o Alternative 1, consists of an L8-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 33 acres of natural area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading; o Alternative 2, consists of 18 hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading; o Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) includes a t hole golf course (with associated 3 hole practice course), 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading; . A No Action Alternative (environmental impacts to the site if no resort were built) The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within the Master Planned Resort boundary, is not included in this SEIS analysis since it has been re-developed under an existing, vested Binding Site Plan. Actions required for approval of the proposed project include:. Jefferson County SEPA Responsible Official: Completion and publication of a final SEIS, following the SEIS process set forth in WAC 197-11-600(4xdxii) and 620 pursuant to WAC L97-LL-460.. Jefferson County Planning Commission: Consideration of the MPR proposal in the context of proposed amendments to the GMA implementing regulations (UDC) and recommendation to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (JCC 18.45.090(3)) using site specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1Xb) and (1)(c). o Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: Consideration of the MPR proposalin the context of compliance with BoCC conditions set forth in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, consideration of proposed amendments to the GMA implementing regulations (UDC) and Planning Commission Recommendation; consideration of the proposed Development Agreement subsequent to final SEIS issuance; and a required Public Hearing prior to approval of the Development Agreement to be adopted by resolution or ordinance (JCC 18.40.850(5) & 18.4s.0e0(4)). Planning Commission Public Hearing: A public hearing has been scheduled for the Planning Commission to hear the proposal, take public testimony, deliberated and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The public hearing will be held on January 6th, 2016 at the Brinnon School Gym, 46 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon, WA 98320 starting at 5:30pm. lntent to Amend GMA lmplementing Regulations (UDC): the proposal includes an amendment to UDC Chapter L7, and sections 18.15.025, .115 & .138. This notice is being provided along with a copy of the proposed amendments to the Washington State Department of Commerce 60 days prior to final Board of County Commissione/s action as required under JCC 18.45.090(5). WHERE TO VIEWTHE DSEIS OR OBTAIN A COPY: Electronic copies of the FSEIS are available for viewing and downloading in PDF format at: http://www.co. iefferson.wa. us/commdevelopment/Brinnon M PR.htm CDs of the FSEIS will be available at DCD and the Planning Commission Public Hearing on January 6th, 2016 for S+.00. Hard copies can be viewed at DCD, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend; the Jefferson County Library, 620 CedarAve, Port Hadlock; and the Brinnon Fire Hall,272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon The official case files for this application are located at the Jefferson County DCD, 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA. Copies of all or any part of a document may be requested pursuant to the Washington State Open Records Act; a charge for requested copies will apply. OTHER INFORMATION: Jefferson County DCD maintains a website which contains materials pertaining to this application for public review, inspection and/or download. Visit the Jefferson County Pleasant Harbor webpage at http://www.co. ieffe rso n.wa. us/com mdevelo pment/Bri n non M PR. htm JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPi'IENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitvdevelooment Tel: 360.379.11450 | Fax 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.iefferson.wa.us 1. 2. 3. Building Permits & Inspections I Development Conssfency R eview I Long Range Planning I Watershed Sfewadshp Resource Cenfer December 9,20Ls Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as required under WAC 197-11-460. The proposal is located south of Brinnon, WA on the Black Point Peninsula, on the western shores of the Hood Canal. The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-level development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the FSEIS: Alternative 1 consists of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231acre site, with 3l acres of naturalarea preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading. Alternative 2 consists of the 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56,508 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading. Alternative 3, also the Applicant's Preferred Alternative, consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork 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. The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, is not included in this analysis because it has been re-developed under an existing Binding Site Plan. On November 27,2007, a programmatic Final EIS was issued in association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject 256 acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28,2OOg with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental ElS. An optional scoping process was initiated by the County on October 13, 2009 with a Scoping Public Meeting held on October 28,2OO9, and Scoping Memo issued March 3L,20LO. On November 19,2074, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Comments received from the DSEIS process have been thoroughly reviewed by staff and consultants, with associated responses, and are listed in Exhibits 1 & 2. As a result, substantive comments may have warranted changes to the text of the Final SEIS as required under WAC 197-11-560. New text that has been added is indicated in the Final SEIS with gray shading. The issues identified through the FSEIS include: earth, water, plants, fish & wildlife, shellfish, shorelines, critical areas, air quality- greenhouse gas emissions, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, light and glare, aesthetics, utilities, transportation and public services. For each environmental issue, an analysis 4. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitydevelooment Tel: 360.379.t1450 | Fax 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.iefferson.wa.us Building Permits & /nspections I Development Consisfency Review I Long Range Planning I Watershed Stewardshlp Resource C*nter is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Alternatives are reported. Where significant impacts are determined to potentially exist, options for possible mitigation are suggested. The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to take testimony on the FSEIS, Development Agreement and Development Regulations (Title 17, Article ll) as part of the Phase 2 review process for the resort on January 5th, 2016 at 6:30pm at the Brinnon School Gym. The Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on the development regulations. The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission recommendation or hold a public hearing before approving those regulations. The BoCC must hold a public hearing before approving the development agreement. FSEIS Volume 1 and Volume 2 (Appendices) are available for review and download as a PDF online at: http : //www.co. ieffe rson.wa. us/co m mdevelopme nt/Bri n no n M PR. htm. Digital CDs are available for purchase at DCD. Hard copies are available for review only at the DCD office, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98358. lnformation about the FSEIS and project may be obtained at the Department of Community Development (DCD), or by contacting David Wayne Johnson between the weekday hours of gam to 4:30pm at (360) 379-4465. David Goldsmit lnterim Director Acting SEPA Responsible Official JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Sbeet I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitvdevelooment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Building Permits & /nspections I Development Consrstency Review I Long Range Planning I Watershed Stewardshtp Resource C;enter December 9,2075 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as required under WAC 197-11-460. The proposal is located south of Brinnon, WA on the Black Point Peninsula, on the western shores of the Hood Canal. The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-level development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the FSEIS: Alternative 1 consists of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 3!3 acres of natural area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading. Alternative 2 consists of the 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading. Alternative 3, also the Applicant's Preferred Alternative, consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 8'9101 acres of natural area preserved with ggeB0+!J!j]]jgn cubic yards of earthwork 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 zonins desisnations) and the site would remain primarilv in rural residential use. Two scenarios are analvzed for this alternative in this FinalSEIS; Scenario A- Continuation of existins conditions: and. Scenario B - Redevelopment of the site under existins land use designations with single familv residential uses and a 9-hole solf course. will net be develeped as a resert; but instead; in eemBarisen te resert type develepment; as single family The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, is not included in this analysis because it has been re-developed under an existing Binding Site Plan. On November 27 ,2007 , a programmatic Final EIS was issued in association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject 256 acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28,2OO8 with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental ElS. An optionalscoping process was initiated by the County on October 73,2009 with a Scoping Public Meeting held on October 28,2OO9, and Scoping Memo issued March 3t,2O1O. On November L9,20L4, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Comments received from the DSEIS process have been thoroughly reviewed by staff and consultants, with associated responses, and are listed in Exhibits 1 & 2. As a result, substantive comments may have warranted changes to the text of the Final SEIS as required under WAC 197-11-560. New text that has been added is indicated in the Final SEIS with srav shadins. The issues identified through the FSEIS include: earth, water, plants, fish & wildlife, shellfish, shorelines, critical areas, air quality- greenhouse gas emissions, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, 4 1. 2. 3. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelooment Tel: 360.379.11450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.iefferson.wa.us Bullding Permits & /nspectrbns I Development Consistency Review I Long Range Planning I Watershed Sfewardshrp Resource @nter light and glare, aesthetics, utilities, transportation and public services. For each environmental issue, an analysis is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Alternatives are reported. Where significant impacts are determined to potentially exist, options for possible mitigation are suggested. The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to take testimony on the FSEIS, Development Agreement and Development Regulations (Title 17, Article ll)as part of the Phase 2 review process for the resort on January 6th, 2016 at 6:30pm at the Brinnon School Gym. The Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on the development regulations. The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission recommendation or hold a public hearing before approving those regulations. The BoCC must hold a public hearing before approving the development agreement. FSEIS Volume 1 and Volume 2 (Appendices) are available for review and download as a PDF online at: http: //www.co. iefferso n.wa. us/com md evelo pme nt/Bri n non M P R. htm. Digital CDs are available for purchase at DCD. Hard copies are available for review only at the DCD office, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368. lnformation about the FSEIS and project may be obtained at the Department of Community Development (DCD), or by contacting David Wayne Johnson between the weekday hours of 9am to 4:30pm at (360) 379-4465. David Goldsmith, lnterim Director Acting SEPA Responsible Official JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 62'l Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitvdevelooment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us 1. 2. 3. Building Permits & /nspecflons lDevelopment ConsistencyReviewlLong Range PlanninglWatershed Sfewadshrp Resource Center December 9,2015 Dear Reader: Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as required under WAC 197-11-460. The proposal is located south of Brinnon, WA on the Black Point Peninsula, on the western shores of the Hood Canal. The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-leveldevelopment. The following are alternatives evaluated within the FSEIS: Alternative 1 consists of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 33 acres of natural area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading. Alternative 2 consists of the 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading. Alternative 3, also the Applicant's Preferred Alternative, consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 89 acres of natural area preserved with 990,000 cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading No Action Alternative - this alternative assumes the site will not be developed as a resort, but instead, in comparison to resort type development, as single family residential sites with on-site septic systems under current development regulations. The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, is not included in this analysis because it has been re-developed under an existing Binding Site Plan. On November 27,2OO7, a programmatic Final EIS was issued in association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject 256 acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28, 2008 with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental ElS. An optional scoping process was initiated by the County on October L3,2OO9 with a Scoping Public Meeting held on October 28,2009, and Scoping Memo issued March 31, 2010. On November 19,201.4, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Comments received from the DSEIS process have been thoroughly reviewed by staff and consultants, with associated responses, and are listed in Exhibits 1 & 2. As a result, substantive comments may have warranted changes to the text of the Final SEIS as required under WAC 197-11-560. The issues identified through the FSEIS include: earth, water, plants, fish & wildlife, shellfish, shorelines, critical areas, air quality- greenhouse gas emissions, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, light and glare, aesthetics, utilities, transportation and public services. For each environmental issue, an analysis is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Alternatives are reported. Where significant impacts are determined to potentially exist, options for possible mitigation are suggested. 4. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Sbeet I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitvdevelooment Tel: 360.379.21450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa,us Building Permits & Inspecfions lDevelopment ConsrstencyReviewlLong Range PlanninglWatershed Sfewadsfrp Resoume Center The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to take testimony on the FSEIS, Development Agreement and Development Regulations (Title 17, Article ll) as part of the Phase 2 review process for the resort on January 6th, 2015 at 6:30pm at the Brinnon School Gym. The Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on the development regulations. The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission recommendation or hold a public hearing before approving those regulations. The BoCC must hold a public hearing before approving the development aBreement. FSEIS Volume 1 and Volume 2 (Appendices) are available for review and download as a PDF online at http :1/www.co.ieffe rso n.wa. us/com mdevelopment/Brinnon MPR.htm Digital CDs are available for purchase at DCD. Hard copies are available for review only at the DCD office, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368. lnformation about the FSEIS and project may be obtained at the Department of Community Development (DCD), or by contacting David Wayne Johnson between the weekday hours of 9am to 4:30pm at (360) 379-4465. ,L David Goldsmith, I Director Acting SEPA Responsible Official Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2O15 Prepared by Jefferson County De partme nt of Co m m u n ity Develop me nt VOLUMEl-GHAPTERS{-6 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMilIUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Skeet I Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web; www,co,ieffer,sg"n,wag$/pmmunity.dileloprnen! Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax 360,379,4451 | Email: dcd@co,iefferson.wa.us 1. 2. 3. Building Permits & lnspecilbns I Dovelopmant Consisfency Roviaw I Long Range Planning I l,trafershed Stowadshrp Resource Cenfer December 9, 2015 Attached is a copy of the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as required under WAC 197-11-460. The proposal is located south of Brinnon, WA on the Black Point Peninsula, on the western shores of the Hood Canal. The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-level development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the FSEIS: Alternative lconsistsof an 18-holegolf course,890residentialunits,49,772 squarefeetof commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 31 acres of natural area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading. Alternative 2 consists of the 18-hole golf course, 890 residentlal units, 55,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading. Alternative 3, also the Applicant's Preferred Alternative, consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residentlal units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork 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. The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, is not included in this analysis because it has been re-developed under an existing Binding Site Plan. On November27,2007, a programmatic FinalElS was issued in association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the subject 256 acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28, 2008 with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental ElS. An optional scoping process was initiated by the County on October 13, 2009 with a Scoping Public Meeting held on October 28,20A9, and Scoping Memo issued March 31,2010. On November 19,2014, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS {DSEIS)for public and agency review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Comments received from the DSEIS process have been thoroughly reviewed by staff and consultants, with associated responset and are listed in txhibits 1 & 2. As a result, substantive comments may have warranted changes to the text of the final SEIS as required under WAC 197-11-550. New text that has been added is indicated in the Final SEIS with gray shading. The issues identified through the FSEIS include: earth, water, plants, fish & wildlife, shellfish, shorelines, critical areas, air quality- greenhouse gas emissions, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, light and glare, aesthetics, utilities, transportation and public services. For each environmental issue, an analysis 4. Dear Reader: JETFER$ON COUNTY BEPARTMENT OF CO[fi Ii'IUNI?Y BEVSLSPIUIH}IT S21 $heridan $beet I Po*Tawnsend, WA98368lWeb;mrytgp,iM Tel : 3S0. 37S.44S0 | Fax: 3S0. 37$.4451 | Email: d*d@co jsffor$on.wa. us Suildhg Parmrfs & lnqpec{ions | $euelopmenf Ooncrsfeney ff*vier I long Range l4annrng I ktlatercfied Slenardsfirp Resource &nter is provided and significant environmental impacts attributable to the Alternatives are reported. Where significant impacts are determined to potentially exist, options for possible mitigation are suggested. The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a Public llearing to take testimony on the FSE|S, Development Agreement and Developrnent Regulations {Title 17, Article ll} as part of the Phase 2 review process for the resort on January 6th, 2016 at 6:30pm at the Brinnon School Gym. The Planning Cornmission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on the development regulations. Yhe BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission recommendation or hold a public hearing before approving those regulations. The BoCC must hold a public hearing befare approving the development agreernent. FSEIS Volume 1 and Volume 2 {Appendices) are available for review and download as a PDF online at: http:/lwww"co;igff*Ison.wq.ur/comr-ndqvqlppmqnt/Brinnon MFfl . htm. Digital CDs are available for purchase at DCD. Hard copies are available for review only at the DCD office, 621 Sheridan 51., Port Townsend, WA 98368. lnformation about the FSEIS and project may be obtained at the Department of Community Development (DCD), or by contacting David Wayne Johnson between th€ weekday hours of 9am to 4:30pm at {360} 379-4455. Davld Goldsmith, lnterim Director Acting SEPA Responsible Official FACT SHEET PROJECT TITLE PROPOSED ACTIONS SEIS Required SEIS ALTERNATIVES Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Fina! Supplemental EIS Jefferson County is considering the adoption of amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County Code to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for the Master Planned Resort (MPR) approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by Ordinance No. 01- 0128-08, adopted January 28, 2008. ln addition, the County is considering the text of a proposed Development Agreement, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, to guide the development, phasing, and standards for the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR). The Jefferson County BoCC conditioned approval of the MPR Comprehensive Plan amendment to require prqect- 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 lmpact Statemenf (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 cunent at the time of the Development Agreement signing (not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment). The environmental impacts of four alternatives are analyzed in this SEIS, including three projectlevel development alternatives - Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Altemative 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 Supplemenfal EIS December 2015 I Facf Sheet 2007 Ets 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. 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. ln addition to the Proposed Action, two action altematives (the Brinnon Subarea Plan Altemative and a Hybnd Alternative) and a No Action Altemative were evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The two action alternatives were based on the assumption that the balance of the property within the Brinnon Subarea be included in the proposed MPR. The No Action Alternative assumed the Master Plan proposal Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2075 ,t Fact Sheet Alternative 3 - Alternative 3 is a new alternative which has been added for consideration in this Final SEIS. lt is similar to Alternative 2, except that the size of the goll 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 woulc be required for golf course grading. No Action Alternative - lt is assumed that the site's cunent 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 anallzed 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. MPR APPROVAL LOCATION PROPONENT/APPLICANT LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL 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 25tt',2OOT . Final EIS A FEIS was issued in November 2007- The FEIS was based on the DEIS, with responses to comments added to Chapter 3 (Probable Significant Adverse lmpact Review of the Proposal), and the addition of a new chapter (Chapter 5), which included a summary of mitigation requirements, technical comments, and a log of comments received on the DEIS. The MPR designation was approved for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point propefi, subject to 30 conditions imposed by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01- 0128-08. The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Canal, approximately 1.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Brinnon. More specifically, the site is located on a 710-acre peninsula known as Black Point that is surrounded by the waters of Hood Canal on the north, south and east, and is bordered by U.S. Hwy 101 to the west. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLC c/o Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 Highway 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 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 ,t,Fact Sheet LEAD AGENCY GONTACT David W. Johnson, Associate Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 37e4465 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Jefferson Gounty - Non Proiect Approvals a 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). a Local or County Permits - Project Level Approvals . Preliminarylfinal plat or Binding Site Plan for roads, uti lities 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 - CriticalAreas protection and modification. . Class lV conversion Forest practice permit for predevelopment logging.. Shoreline permit for any development within 200 feet of the shoreline (close beach access to south and possible wetland mitigation for buffer work).. 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 (WSDOT).. 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 Supplemenfal EIS December 2A15 ,v Fact Sheet SEIS AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Author of Housing and Employment, Rural Gharacter and Population, Aesthetics, Public Services and Consistency with BoCG Conditions Sections. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 Peer Review Gonsuttant ESA Adolfson NW, JT Cooke, Houlihan Law 3401 EvanstonAve 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 lsland, 98282 Plants GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Fish and Wildlife GeoEngineers 1101 South FawcettAvenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 CriticalAreas GeoEngineers 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Energy and Natural Resources Hargis 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 Transportation Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC PO Box 65254 Seattle, WA 98155 Pleasant Harbor Flnal Supplemental EIS December 2015 v Fact Sheet ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS LOCATION OF BACK. GROUND INFORMATION Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Failsafe Canada lnc. 4628 sth Street NE Calgary, Alberta, Canada TzE7C3 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Consultants, lnc. 710 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bainbridge lsland, WA 98110 Light and Glare Michael Bornyk Signature Lighting Manufacturers Las Vegas, Nevada Water and Sewer System Craig A. Peck & Associates 1140240h Avenue E. Tacoma, WA 98446 Consultares Engineering PO Box 608 lssaquah, WA 98027 H R Esvelt Engineering 6450 N.E. Brigham Road Bainbridge lsland, WA 98110 Earnings Analysis Wright Johnson, LLC 205 Worth Avenue, Suite 201 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Per WAC 197-11-620, this SEIS supplements the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort DEIS of September 2007, and the FEIS of November 2007. This SEIS together with the DEIS and FEIS comprehensively addresses the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. This document is available for review at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Background material and supporting documents are available at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368. (360) 3794450. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 v,Fact Sheet DATE OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ElS ISSUANCE DATE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS COMMENTS WERE DUE DATE OF DRAFT SEIS OPEN HOUSE DATE OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ElS ISSUANCE AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SEIS November 19,2014 January 5, 2015 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 December 9, 2015 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. iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmenVbrinnon mpr.htm. Digital CDs can be purchased at the Department of Community Development and the Open House for $4.00. Hard copies can be ordered from SOS Printing, 2319 Washington St., Port Townsend. Any questions regarding obtaining a copy or viewing the SEIS should be directed to David Johnson at (360) 379- 4465 or dwiohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us. a a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemen(al EIS December 2015 vil Fact Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME'-GHAPTERSl.6 Paqe FACT SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS viii CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY 1.1 lntroduction 1-11.2 SEIS Alternatives........ .........1-21.3 Summary of Environmental lmpacts ..............1-3 1.4 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts..... .....1-21 CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL and ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Background ..........2-12.2 Environmental Review Process .....2-22.3 SiteDescription................. 2.4 Objectives of the Proposal ..2-15 2.5 Description of the Proposal and Alternatives................2-16 2.6 Separate Actions2.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring lmplementation of Proposal ......242 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ,...........2-5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 Water Resources ....3.2-1 Plants 3.3-1 3.4-1Fish and Wildlife Shellfish........3.5-1 CriticalAreas Shorelines Energy and Natural Resources Air Quality. Housing and Employment....... Rural Character and Population Archaeological and Cultural Resources Light and Glare Aesthetics. Utilities Public Services Relationship to Plans and Policies (BoCC Conditions) ....3.8-1 3.6-1 3.7-1 3.10-1 3.11-1 3.12-1 3.13-1 3.14-1 3.15-1 3.16-1 3.17-1 3.18-1 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 vtil Table of Contents CHAPTER4-KEYTOPICS CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES VOLUME?- EXHIBITS { and2 Exhibit 1 - Gomment Letters and Responses Exhibit 2 - Planning Commission Meeting Gomments and Responses Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 ,x Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-',| 2-1 2-2 2-3 3.2-1 3_9-1 3.9-2 3.9-3 3.10-1 3.10-2 3_10-3 3.104 3.11-1 3.',|1-2 3.11-3 3.114 3.11-5 3.17-1 3.17-2 3.17-3 Summary Matrix 2007 EIS and SEIS Alternatives Comparison SEIS Action Alternatives Comparison -Residential and Commercial........ Action Alternatives Comparison ............... Annual Recharge to Aquifer under Alternatives 1 and 2 Proposed Paking Capacity by Altemative .................... 14 2-20 2-23 2-30 Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative............. Cumulative Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources Alternative 2 - Estimated GHG Emissions Jefferson County Housing Characteristics, 2010 Brinnon Housing Characteristics, 201 0 Jefferson County, Non-Farm Employment, 2013 3.2-12 3.9-10 3.9-11 3.9-11 3.104 3.10-6 3.10-6 3.10-7 3.11-2 3.11-2 3.11-3 Jefferson County And Washington State - Resident Labor Force AndEmp1oyment................ .....3.1 1-3 Number of Employees per Job Sector 3.11-6 Fire District ll4 -Fire and EMS Calls 2008-2012 ......... 3.17-2 Brinnon School District Enrollment:2008-2012 ..3.17-9 Pleasant Harbor Estimated Student Generation - Alternativesl &2...... .....3.17-11 3.18-1 BoCC Conditions 3.19-2 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 x Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Fiqure 2-1 2-2 2-3 24 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 3.1-1 3.1-2 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.24 2007 EIS Site Boundary............ Regional Map .......... Vicinity Map SEIS Site Boundary Kettles Wetlands and Streams Alternative 1 Site Plan ........... Altemative 2 Site Plan Altemative 3 Site Plan Phasing Map - Alternative 2 ....... Phasing Map - Alternative 3............... Grading Plan - Alternative 2 ............... Grading Plan - Alternative 3 ............... Existing Drainage Basins....... Soil lnfi ltration ............ Altemative 1 - Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort Building and Completion......... Alternative 2 - Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort Building and Completion......... Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage Basins........ Forested Subareas Wildlife Corridors Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity..... Zoning Map .........2-6 Page ...2-3 ...2-7 .2-12 .2-17 .2-18 .........2-8 .......2-13 3.2-5 3.3-1 3.4-1 3.12-1 3.18-1 ........2-19 ........2-38 ........2-39 .......3.14 .......3.1-5 .......3.2-5 .......3.2-6 3.2-10 .....3.2-11 .....3.2-14 .......3.3-3 .......3.4-6 .....3.12-3 ...3.18-15 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenfal EIS December 2015 x,Table of Contenfs VOLUME 3 - APPENDIGES A. Distribution List B. SEIS Scoping Summary C. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2Data D. WDFW Road Realignment Memo E. Earth Reports. 2008 Geotechnical Report. Grading and Drainage Engineering Report. SEIS Soil and Earth lmpacts and Mitigation F. Water Resources Reports Groundwater lmpact Addendum Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memos Groundwater Rig ht Application Water Quality Draft Monitoring Plan Golf Course BMP Plan Neighborhood Water Program G. Plants Reports. Forestry Report. Vegetation SupplementalAnalysis. Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan H. Habitat Management Planl. WDFW Tunicate Monitoring PlanJ. Wetland Mitigation ReportK. Energy and Natural Resources Reports. Electrical Load Memoo Electrical Capacity Letter from Mason County PUD. Compliance with LEED Standards L. Transportation lmpact Study M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report N. An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) O. Cultural Resources. Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocol. DAHP Response to Cultural Resources Plan. Skokomish Tribe Response to Cultural Resources PlanP. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards O. Utility Reports. GeneralWater Plan - Executive Summary. General Sewer Plan - Executive Summary R. Draft Memorandum of Understanding's (MOU's) MOU with Fire District #4 MOU with Jefferson County 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 x,,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 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 xil,Table of Contents Chapter I Summary CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUGTTON This chapter provides a summary of the Pleasant Harbor Supplemental Final Environmental lmpact Statement (SE/S). lt briefly describes the Proposed Actions and alternatives; contains an overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Actions; and, provides a list of mitigation measures. Please see Ghapter 2 of this SEIS for a more detailed description of the Proposed Actions and alternatives. See Chapter 3 for a detailed presentation of the affected environment, significant impacts of the Proposed Actions, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 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 Ghapter 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. t .'l.t Background ln 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. ln 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 ElS. Since 2008, the applicant (now Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The revisions also allow the MPR.to comply with the new Shoreline .Management Plan (SMP) buffer'of 150 feet from the Oidinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 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 Ghapter 2. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 1-1 Summary The new Brinnon MPR relocates the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline area to a'new location near U.S. Highway (HwV) 101. The marina and marina 1.1.2 Organization of this SEIS The development altematives presented in this SEIS address the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conditions of approval, and the SMP approved and taken into effect Jefferson 2014 As a result of the changes since the issuance of the 2007 ElS, this SEIS document has been formatted to clearly present both the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, and the new SEIS development alternatives. The new site information has been updated throughout the document where applicable. Chapter 2 provides a detailed comparison of the SEIS Alternatives and the 2007 EIS Proposed Action (see Table 2-1). Chapter 3 provides the Affected Environment, lmpacts, and Mitigation Measures from both the 2007 EIS and this SEIS for each element of the environment. 1.2 SEIS ALTERNATIVES The development alternatives set forth under this SEIS are summarized below and described in detail in Section 2.5 of this SEIS. The number of residential units proposed under the alternatives in this SEIS remains the same as under the 2007 ElS. The amount of commercial square footage cunently proposed is approximately one-quarter less than that proposed under the 2007 ElS. 1.2.1 Alternative I Alternative 1 for the current Pleasant Harbor SEIS represents a modification to the site plan proposed in the 2007 ElS. This change reflects the BoCC conditions of approval, and is also in response to the new SMP (approved by Ecology and taken into effect by Jefferson County February 21, 20'14). 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 ElS, with gently sloping areas of play. The approximately 231-acre golf course resort would have 828 residential units (including 52 units for staff residences), tennis courts, swimming pools, a bocce ball court, parking, and other amenities. The Maritime Village would have 62 additional residential units, as well as over 13,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Under Alternative 1, the applicant is also intending to include a Tree-Top Adventure Course near the Maritime Village Building. This Adventure Course includes a Zip Line that would connect near the 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 dffiers 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 December 2015 1-2 Summary' 21 1 part on comments received on the Draft SEIS, a new alterative a course has been added to this Final 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. 1.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAGTS 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 Ghapter 3. Pleasant Harhor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 1-3 Summary 1,2.3 Alternative Based on comments received on the Draft SEIS and other factors, an additional TABLE 1.{ I Constructlon lmpact! Subsurface so,ls o Approximately 2.2 milllon cublc yards of oarthwork would occur on the sita.. Approximatoly 930,000 cubic yards ofsand and gravel would bo extracted and available for processing from lhe oast-contral portion of the Black Point Area; this extraction would not alter hydrology. . Approximately 1 million cubic yards of earthwork would occur on the sitB. . Approximately 930,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel would be extractod and availabl€ for procossing from the easlcentral portion of th6 Black Point Area; this extraction would not alter hydrology. . Same as Alternative 2.Sceaado i . The site would conlinus to develop as a singls-family residential area bassd on ths undedying rural resid6ntial zoning and geotochnical conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions as development would bo anticipated to ocdJr within the Bxisting topography. Scenrd<tB Scenarlo.S . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residsntial area based on the undsrlying rural residBntial zoning and gsotechnical conditions would generally remain as described under existing conditions as development would bo anticipated to ocqJr within the existing topography. Sceaarfo B Ercsion . Approximately 17&acros, or 67 percent of ths land would b6 dgarsd ofvsgstation, and significant gradlng would be required. o Bufferc would be establishad for protected areas, including slopes: howover, slope instability would be possiHe if clearing and grading occuned either on slopes or clos€ to th6 toe of slop€s. Erosion could contdbute to sediment in wetlands and streams. . Altemative 2 would rsquir€ approximately 25 porcent l€ss surface area disturbance than Alternative 1.. Buffors would be ostablished for protected areas, lncluding slopes; however, slope instability would be possiblo if clearing and grading occuned either on slopes or close to the to€ of slopes. Erosion could contribute to ssdimsnt in weuands and strsams. tladtlme Vlllegs Aroe . Commercial and residential development would be consolidatod into a $story building at the interseclion of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, and two 12-unit buildings; reducing impacts on ths existing topography in the Maritime Village Aroa compar€d to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. . Struc{ures would bo built into th6 existing slope. . Commercial and residential development would be consolidatod into one 3-story building at the intarsection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 10 1, further reducing impacts on the €xisting topography in the Maritims Mllage Ar€a.. Structures would bo built into the existing slope. ffiffir o The site would continue to develop as a singls.family residential area based on the undodying rural rosidential zoning and geotechnical conditions would oonerallv rBmain as doscribed under exlstino conditions ie devoiopment SEEffiiffiEHiidwithin the existing topography, Pleasrnt Hatbot Flntl Supplemental EIS Chapt r 1 SummtyDecembot 2015 11 Alternatlve 1 Altornatlve 2 Alternatlve 3 No Action Alternalive Earth somo and be . Altornativs 3 would bo similar to Alternative 2, but would require approximately I 6 percent less surface disturbance than Altemative 2. . Sam6 as Atemative 2, assumas residential area along with a Comprehensive Plan and would Black Polnt Aroa . Earth conditions would be similar to those described in the 2007 ElS, and impacts as a result of sits grading would be similar. Surface Water . Altemative 2 was modilied to improvs constructability by refining development in tho sxisting topographic conditions, resulting ln the uso of ono half lsss fill whsn compared to Altsmativo 1. &s@deA . The site would continuG to dev8lop as a single-family residential area bas6d on the undoriying rural residential zoning and geotechnical conditions would generally remain as described under sxisting conditions as developm€nt occured within the existing topography. &ai.rrh,rB . ThB two small non fish-bearing strsams within th8 pollution generating surfaces would be caplured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to dischargs. As a result, the flows would be maintained and wat6r quality would bs improved. The intermittonl non fish-bearing stream within the WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road is located downdops of the new WDFW boat access roadway and would not be impacted by construc'tjon and all stomwater from naw of Maritime condition, . Same as Altemative 'l Groundwator and Aqulfer Recharg6 . After completion of the resort, aquifer r66targe to the sea level aquifer would be approxlmatsly 840 acre.feet per year und6r Altemative 1, compared with 760 acre- feel undsr cun€nt conditions. An increase in r€chargo is due lo a docrease ln vegetation due to construction of roads and buildirgs. lnfiltration of prscipitatlon would occur more quickly due to changes in the soil moisture associated with golf courso inigatlon. . This altemative would result in an due to the roduced amount of impervious surfaces and increased vegotation undsr Altsmativs 2. approximatoly 804 higher than cunent conditions, acre-feet per Scanerlo A Scenarlo B Stormwatar . Under Altemative 1, 87 percent of the overall site would be rstained as open space, with the golf cours€, natural areasi and buffers. Stormwater impacts lvould occur from an increase in the rato and volume of runoff from devolop6d areas. Whero devolopment allows, frequent and small distributed bioretention facilitiss would be provided, and runoff from roof ar6as would be infiltrated n6ar ths structures producing the runoff. An overflow . lmpacts und6r Altemative 2 would be similar to those discussed for Altsmative t. UndBr Altomative 2, 88 percent ofths site would bo retained as open space, and stormwatsr impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, oxcept that parking areas would be paved with pervious pavemsnts as much as possible under Altomative 2. Basins 16, '17, and 18 (induding tha Maritime Village and transit stop parking area) would have higher percentages of chanoe under Ahemative 2 b6cause of siqnificantlv Scenarlo A Docember 2015 1-5 Chaptar 1 Summary Alternauvo 1 AIternatlve 2 Alternatlve 3 . Same as Altemative 2- assum6s area a retail araa Plan and designation6. WatGr Resourcss . sama as Atemativo 1.Scenerlo A . The site would remain in its present condltion, and th6r€ would be no now tomporary.or psrmanant impacts to surfaco wal6r condilions; Scenerio B . Overall, the potential for impacts to surfaco water resources would be less than under Altematives 1, 2 and 3 1 . Thls altomative would result ln an aqulfer recharge of approximately 844 acre-feet per year. This would b6 highor than cunont conditions and Altemative 't duo to reduced irrigation neods related to ths smaller, g-hole golf courso. . Same as Altamative 2. infiltration system would be dBsigned around ths perim€ter of Ket0e B, as well as a direc't piped overflow connec{ion to Kette C for less frequonq larger rainfall events. Ths uss of r6uss watsr for inigation would be computer conbolled to prevent runoff.. To provBnt runoff ont€ring the Hood Cansl in Basins 1, 2, and 12, embankments that change the direction of surfacs llow would direct runoff away from Hood Canal into natural and creat€d dotention areas This modification addresses BoCC conditlon 63 (q). Maritime Villag6 areas would continue to discharge directy to PlBasant Harbor/Hood Canal, and prevBntion of channel erosion due to an lncreass in runoff would be roquired. o The site would bs dssigned to m66t tho recommendations of the cunent edition of the WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Westem Washington togBth€r with WDOE'S adopted Low lmpact Development Technical Guidanco Manual for Puget Sound. Januarv 2005. highor percentages of impeMous surface being constructed ln thosa areas. Pote ntial Con structlon I m pacts . Stormwater impacts would bB largoly relatod to potential waler erosion of dlsturbed and expogsd soils. During construction, stormwater managem€nt measures would be imdemenled to reduce potential impacts for sedimsnt-laden wator and wind-blown particles to leavs the site. Grading activitjes could cause sodimont-laden waters to cross the propsrty line without proper mitigation measuros. To minimize thls potential impact, detailsd final dssigns would considsr redirection of runoff into different basins with better permoability. . Similar to Alternative 1. . Slmllar to Altemative 2. Pote ntial O po rutional I m p a cts . The r€dacement ofoxisting surfacss and vegetation with less permeable and impervious surfaces would increaso the runoff that enters the stormwater management facilities. With implementation of the proposed stormwaler control system, slgniflcant impacts from surface water runoff would not be anticipated. The roplacement of naturally vegotated areas with nswly lsndscapod araas would alt6r surfacs water runoff and lnfiltration. Th6 propossd davslopment would incrgase stormwater recharge into the groundwater by approximatoly I 0 percent. Nsw pollulant-generating impsrvious surfacos would add additional pollutants to the site from gasoline, oils, and othsr mechanical fluids. These pollutants have the potsntial to dograds the quality of wat€r bsing lnliltrated into th6 ground if not properly troated. . Similar to Altemative l.. Similer to AltamativB 2. Scenerio A Scenarlo B Pleesant H.tbor Fln.l Suppl,,menf,,l EIS Docembor 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-A Alternallvo 1 Alternative 2 Alternatlve 3 under Conrtructlon . Proposed dsvelopmBnt would disturb approximatsly 87 psrcont of tha site and €xisting plant communlti6s. Thes6 ar6as would bo d€ared of vegetation and new, maintained landscsping would be provided in porvious areas. o Approximately 31-acros of 6xi6tlng vegetation would be r6taln€d. . Proposod dovelopmont would disturb approximatoly 65 porcont of th€ sito and oxisting dant communitios. These areas would bs cloarsd of vsgetation and nevr, maintained landscaping would be provided in p3ruious ar6as. . Approximatsly 80-acros of existing vegetatlon would be retained. Marltlmo Vlllagr Arua o 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 developmsnt at th6 marina proposed in th6 2007 EIS to a site at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 1 01 would reduce ths vsg€tativ€ impact at th6 marina and r€tain the viablo forsst. Ths Maritime Mllage Area would b6 clsared of vsgetation tor building and parking construction. o Same as Altemative 1. Black Polnt Area . Oesignatod vegetated arBas would be undisturbed, and tho zoGfoot riparian buffer along the southsm shorslin6 €dgo would b€ r€tainsd. During construction viable tree6 within th€ proposed development areas that could bo transplanted would be relocated temporarily. Flsh . Sams as Allemative 1. . Proposed site dsvelopment is not anticipated to increase pollutants in the harbor, and existing 86ptic tanks, pumps, and drainfislds would bo rsplacsd with a sewago troatmont dant and water systsm. Treated water from this plant would be used as inigation on the golf coursa. Water quality would be monitored at existing monitoring statlons, and the resort would b6 rsquir€d to notity the County if any problems or changos in water quality occuned. Further, the resort would participate in rectiflng any problsms. As a r€sult of the stomwster managemsnt and treatmsnt, the nst discharge of surfaco water runoff from tho Maritime Village to the harbor ls anticipatod to be cleaner than cursnl @nditions- . Same as Altemativ€ 1.Scenarlo A December 2015 1-7 Plers.nt H.ftor Flnrl Supp16,ment l EIS Ch,,ptet 1 Summary Alternatlv€ I Altornative 2 Alternative 3 No Acllon Altorn.tlve Plants percBnt of the site and These areas would b6 and new, Scenarlo A . The site would remain in its presgnt condition, and ther6 would bs no nsw temporary constuction impacts to existing plant habitats and spocies Scenarlo B . Tho romoval of plants and vegstation would occur, but at a lower level than undor Atomatives '1, 2 and 3, . Samg as Altemativo 1.Scerrarro A . The sito would rsmain in its prosent condition and existing habitats that are lntact would remain intact and degraded habitat would remain degraded. Scenario B . Dovelopment would result in the removal of plants and vegetation but at a lower level than under Altematives 1,2 and 3, and lt is assum€d that moro nalural area would be rotained on tha site. . Same as Altemativa 1.Sc6narlo A . Tho site would remain in its present condition and sxisting habitals that ars lntact would remain intact and dsgraded habitat would remain dsgradod. Sconario B . Dovelopment would rosult in the removal ot plants and vegstation but at a lower level than undor Altemativss 1, 2 and 3, and it is assumed that moro natural aroa would be ret6in6d on the site. Flsh and wlldlifo . Same as Altemative 1. 3. Th6 small g-hole would retain mor6 family homss would be natural Wildlif6 . Wildlife is larg6ly isolatsd from ths sits by U.S. Hwy I 01, but some areas of temperats forosts could allow for wildlife conidors, Wildlife resources would be protectsd through providing natural areas from dsvslopment and disturbance. A Uail loeding from the beach to tho top of the Huff along th6 shoreline buffer would be decommlssioned and accsss to the shoreline from the sits would not be permitted. Disturbed areas within tho 2oGfoot buffer would be restorsd and plantsd with native vsgetation.. Developmsnt construction may temporarily displace bald eagles during construction, but the habitat th€y potentially use would remain undisturbed. Birds, mammals, and reptilss on the site could be tsmporarily displaced or disturbed during construction, but thgre should not be significant impacts as designat6d vegetated arsas would rsmain undisturbed during and afler construction. Natural and undisturbed areas would allow wildlife to continue to utilizs tho site. Rainier elk ars not curently found at th6 sit6 and would bs discouraged from sito uss through oxclusionary foncing, as thsre is not suitable habitat and elk hav6 the Dotsntial to damaqe DroDetv. . Same as Altemative 1.scenarro, Scenario B Threatonod and Endangored Spocles . Although listed marine species may us€ ths shoreline of the site, th6r6 ara no known listed spgcies in th6 upland portions of the projacl area. Marins sp€ci€s may induds fish, mollusks, whales, and the Stellar sea lion. Thess spocios could be impacted by changss to the watsr quality from pollution sntsring the Hood Canal, However, surface water runoff would be collectsd and treatod on-site, thon discharged to an on-sito infiltration slEtem. No direct dischargo of golf course fairway runoff would entsr Hood Canal. . Same as Altemative 1.. Same ss Altemative 1. I . The zoG.foot riparian buffsr along tho southern shoreline odge of the site would be rotained, and public access would bo restrictsd to maintain the natural condition ofthe bluff. Vogetation clearing would increass tho potential for runoff, but direc{ stormwat€r runoff to the Hood Canal from the golf course would not occur through the use of embankmonts that would dkecl surfac€ llow lnto natuEl and ssat€d detention areas. The wastewater lreatmsnt system and proposed stormwater management system would improve water quality. . Atsmativg 2 would be similar to Altemative 1, but less cleadng would occur, resulting in a lower potential for runoff undsr Alt€mative 2. Scenarlo A Ploasant Herbor Flnal Supplemental EIS Decomber 2015 1 1-8 Summary Alternatlvs I Alt€rnatlve 2 Alternatlve 3 . Same as Atematlve 1. an would b6 underAltematives 1,2 but because homas would be the south€m sit6 gr6at6r impacts to Sconado A . The site would remaln in its present condition, and ther6 would be no now impacts to fish and wildlife. Scenarlo B an would b6 loss 1,2 Ths small g-hole golf course would retain but bo natural Shellfish . Sam6 as Atometive 2. permitted, and buffer is to tho . Redevelopment would be limitsd withln oxlsting building footprints, with thB exception of the storage building approved in the BSP. Th6 two small non fish-boaring slreams south of the marina would b€ l€ft in th€ir nativ€ condition, buffored, and ell stormwatsrfrom new sources would bo captured and treated prior to discharge. Flows would bs malntained and water quality would not be degrad6d,. Tho 2oGfoot riparian buffer along tha southern shoreline sdge nould be rotained, public acc€ss would be resticted to maintain the natural condition of th6 bluff, and r€sidencss would be sot back no l6ss than 30 WotlsndE feet from lhe Scenado A ScelldeE . Devalopment would result in tho loss of approximatoly 20,700 sq. fi. ot wetand area associated with Wetand B. Soils would be covered with approximately 100 feet of sarth and an impsrmoable lay€r. The ksttls and pond would be fillod and malntained for use in the water rocycling system, Filling of Wetland B would creats a large, deepwater hydrologic feature that could be used by waterfowl and amphibians.. K€ttls construction would require vegstation r€moval on the slopos and in th6 buffer of Wetland B. The filling of Wstand B would rosult in ths loss of habitat us€d primarily by birds, mammals, and reptilos. o To offset ths fill of Wetland B, componsatory mitigation is proposed to be provlded in another largs kette south of Wetland B. Development under Altemative 1 would retain Wetands C and D, but davalopmont would encroach on wetand bufier arsas. Wgtand buffer avoraoino would minimize imoac-ts lo relland buffeB- Sconedo A Scenerlo B Aqulf.r R.charge Area3 - /mpacfs to aquiter recharge arcas aro included in tha analysis in the !4/a16,, Resou/cos section ofthis SE/S. Flsh and Wildlife Conlervatlon Arsa! - ,mpacts lo f,sh and wildlite conseNation areas are includid in the analysis in lhe Fish and Wildlife section in this SE/S. Goologlcally Hazardous Areas - lmpacts to geologically hazardous areas are included in lhe analysis in the Eaih section in this SE/S. I Energy Use and Consumption . New d€volopmsnt on th6 sits would us€ snorgy, rssulting in an incrsase in energy levels comparsd to existing conditions. Approximately 19,337 kVA (about 15.46 MW) would be nesdod for a build out of the proposgd proisct, roquiring ths construction of a new substation and associated distribution fseders. . Sams as Altemativ€ 1 Scearr{6t . Potontial impacts to €nergy and natural rgsources would be limited, compared to the higher intensity devBlopment proposed under Altemativss 1, 2 snd 3. Pleasant Haftor Flna, Suppremenfr, E s December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-9 Alternative I Alternativo 2 Alternative 3 No Ac'tion Alternatlve Shorelines . Same as Altemative 1-. Samo as Altemative 1. . lt is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and shorolin€ conditions would remain rolatively unchangod. meet geological hazard and limit that tho lead to demand Crltlcal Area3 . Sama as AltBmative 1.. Same as Atamative 1. . Samo as Atemative 1.Sceneio A Propano and Gasollno Gonoratlon r Pot€nual impacts to €norgy and natural r€sources would be limited, comparod to the higher intsnslty -dovslopment proposed under Atematives 1, 2 ffi. Scenarlo A. Backup for the wastewater pump ststions would be provided by the use of a truck mountsd gasolino or di€sel g€nerator or permanent on-site generator. Additionally, propana would be used for outdoor cooking, and bio-fuel (vegetable oil) would b6 used in fireplac€s in ths villas and contral ar6as of th6 Tenacs buildings. G6olhermal sr.rirrii S . Potential impacts to €nergy and natural rosourcBs would be limited, compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Atematives 1, 2 and 3. Scenario A. Geothormal exchange would be used as an altemative energy source. The earth would bs used as a heat source in cold weathor and a hsat sink in warm w6ather. Th6 r6daimed water reservoir would provide a medium for the exchange of h6ating and cooling for the geo-sxchangs mechanical systsms. Biodlesel Co-Gsneration o Altemative 1 would indude proposed on-sita blodiosol co-gen6ratjon. Waste heat from the combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration unit would be used to heat tho pool, spa, and common areas, reducing energy consumption. . A cogeneration unit would not be included under Altemative 2. Sc€rrrt o I o Potential impacts to energy and natural resourcss would be limited, compared to the higher intenslty developmsnt proposed under Altematives 1, 2 and.3. Scenarlo A LEED Scenailo B . Potential impacts to energy and natural resources would be limited, compared to the higher intonsity development proposed under Altematives 1, 2 and 3. Scenailo A. The proposed project would have a potential of 25.5 points in ths Sustainable SitBs category; 10 potontial points in Water Efficiency; 25 potsntial points in the Energy and Atmosphere categoryi 25 potential points in Materials and R€sourcas; 14 potential points in lndoor Environmental Quality 5 pot€ntial points in lnnovation in Designi and 4 potontial points in Regional Priority. Proposed Clrculatlon Systom . Sam€ as Altemalive '1, but under Altemative 2 lhat WDFW boat launch access to Pleasanl Harbor on Black Point Road would be realigned east of its prosent Iocation at a nsw intorsection approximately '1,000 feet . A private frontago road (Marlna Accoss Drivo) would parallel U.S. Hwy 101 bstween Black Point Road and ths marina upland, A primary access roadway on to Black Point Road aDoroximately one mile east of U.S. Pleasant H.rbor Flnal Supplemenf',l EIS Dec?,,,Det 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-10 Alternatlve I Alternatlve 2 Altornativo 3 No Actlon At€rnative . Sam€ as Altemativo 1.o Same as Altemative 1. and limitsd existing . Sams as Altemativs '1.. Same as Alternative 1. . Same as Altemative 2. . Sams as Altemative 1.. Sama as Atsmative 1. Transportetlon . Same a6 Atgmative 2.Scenailo A . lt is assumad that lhat no redovelopment of the site would occur and the existing circulation systom romain Hwy 101 would servico all traffic to and from th6 Golf Cou66/R6sort. A secondary gatod access rcad would be usod for 6mergsncy vshicl€s and staff/maintenance acc6ss only. A transit layover and bus zone would b€ accommodated on-site within the southeast quadrant of the realignod 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 ovents, and for group oxcursions ln the Puget Sound area. Site residents would also havo the option to rent electrical carts for travel between the Golf Course/Resort and the Maritime Village and the Marina.. Under Altsmativs 1, the WDFW boat launch would be relocatBd and intsrconnected with the proposed Maritime Mllage Access roadway at a new intsrsection east of U.S. Hwv 10l/Black Point Road. east of U.S. Hwy 1 01 on Black Point Road. Trlp Gsneration . Land uss would remain gonorally the same as evaluated in the 2007 SEIS. Although the land use ctanges slighty under Altemative 1, overall trip generation and distribution and assignment of the proposal romains similar. . Same as Altomative 1 . The site would Sconarlo A Level of Serylco . The L6vel of Service (LOS) at U.S. Hwy '101 and Black Point Road would not change hom tho 2007 ElS, even with potenlial reductlons from the lmplementation of a shuttle bus system. ThB westbound approach would conlinue to operate at LOS B with a queu6 of one vehicle or less, and the southbound lefr approach would continu€ to oporate at LOS A. . Th€ site would Scaaarlo A Slts Access Scera/o A resldential area Scenarro I . The site would . StoFcontrolled entoring/oxit movements at th6 project site drivewa)rs on to U.S. Hwy l01 and Black Point Road would operats at LOS B or better with little or no vehicular queuing. Based on WSDOT's Design Manual, s 1 oo-foot southbound lefi-tum lans is wanantsd on U.S. Hwy 10'l approaching Black Point Road, and Allernative 1 would indude this improvement. A northbound 60-foot with 100-foot traper was wananted and ts . Samo as Altomalive 1. Decamber 2015 1-11 Summary Altornative 1 Altornative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Alternativ€ relatively unchangod. scenado B a 6rea wilh 30 a residential with fewsr . Same as Altdrnative 1. . Same as Atomativo 1.. Samo as Atomativo 1. . Same as Altematlve 1. WDFW Drlvoway Acce3a to Plerlant Harbor Boat Launch . Under Atemative 1, oxisting traffic and accoss drivsway onto Black Point Road from ths WDFW Boat Launch would be realignsd to intersect with the common frontage road to the Maritime Villaga north of Black Point Road as a 'T-intorsection" interior to the site. Traffic to the Maritime Village and the boat launch would use a common n€w intersection east of U.S. Hwy 1 01 on Black Point Road. Construction of this intersection would require fill and topography changss. It would require property transfer or stringent access €asomonts on private propBrty to allow public accass to th€ Marina and Golf Resort properties. Mixing proiect- gsnerated traffic and WDFW boat launch traffic could cause congestion during peak uss of th€ boat launch. . UnderAltemative 2, WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch access would be realigned further east to intersect Black Point Road approximately 1,000 feet 6ast 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 undsr Altemative 1. This access roadway would only s6rvs the WDFW boal launch and ls prefened by WDFW rsPresentatives. Sc€rarro,ll Scoaarro I Constructlon lmpacts . The applicant proposes to co{nplete the Marina and Golf Course/Resort in phases. During those construction phases, off-site vehicle trlps would be generatBd, impacting vicinity roadways and intersection ovBr the l Gysar build out poriod. During construction trips generatsd would include employBe trips, transportation of construction matarials and squipment, and miscellan6ous trips.. Sits preparation and oarthwork construciion would requira approximately 20-40 smployees/contEclors on- site during weekdays. Construction of infrastructurs and sp€cilic buildlngs would require an additional 3G'40 employe€s/Gontractors on-sito. During pgak construclion this could r6quiro 75.1 00 smployees, resulting in upwards of 250 vehicle trips.. Larger trucks would bs used and would b6 limltod to less than 50 trips on any given day for th6 transportation of matarials and equipmsnt. BMPs would be implementsd, induding on-site truck wash facilities or oversize load transport routing.. ln total, typical ostimated daily vehicle traffic Aensration related to construction would bs up to 300 daily vehide trips, whlch is less than 10 perc€nt of the total site build out daily trip generation, resulting in no significant traffic imDacts. . Same as Altemative 1.Scenario 4 Scenai'lo'i r The site would Parklng Demand r A total of 1,536 parking spaces would b6 supplied undsr Altemative 1, through a mix of surfac€ parking and "pa*ades" (structured parking below buildings). This parting supply is greatsr than the wsekday demand of 1 ,329 stalls and weekend demand of 1,353 stalls. . A total of 1,550 parking spacss would be suppliBd under Altemative 2, through a mix of surface parking and 'parkades' (structured parking below buildings). This parking supply is graater than tho wsekday demand of 1,353 stalls and weekend demand of 1,389 stalls. o With the cumulative impact of tho parking demand from Decembet 2015 1-12 Summ,,ry Alternative I Alternatlve 2 Alternative 3 . Same as Atemative 2. occur and traffic the onto Black onto Black . Same as Altemative '1. . Same as Atemative 2.Scenarlo A . lt is assumed that that no redsvelopmBnt of lho sile vvould occur and oxisting (limit6d) parking demands would.continue, Scanada B Hatbot Flnal . With the cumulative impact of the parking demand from the marina, the entir€ Eit6 (including the marina) genoratss a woskday surplus of 207 stalls and a weekend suqCus of 92 stalls. Construcuon stalls and aof woekand surplus of 70 stalls. gensratgs a wsekday r The site would arca . Due to the hlgh amount of oxcavation and grading associated with the golf courso design under Altsmativs 1, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be greator than under Atsmative 2. A GHG Emissions analysis was performed only for Altemativo 2. . Scop6 , Emiss,bns; Construction could rosult in 5483.62 tCO2e total GHG smiseions, reduced to 4,743.20 tCO2s with mitigation. Gonstuclion activities would result in additional emissions sourcas, Induding mobile power generation combustion, doforsstatlon, bslow grad€ carbon loss, and soil organic carbon loss.. Scopa 2 Emissrbns: Construction could result in 172.93 tCOze total GHG emissions, r€duced to 146.99 tCOze with mitigation. Purchased ensrgy could be used during construction, rssulting in €missions.. Scope 3 Emlsstbns: Construction could result in 9,673.66 tCOze total GHG emissions, reduced to 9,130.52 tCO2e \uith mitigation. Scope 3 emissions sources for construction include hsavy equipment battery/on-site mining combustion, material hauling trip smissions, vehicle trip emissions, organic waste (wood), and electricitv transmission and distribution lossBs. ScenarloB . The site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area wilh 30 rosidanttal units and a g-hol€ golf coitii€ based on the undsrlying rural residential zoning and potential impacts regarding construction- relatgd greenhouse gas emissions would be limited, as comparsd to ths higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives t, Z and 3. Oporatlon . lmpacts would bs similar to those discussed under Altsmative 2. . Scope 7 Emissions. Operation could result in 1,096.80 tCO2e total GHG omissions, rsduced to 931.48 tCO2s with mitigation. Combustion from combined power, backup powor, vshicle fle€t, golf course maintenance, non-combustion fugitiv6 sources, and campfire/fireplaces could caus€ increased emissions. Wastswater msthane (on-site) and fertilizer apdication would be additional emissions sources.. Scope 2 Emissions: operation could r€sult in 8,246.25 tCO2e total GHG emissions, reduced to 4,352.94 tCO2e with mitigation. Purchased energy could bB used during operation, rssulting in emissions.. Scope 3 Emissions: Op8ration could result in 26,459.72 tCO2e total GHG omissions, roduced to 16,589.18 tCO2e with mitigation. Scops 3 emissions sourcss for op6ration include vohicular omissions, landlill wast6, organic waste, and electrlcity transmission and distribution losses. . Th€ ostmated total omissions (construction and opsBtion) wlth mitisation would qe 35,894.29 tCO2e. r The eite would continue to dsvolop as a single-family resldential areaffi W$ffiffi based on th€ undorlying rural r€sidontial zoning and potential impacts regarding groenhouse gas emlssions would be llmlt€d, as comparod to the higher lntensity devslopmont proposod und€r Alt6mativos 1, 2 eh(3 Scenado A Houalng Temponry (Construction P hase) Housing Conditions . Constructon of the project would occur over time in o Same as Altemative 1.. Sams as Altornative 1. Pleasant Hatbot Flna, Suppromonta, E S December 2015 Ch.ptsr 1 Summtryt1-13 Alternatlvo I Alt€rnatlve 2 Alternative 3 Air Ouality Scorarro.d &ar be Employment.nd Houslng Seenarlo A response to market conditions; the assumed timeframe in this SEIS is 10 ysars. lt is estimatsd that on av6rage, up to 175 positions could be associatod with facility Qonstuction per yoar. Th€ applicant proposes to upgrade existing RV facililiss on the sits on a tomporary basis to provide tsmporary houslng for construction workers. Long-Te rm H ou sing Cond itions . Und€r Atemativs 1 , 890 rosidontial units would be provided on the sits, Of the total, 278 (33%) units would b6 for pormanent rosidents, and 560 (67%) units would be for short-term use, The 890 units would rsprsssnt an 84 p€rcent increase to the 6xisting housing stock, but would be largsly for short-term use. Considering only the permanent housing, it would represent a 26 perc€nt incroase in the oxlsting housing stock. Scenado A I n d i rect Hou sing Con ditions . Operation of the resort could result in up to 225 new employees, which could lncreaso demand for housing in the area. si!?:!tumf.?r[Erl Scenarlo A Employmont Co nstructlon Em p loy m e nt . Sit6 preparation and construction activitiss would raquir€ new temporary construction employment opportunitiss during tha lGysar build out period. lt is now ostimatsd that ths projsct could generate up to 1,750 total jobs ovsr the courss of ths 1 o-year buildout. The aclual number would vary depending on the naturs and construction phase of tho pro.i€ct Construction jobs would be temporary and would be discontinuod once const uction was complete. lt is estlmated that approximately I 9.5 percent of construction iobs that would be crsatsd by ths Pl€asant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. Qpenlional Employment . Dovolopmont of the sits could result in approximatgly 225 p€rmanent employoes at the Plea6ant Harbor Sits. Additional temporary employess could ba hir6d seasonally during tho summer months. Emplofnent would be geneEted incrementally as the site develops over the build out period. Jobs would include opportunitios in tourlsm and lelsura, hospltality, restaurant and food servic€, standards . Sams as Altemative 1 . SamB as A,temative 1, Pleasant Hatbot Flnal Supplemenlal EIS Chrptsr 1 SummaryDecombot 2015 1-11 Alt€rnatlve'l Alternatlve 2 Alternatlve 3 No Actlon Alternatlvs . No redevolopment of lho site and no tomporsry houging impacts would occur. Scerario I . Somg temporary construc{on emdoymont would occur as assoclatod wih building 30 new residencos and I 9- hole golf course" r Same as Altemative 1.. Sama as Altemative 1. as compared to Altematives 2 and o Same as Altemative 1. Scenailo B . Llmted indirect housing impacls would occur as compared to Altematives 'l-3. . Same as Alternative 1.. Same as Atemativo l.Scanarlo A . No redovelopment or construc{ion omdoynent would oocdf. Scenarto B but this building 30 now residonces and a Scen.rto A . No redevolopmeht of th6 slte and no nsw opeEtlonal employment would bo added to th6 site. Scenarlo B . Somo employment would ocorr as associated with the 9-hole golf coursa. Employment would bo less than would occur under Alternativss '1-3. and safety managom€nt. New smployrn€nt could help to lower the countfs unemploymsnt rate, dep6nding on sevoral factors. lt is estimated that approximatsly 99 percent of op8rational jobs lhat would be created by the PlBasant Harbor proiect could be at 80% or less of tho Brinnon area AMl. I ndirect Em ployme nt I m pacts . During construction, it is possible that some n€arby busine6ses could experionc6 an lncrease in busingss, PBrmangnt employees of the resort aro also antlcipatsd to contibute to lhe overall economlc aclivity in tho area, particularly area rotail and r€staurant businesses. Additlonal residents in communitiss sumound tho site could result in increased retail and s6rvice sp6nding and local businesses. Constructlon . Same as Altemative 1 . Same as Altemative 1.Sce.rarro A Scenarlo B Population . Construclion is anticipated to covor an approximatsly 10 yoar timeframe, and smployment could generato up to approximatoly 1,750 jobs in total over the full buildout. However, thase positions would b6 temporary in naturs and no pgmanent residsnts are anticipatsd to migrate to the arsa. . Same as Altemative I . Same as Altemative 1.Scenado A .Scenarlo B Opsration Potential impacts to populatjon and rural character conditions would rsmain g€nerally as described in the 2007 Final ElS, with an permanent population increase of approximately 15-20 persons. Populatlon impacts would bo much less than Atemativag 1-3. Sceinarlo A Population The proposed proiect would provide 890 residontial units, with 278 for pemanent 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 tho 52 staff units), rosulting in 764 permanent rBsidsnts. This would result in an 95 psrcent incraass in population in Brinnon. o Short-term units aro assumed to havs an avsrags occupancy of 2.2 persons per unit, resulting in a transient population of 1 ,232 persons, with higher occ{rpancy anticipatod in the summor. . Same as Altemativg I . Same as Alternative 1. Scenarlo A Rurrl Character . Site would bs transformsd from a former campgrcund that is largely foresled lo a nsw MPR development with a range of rssidential and recrBational uses and aclivilies. Tho density of development and commerdal and recreational amenities on the sile would increase, to a primarily vacant, vegetated and . Altomativo 2 would havs similar impacts to Altomative 1, but approximately 8o-acres (33 percent of the site) would be preserv€d, and an additional 13$acres would be psrvious arsa \uith landscaplng, golf course falrways, and psdestrian trails. Plersant Hefbot Flnal Suppl',mental EIS Decembot 2015 Chaptet 1 Summ.ry1-1s Alternatlve I Alternative 2 Alternativ€ 3 No Ac,tlon Altornatlvo Rur.l Charac-tar and Populatlon 60me with the $hole 1o$acres porcsnt of tho and an bo pervious 6rea with fairways, and o ln g€nsral, the type, character, and pattom of land uses at th€ sils would change substantially. Ths rural characler of sunounding land uses would be preserved by limiting the visibility of th6 resort, preserving natural areas and open space, limiting tho height of development, and dustering more intense d6velopment ln the interior of ths site. Overall, approximatoly 3& a6res of natural area ( 14 percent of th6 sito) would be prsserved, and an additional 1 77-acrss would be psrvious area with landscaping, golf couEe faiMays, and pedestrian trails. psr acrs. o Potential impacts to rural charactor conditions would remain generally as described in the 2007 Final ElS, wilh an permanent population increase of approximately 15-20 persons. lfipactt W_guld b9 tesa than Altoifl ativas' 1:$. Scemrro A gco,i,ailo B lndirdct lmpacls . N€w development would contribute to residontial and employment growth, as well as intensification of land uses in the community and county. The dovelopment would also cumulativ€ly increase v6hicular traflic on sunounding road6, and the demand for goods and sgMc€s. This could indirecty generate new dgv€lopmsnt in ths area. . Same as Alternative 1. Scenado A Scenailo B . Prehistoric and histodc archaeological resources could bs present at the site. To avoid potentially adverse impacts to cultural rosources, periodic archaeological monitoring would b€ canisd out during construction excavations and below-fi||, ground disturblng project actions. Monitoring results would be reviewad with the Departmant of Archaoology and Historic Proservation stafi, and tribal repr6sentatives prior to adjusting th€ monitoring schsdule. . Atsmative 2 would be similar to Altemativs 1 but the potential to encountsr archaeological deposits would bg loss due to th6 lower amount of excsvation and grading associatsd with th€ golf course design. Constructlon Temporary light and glare impacts could result ftom area lighting of the job site, glare refl€cting off construction equipment, and vehicle haadlights. These impacts would be t€mporary and are not anticipated to be significanL TW . Tho sit6 would continuo to d€velop as a single-family rosidontial area bassd on th6 underlying rural resldential zoning. Somo sdditionel llght and glare thecould result from new Pleaaant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 1-16 Summety Alternalive 1 Alternativo 2 Alternatlve 3 No Ac{lon Altsrnative Scenarlo B . Sama as Altsmativ€ 1. . Same as Altemative 2. Altematives and therefore rosourca6 LIght and Glsro . Same as Altsmalive l.. Same as Atomative 1,Se€narlo A I lt is assumed thst no rodevslopment of tho site and no tsmporsry constructlon llghting would occur. Oporatlon o Following development, n6w sources of light on ths site Would indudB int€rior and exterior lighting, p6destrian pathway lighting, and lighting associated with th6 golf course and v6hidilar traffic Bntering and exiting the site. M€asuros to reduc6 light pollution would be implsm6nted, such as dark sky lighting standards, using high efficiency lighting standards, and reducing tho amount and duration of illumination use. . Glaro impacls would b€ associated with rsflections from building glazing and building glare impacts are not anticipated. Ths preservalion of natural areas would also help limit use materials, and Marltlm. Vlllage Are. off-site. . lmpacts under Altemativ€ 2 would bo similar to those under Altsmativs '1, but Altemative 2 would preserve a gr€ator amount of natural area, which could provide a greater visual buffsr at site bord6rs, and could provont more ofi-sitB light tr8spass ttran undor Altamative 1.W . The 8lto would contlnue to devolop as a slngle-famlly rosldontial area based on the undedying rural residential zoning. Soms additional light could result from new constructed within Scenarlo A and the . Under Altematlvo 1 ths aosthstic characrter of this portion of the sits would change fom a rural area with mature vegetation and single-family homas, to a more dsnssly d6velop€d site with largsr building massing and scale, and surface parking lots. The largest buildlng would bs three stories in height. StructurBs would be built into the sxisting topography.. Portlons ofthe redeveloped aroa, including surface parldng, would b6 visibls from certain locations along Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Landscaping would helD soflen the visual imDact at this location. o Aesthetic impacts to the Maritime Villago area would be similar to those doscrib€d for Atemativ€ 1, but the two smallsr rssidsntial buildings proposed under Alternative 1 would not bs included in Atemative 2. Scenarlo A Black Polnt Area The visual characler of the site topography would bs altorod to creato largo, gently graded sloping arsas to accommodate the golf courss design. Buildings within the Golf Courso Resort area would rang6 from ono to four stories. .. Th6 axisting aosthetic character of th6 southem portion of this arsa would remain as und6r existing conditions, as no development would bs located ln proximity to th€ beach and bluffs, and a riparian bufforwould preserve the shoreline environment along the south/southwest bluff of lhe Deninsula- of th6 sito under Alternative. Oevelopment of this portion 1 would extansively change . Aosthetlc impacts would be similar but reduced when comparod to Atternativo 1 as the golt course layout requkos less cut and fill, prsssrves mors vegetation, and more closely follows sxisting topography. Tho numbsr of residential buildings is roduced, and landscaping includes revsgetation of disturbed areas using healthy spscimens from portions ofthe site deared to be regarded. Buildings within the Golf Rssort would range from on€ to fivs stories in height. Similady to Altemativa 1, th6 riparian buffer would bs proserved and the existng aesthetic character of this area would rsmain undsr existing conditions. The site Constructlon Watsr . A n6w watsr distibution systom would be built under or near roadways to roduc€ th6 nsed for clsaring and grading. Construclion as{vltiss related to this s)Etem . Samo as Altomativs 1.. SameasAtemativel. Ple.r.nt Herbor Fln.l Supplementel EIS Dacembor 2015 Ch.ptet 1 Summory1-17 Alternatlve I Altornativo 2 Altgrnauve 3 Aosthotlcs . Same as Altemative 2. the . Aosthetic impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, Although more ofthe site would be left in a natural area, this would primarily be concentrated intemal to tho site, and views to the site would generally remain similar to Altemative 2. Scenailo A . No redsvelopment of the sits would occur and e*sting aesthetic conditions and views to tho sita would romain relatively unchanged. Scenario B more conslstent with lh6 to SEIS Altematives 1, 2 and UtilltleE Sceneilo A . No redovelopment of the site and no construction impacls would occur. may include t6mporcry ssruico dis.uptions, noise, and dust during construdion and construction-rolatod traffic impacts during materials delivery. Sewer . A now sawer collection systsm would bo built on easements or under or near roadwals for efficient conveyancs. Construction ac{ivities related to this sptem may indude temporary service disruptions, noise, and dust during construction and construction- related traffic impacts during mat6rials delivery. . Same as Altsmative l.. Same as Altemative 1. Operation Water . A multlpurpose utility district is proposed to own, oparate, and maintain the new watar system. Water rights were granted by WDOE, and in addition, an existing well would bs rehabilitatsd and a nsw well would be drilled to provide capacity.. Water demand is anticipated to ba approxlmately 30 million gallons annually, with av€rage residential uss reduced from 175 gpd/ERU to 70 gpd/ERU through the uso of low flow plumbing lixturos. . Golf course inigation and fire protection n€eds would be provided with rainwater and watsr rsuse from tho sanitary sewor tr€attnsnt plant. Wator would be storsd in the constructed Ketts B lnigation pond which would be reconJigurod through mass grading lo have a volumo of 60 million gallons. . Altomative 2 would b6 similar to Altomativa 1, but the Kettle B inigation pond would not be reconfigursd by mass grading, and would have a volume capacity of approximately 1 20 million gallons. . Same as Altemative 2.Scenarlo A Scorrarro I Sewer . The sewage collection system would have the capacity to treat 280,000 gallons of wastewater per day, which meets the Class A Roclaimed Water Pormit requiremonts. Th€ trsatment plant would be located in the norhwsst corner of the site and would produce Class A sffiuenl Thls systsm could result in hansportation impac'ts for waste sludgo from th6 sito to a procrssing facility near Shelton, and from the hauling of fuel for standby ggnerators and chemicals for the treatment process to the sito, Tho opEratlon of tho new plant could lncrsaso noise levels, release of odors, and energy consumption. . Atemative 2 would be similar to Atemative 1. Telecommunlcatlons Sconarto A. Same as Altsmative 1.. Same as Altornative 1. Pleasrnt Harbor Flnal Supplemenf,l EIS Decenber 2015 Chapter 1 Sufimty,-18 Alternatlve 1 Alternative 2 Alternatlvs 3 Scenado B Wat6r would conlinu6 to b6 provided Bxisting community wells or individual wolls, and few construction impac'ts would be anticipated. Scsnarlo A . Sewaga and wastowater would continuo to bo troatod by individual eeptic sW6ms and drainfields, and few construction impacts would be anticlpated, . Altemative 2 would be similar to Allemative 1.Scenarlo A . No redevelopment of lho sito would occur and thG Bxisting sswer syltem and demandE on tho site would remain relatively unchanged. Scanarlo B on the sito wo Sc€rrerro I . Ovorall, utility Altemativos 1 serve the sile Solld Wa6te . The amount of solid waste generated at tho site would subsiantially incroase trom existing uses. lt is assumed that the residsntial units could gonorate up to 1,364 tons of solld wast6 p6r y6ar, and commercial uses could generate approximately 4s,51 tons of solid waste per year. A prlvato sarvics would plck up solid waste, and a composting and recycling program would bs utilized. Flr. and Emcrglncy lUedlcel S.rvlce3 (EMS) . Same as Atemative 1 Scenarlo A Constructlon . The J€fferson County Fire Distict No.4 would b6 involved in the review and inspection of permit applications for new development, and linal on-site inspoctions. Firo department servicB calls related to the insp€ction of the site and potential construction-relatsd accidents and injuri€s. . Samo as Altemativs '1.. Same as Altemative 1. Operation . N6w dovelopment would r€sult ln sn increase in the number of calls for fire and emergency medical servic€s at the sito, Based on Jefferson County's goal for Brinnon, 0.83 firs units and 0.33 EMS units could be rBquir€d for ths psrmanent site populatlon. An MOU is being negotiat€d to address potential impacts from increased demand for services until the Properly Valuo Assossment i8 ref,ected in th6 Resort's tax payments. . Same as Altemativs l.. Same as Alternatlvo 1. Pollce Sorulcc! Construction . Constructon activities could result in an increassd demand for police seruic€s during the 1 0 y€ar constructlon poriod duo to trospassing, construction sits thefl, vandalism, and traflic incidonts due to construction traffic. By securing ths site and using on- . Sams as Altemative 1. Decomher 2015 1-19 Pleasant Herbor Flnal SupplemenfF'l EIS Chaptor 1 Summary Alternatlve 1 Altsrnative 2 Alternatlve 3 No Ac{lon Aternatlve . Samo as Altemative 1, with a local provldor. Overall, Public Sen iees Sceaarlo A occur Scanarlo A . No redevelopmentofthe sltewould occurand axisting public services demands on lh9 sitg would remain relativoly unchanged. Scerado I an 1, 2 and 3, but with . Same as Altemative 1,Scenerlo A No redevelopment ofthe slt€ would occur and exi8ting public servicos domands on the sito would remain relativsly unchanged. site security staff and syst6ms, impacts would be short- t6rm and would not be substantial. Existing statfing and equipment are anticipated to b€ sufficisnt during the build out pBriod. Operation . Potential incroases in on-sits population and smployment would be increm€ntal, and would thsrefore cr6at6 an incromental incrgase in demand for polic€ servica through increaGing annual call volumes to the Jefferson County Sheriffs offics. The R€sort would use security staff round the clock and secudty s)rstsms. Significant impacts to the JeffeEon County Sheriffs Ofiice are not anticipated. sEtlltlrtvfiEltlEf,tlrt Scenarlo A Publlc School! . Residential dovelopment would generate additional student onrollment and demand in the Brinnon School District, which would occur incromentally as th6 slto is develop€d, The estimated increass In tho studgnt population would bs 24 studonts in grades K€, and 20 high school studsnts, for a total of,14 additional students. The execution of an MOA would contribute to exploring ways to inseass rcvenue to the District's budget. Health Servlces . Th6 increaso in permanent residents, resort visitors, and staff could result in increased demand for health care servicos. Services could be relatod to accidental injury or unanticipat6d illness, though permanent residents and 6mdoyoes would have other nBeds that require doctors visits. The resort would provide dinic spaco on-site, and train select resort staff as first responders. With these measures, signiticant impacts to hsalth cars services would not bs anticipated. . Same as Altemative 1. Ploasant Hatbor Flnr, Suppremsnfa, E S Decembet 2015 Chapter 1 Summ.ryt-20 Aternative I Alternatlve 2 Alternatlvs 3 Scenarlo B be less than . Sam€ as Altemetive l. an and a g.hole 1 2 but with servrcos . Same as Altomative 1.r Samg as Altemativo 1.Scenrrro A Scerrrro B . Same as Altemative 1.Scanarlo A . No redevelopmqnt of tho site would occur and existing public services demands on ths site would remain relativoly unchanged. Scenailo B . Public servic6 demands from an additional 30 housing units and a g-hole golf courso would be less than SEIS Altomatives 1, 2 and 3, but with conespondingly less rsvenuq to supirort additional services. 1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFIGANT U NAVO! DABLE ADVERSE I MPAGTS The following list highlights the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts that would potentially result from the altematives analyzed in this SEIS. The current list is in addition to those mitigation measures identified in the 2007 ElS, and the conditions imposed by the Jefferson County BoCC as part of the 2008 approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Pleasant Harbor Resort MPR. Where a 2007 EIS mitigation measure or BoCC condition has already been completed, a brief explanation of how the measure or condition was addressed is included (see Section 3.18 for a full explanation of how each BoCC condition has been fulfilled). Similarly, it 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 Ghapter 3. EARTH 2007 Ets No mitigation measures were specifically proposed relating to topography and soils in the 2007 Els. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. M itiq ati o n M e asu re s Co m pl eted 63 (h) The possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved. o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resoft Final Geotechnical lnvestigation included field investigations and a groundwater modeling program to assess potential impacts to the aquifer that could result from stormwater infiltration within the proposed development. Results from these studies indicate the proposed development would increase groundwater recharge by approximately 10 percent; this is largely due to removal of existing vegetation that allows rainfall to and the vegetative cover. 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. o The water rights were granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15,2010. The existing on-site well within the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated plus a second well would be drilled in one of two potential locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter I Summary1-21 a 63 (q) Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resoft Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E) was completed and infiltration rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are illustrated in Appendix B of that report. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, these additional mitigation measures could be implemented. A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site will be required. a o 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 CriticalAreas Ordinances. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would permanently alter the site's natural as described in Section 3.1-1 above. Alternative 2 would have less due to the lower area of site and quantity of cut and fill, With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, significant impacts to earth would not be anticipated WATER RESOURGES 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. The stormwater mitigation measures listed in Section 3.5.3, Shellfish, would also apply. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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 a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 '' Summary1-22 a a a a 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 (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 lmpact Development - all water on the site will be collected and either used appropriately on-site, routed to the storage ponds, or infiltrated to the groundwater aquifer - a zerc discharge criterion, except at the Maritime Village where zero discharge to the Harbor cannot be achieved because 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. a a o o a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-23 BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternativesl,Zffi Mitiqation Measures Completed o a a a a 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 intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. Marina discharge shall be treated by a system that reduces contamination to the greatest possible extent. o The soil study has been completed (Subsurface Group, LLC. November 21, 2008) and the infiltration rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are presented in lhe2O12 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 Hafudr Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter t Summary.1-24 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 Mea$ures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (p) An NWP shall be established that requires Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for additional recharge wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause mounding. 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. o a a a a SE'S ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following additional water resources mitigation measures could be implemented. There are some areas within the site that have slow to moderate rates of infiltration. Until the actual allowable rate of infiltration of the soil at each facility can be determined, the facilities may need to be sized to retain water to allow for a slower release. The stormwater design team will work closely with the wetlands biologist to develop a stormwater management system that will minimize hydrologic alterations to existing wetlands. Surface ponding in existing kettles and depressed areas and subsurface infiltration beds designed under some roads and parking areas would be constructed using soils processed on the site with suitable rates of permeability to infiltrate stormwater to the aquifer. a Measures such as rainwater harvesting (i.e., collecting and storing stormwater for beneficial use, such as inigation, fire flow, etc.), and droughttolerant landscaping could minimize requirements for irrigation with potable water. Although rainwater harvesting may not be economica! on a large scale, it is a measure that could be implemented on case-by-case basis. a 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 suryive, and/or by reducing the amount of new impervious surface proposed. Certain areas of the site not planned for development could be reserved for maintaining or adding vegetation to maximize evapotranspiration. Reduction of roadway width to the minimum acceptable to Jefferson County and the local fire district would reduce runoff quantities. a 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 December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-25 S ig n ificant U n avoi dab le Adverse I m pacts Development under Alternatives 1,2 a11d.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 Els 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 Altematives 1, 2 and3. M itiq atio n M easu re s Com pl eted a 63 (a) [-he SEIS shall inc]udel 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 individua I ci rcu mstances. Mitiqation Measures to be Prior to and Durino Construction a 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 Harbcir Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 7 Summary ': I i1-26 a a a buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135[1][2][6]), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for screening of facilities and amenities so that all the uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites and public views. ln keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall be designed to blend with the natural setting and to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas. Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6) and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings will be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings. o The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-way while providing adequate visual access from the highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after removing invasive plant species. The building architecture will share similar features to those at the marina and within the golf resort. 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 signfficant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (10 inches or more in diameter at breast height IDBH]) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measures for plants would also apply: o fi 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 U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With proposed development under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3, areas of existing vegetation Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2075 Chapter I Summary-1-27 would be removed FISH AND WILDLIFE 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,2ffi. Mitisation Measures Completed A habitat management plan will be prepared at the project-permitting phase to identify and address mitigation for any potential impacts to streams and associated buffers. a a o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resort Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this requirement. Mitigation Measure$ to be I 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 o a mitigation measure shall to the existi Site Plan for the marina area. The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. The site contains several intermittent or seasonal stream channels (Type "Np' or "Ns" under the County classification system). Some of these are steep in gradient and blocked from fish passage due to structural barriers. Per JCC 18.15.315, Type Np or Ns streams require a SO-foot buffer of native vegetation. The Proposal will comply with this requirement. Additionally, the creation of a complete and modern treatment system for stormwater on the developed portion of the marina site should result in an improvement in water quality discharge. 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. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation The resort shall be required to annually collect water quality monitoring data from the state water quality sampling station at Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the County. ln the event that water quality shows any sign of a Pleasant l*arbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter G' Summary1-28 acres under Altemative 1, 152 acres under Altemative 2, and 1 under Altemative 3. Areas of retained natural new ln of the course and new be 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 are applicable to Alternatives 1 mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC,2ml. a Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (l) A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the public interest in consultation with the WDFW and local tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.9., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Hwy 101, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce the dangers to predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to humans. o The 2012 Pleasant Hafuor Golf Course and Resorf Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this condition. sEs !n addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following fish and wildlife mitigation measures would also apply: Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Designated vegetated areas/corridors shall be left undisturbed and extend throughout areas of development. These undisturbed vegetated areas will consist of the typical forested habitat that currently exists on the site. The areas will be dominated by a coniferous and deciduous forest, with dense to moderately dense shrub and herbaceous layers. a a a a a 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 will be removed and the areas will be re-planted with native vegetation that is found in the project vicinity. Vegetated corridors that lead to off-site areas and to other remaining vegetated areas will be left throughout the golf course and housing areas. These corridors will lead to more than 200-acres of relatively undisturbed vegetation on- and off-site in addition to existing and created wetland features on-site. These corridors will be dominated by native vegetation that will provide food and habitat to animals that may use the site. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter I , Summary1-29 . An effort will be made to retain trees that have a 1O-inch DBH throughout the site in these corridors. These trees are important because they are used as perch trees and nesting trees for birds such as bald eagles and osprey. An active osprey nest was identified near the west shoreline of Pleasant Harbor and the nest and tree will be protected during construction. . 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 lmpacts Development of the site would result in the loss of some existing upland wildlife habitat. rld retain areas of habitat onsite (approximately 31 would be undisturbed under Alternatives 1, 2 and However wou of the site respectively). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to fish and wildlife would be anticipated. SHELLFISH 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction Construction period NPDES general permits will need to be obtained and conditions followed to control stormwater during construction to assure no 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. Allstormwater crossing newly constructed surfaces shall be captured and treated on-site before discharge, including the golf course side, where inigation and stormwater shall be captured treated, retained, and infiltrated on-site with no off-site discharge. o Clarification: Stormwater from pollutiongenerating impervious surfaces will be treated on-site before discharge. No direct runoff specifically from the golf course fainruays wil! 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. a a a a a Pleasant Harb& Draft Supplementat EtS December 2015 Chapter ?ie:, . Summaf - '1-30 a The stormwater management system for all phases shall capture, treat, and infiltrate or store for reuse all stormwater from impervious surfaces of the improved gotf 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. o All fueling operations shall be brought up to cunent codes and protection against leaks and unauthorized discharges shall be provided as part of any permit issued for work on the marina side of the resort. This is a first priority for the project. Fueling permits for facilities shall also require a refueling plan approved by the local Fire Code official as part of the first permit and in place prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for work at the marina or Maritime Village. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Durino Operation Ma ri na M itigation 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 oi[ 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 a a a a a a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-31 a O a 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 Gotf 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. a a BoCC Conditions The following shellfish mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and'1.3. Mitiqation Measures Completed o 63 (t) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and full mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. o The Pleasant Harbor Marina has replaced Docks D, E, and F as outlined in Section 3.5.1 above in accordance with WDFW guidance for the elimination of the Tunicate invasive species. o A lnvasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the WDFW was drafted in October 2O1O (Appendix l). This agreement shall be finalized prior to the BoCC signing of the Development Agreement. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for sheltfish would be necessary. Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shellfish would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter ts: _.;,t; ,; : ,. Summary1-32 a a SHORELINES 2007 Els The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,2ffi. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Duinq Construction o 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 Canalfrom the developed golf course area is required. BoCC Conditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented 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 naturalforest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101. o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 63 (u) !n keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for 'the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan a Pleasant Harbor Draft Sapplemental EIS December 207f Chapter 1 Summary1-33 l. 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. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additional shoreline mitigation measures would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shorelines would be anticipated. CRITIGAL AREAS 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Mitiqation Measures Completed The stormwater management plan for the golf course shall demonstrate compliance with the County requirement for goff 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 a o 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 keftle used for reuse and recycling) and a wetland buffer and mitigation plan shall be developed which demonstrates, under best available science principles, that the wetland functions and values of the resort area have been maintained through a combination of retained, enhanced, and constructed wetlands and buffers. The plan shall demonstrate no net loss to overallwetland area function and value. o The 2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan (Appendix J) fulfills this mitigation measure. An approved preconstruction wetland mitigation plan must demonstrate how Ioss of wetland habitat is offset, protection measures for water quality and quantity maintenance, and buffer protection. Such protections must be in place prior to commencement of any grading on-site. The wetland mitigation report for the central kettle shall be approved and demonstrate how the overall system will operate, both during construction and operation to assure overall no net loss of function and value for the resort area wetland system. Pleasant Harbcfi Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 ChapterF " . .- SummanT"'' '1-34 o The2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J). Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The stormwater management plan for construction shall require all wetland areas (existing and new) meet the no net loss test and are in place prior to the removal of the central kettle wetland. The three northerly streams shall be set aside in a natural area, and development shall be limited to that necessary to provide adequate access and road right-of-way. All culverts carrying streams shall be fish passable where the preconstruction reports identify that a stream has the potential for fish passage if obstructions can be removed. o These three northerly streams are outside of the SEIS site boundary. This mitigation measure shall apply to the existing Binding Site Plan for the marina afea. The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site will be required. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation The resort shall be required to annually collect water quality monitoring data from the state water quality sampling station at Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the County. ln the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall consult with the resort, the local residents, and the State (both WDOH and WDFW) concerning the source of the change. The resort permits shall require the resort to implement any mitigation measures determined necessary by the County to alleviate any water quality issues emanating from the resort properties. a a a a a a a BoCC Conditions No mitigation measures were identified by the Jefferson County BoCC specifically applicable to critical areas that are not addressed in other sections (e.9., Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife). sEs ln addition to the im of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following critical areas mitigation measures would also apply: Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The mitigation of Wetland B shall be implemented in accordance with the 2012 Wetland 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 December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary.1-35 Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation . Post-construction monitoring of the created wetland will occur on an annual basis for a minimum of 5 years and up to 10 years based on the success of the project, in accordance with the 2Ol2Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J). o 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 U navoidable Adverse lmpacts 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 RESOURGES 2007 Ets As noted previously, energy and natural resource impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No energy and natural resource mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measure identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternative r\,zffi Mitisation 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. Mitiqation Measures To Be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (x) Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and "Green Built" green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to commercial and residential dwelling, respectively, "promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being. a Pleasant Harb& Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter I SummaS1-36 o The Nanative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED standards (Appendix K) addresses this condition. lmplementation of the measures noted in Appendix K fulfills this condition. sEs With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for energy or natural resources would be necessary. S ig nifi c ant U n avoi d able Adverse lm pacts 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 Ets The following transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Atternatives 1,Zffi. a a a a a 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 WSDOT and Jefferson County. Reconstruct the Black Point Road approach to U.S. Hwy 101 with adjacent left turning lanes, awidened approach onto U.S. Hwy 101, and an "entrytreatment"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 a a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter I Summaryi 1-37 a 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 U.S. Hwy 101 bicycle traffic bypass through the resort (i.e. Black Point properties and Maritime Village). ln addition, the preliminary plat approval for the gotf 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). sEs All transportation Alternatives 1,2 below. mitigation measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS or 3. Additional transportation mitigation measures proposed are listed a a a 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 cunently identified in Phase 3 of the proposed construction sequence. ln addition to regrading 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 a Pleasant Harbdr Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 _ Summary1-38 o a 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. S ig nifica nt U navoi d ab le Adverse I m pacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would be anticipated. AIR QUALITY 2007 Ets As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No air quality mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. BoCC Conditions The following air quality applicable to Alternatives mitigation measures identified by the Jeffercon County BoCC are1,2m. a Mitiqation Measures Completed 63(cc) Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods. o A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report has been completed to fulfill this condition (see Appendix M). This report only applies to Alternattve2. sEs The following other possible mitigation measures could be implemented with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or.!- to further address potential GHG- related impacts. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemenfal EIS December 2075 Chapter 1 Summary1-39 Construction and operation of the site development under increased traffic on area a a A variety of mitigation measures are available to reduce energy use, increase sustainable building design and reduce GHG emissions. Certain characteristics of the project as proposed under either Alternative 1 or 2 would help to reduce GHG emissions including: the use of grid electricity; preservation of riparian and buffer areas; transplanting usable trees; selective reforestation; off-site trip reduction from a mixed- use contained resort with staff housing, on-site amenities, buses, and on-site electric transportation; energy star appliances; low flow plumbing fixtures; provision of an on-site camp for construction workers; on-site catering and rideshares; recycling; composting and organic waste diversion; best construction practices; LEED construction standards; dark sky exterior lighting; and implementation of the Golf Course Best Management Practices Plan. The creation of new permanent and seasonaljobs 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 Additional air quality mitigation measures which could be implemented include the following . Renewable energy purchases . Using locally sourced materials . Emissions offsets . Waste heat recovery S i g n ificant U navoi d ab le Adverse I m pacts 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 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,2ffi. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Priorto and Durino Construction Because there is a limited rental housing market, it is proposed that the out-of-town construction crews may use the existing on-site 60-unit RV facility. This facility would be temporary and must be in place prior to commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the project. (Additional temporary housing could also include the B&B and Kaufman Home, see $3.5.9.) a Pleasant Harb6r Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 7 ;:- Summary140 The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1,2and3. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction a a 63 (e) Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and competitive in terms of pricing. 63 (aa) ln fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2). o 63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students. M itio ation M e as u res Com pleted 63 (g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income (AMl). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 3Oo/o of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or on-site housing development. o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Appendix N). lt is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of construction jobs and 99 percent of operationaljobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 8Oo/o of the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no additiona! mitigation measures for housing and employment would be necessary. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated. RURAL CHARAGTER AND POPULATION 2007 Ets a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-41 The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant sections of this SEIS, as applicable. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The key to the provision is that the Master Planned Resort not lead to suburban or urban level development in the sunounding area and that result is achieved through several techniques: a 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. lncreasing the quality or quantity of services in such area as a result of the development is one of the economic benefits. o A water facility may serve both urban and rural uses as a water system is preferable to individual exempt wells. The water system shall not be used to serve uses in the rural area in excess of that allowed by County codes for rural area development. The number of proposed residential units shall be no greater than 890 units, including both the resort residences and staff/affordable housing. o The proposalshall 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 lmplemented Prior to and Duing Construction o Pleasant Harbcfr Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 1-42 Chapter 1 Summary a a a 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as naturalforest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101. o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal is a significant environmental and cultural area, and is proposed to be closed to resort use. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary. Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With the implementation of the proposed site design features and identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to rural character or population are anticipated. GULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGIGAL RESOURGES 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,2ffi. Mitisation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction The project proponent shall work with the Tribes and County to provide on-site monitoring during al! construction to assure identification and management of any cultural resources identified. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 143 Chapter I Summary a BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 ffi. Mitioation Measures Completed 63 (j) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource. o Three tribes concurred with the Cultural Resource Management Plan for Archeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery; three other tribes did not comment. See Appendix O for copies of email correspondence. 63 (k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor a document reflecting the developer's written understanding with and among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site integrity, provide procedures regarding future ground-disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to provide for community education opportunities. o See Appendix O for the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery Protocol, and for correspondence with DAHP and local tribes. a sEs A construction buffer shall be constructed to protect the archeological site on Washington State lands adjacent to the site from any unnecessary disturbance. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated. Pleasant Hatuhr Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 7-. Summary144 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 lmplemented Prior to and During Gonstruction LIGHT AND GLARE 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2ffi. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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.) a a BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (z) Statesman shall use the lnternational Dark Sky Association (lDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for "areas with intrinsically dark landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following light and glare mitigation measure would be implemented. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Priorto and Durino Construction . The lighting of the Pleasant Harbor Resort would be designed and implemented in accordance with the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable nticipated AESTHETIGS 2007 Ets The following aesthetic"rnitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1, 2iffii. Mitioation Measures to be lmolemented Prior to and Durina Construction . The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-45 would result in an increased level of light and glare on the site and in with a a a 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 Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durina Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as naturalforest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101. o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall 'be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." a a Pleasant Harb* Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 1-46 Chapter 1 ' Summanf. -.:"''\ a Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings. 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. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 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 featu a residential commercial and USES. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts would be anticipated. UT!LITIES 2007 Ets Mitisation Measures Com pleted Any project approval for the resort shall contain a condition that the applicant demonstrates entitlement to sufficient water rights to serve the approved phase from WDOE (water rights, transfer, and/or rainwater harvesting rights and use conditions) prior to preliminary plat approval and construction of any facilities on the property. Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Pior to and Durinq Construction Any project approval for the golf course area will require construction and operation permits for a wastewater treatment system for the project by WDOE and an operational Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 147 Chapter 1 Summary a 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. Mitigation Measqrps'tq be Prior to and Durinq Construction a 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. a BoCC Conditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County BoCC are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and'3. a a a a 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. sEs ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following utility mitigation measures would also apply: Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Water All proposed water system improvements would be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable local and State regulations, including: Jefferson County, Washington State Department of Health, Jefferson Gounty 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 December 2015 1-48 Chapter 7-,.. Summary a a Over the course of the projected 1O-year development of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort and the extension of fiber optic cabling throughout the project, it may be possible that technologies could be implemented to more closely monitor the infiltration of re-use water and stormwater runoff and better control distribution of these resources. Sewer The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort would comply with all applicable wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse criteria set forth by the multi-purpose utility district, County, and State permit conditions. Significant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would result in an increased demand for utilities. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to utilities would be anticipated. PUBLIG SERVIGES - FIRE AND EMERGENGY MEDICAL SERVIGES (EMs) 2007 Ets Mitiaation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino 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. lncorporate Firewise site design standards in the layout of the proposed resort, as appropriate and approved by the localfire authority. All subsurface parking will have to provide fire systems, including air handling, water, and emergency access and egress. lnstall hydrants, two portable fire pumps with hoses and related fire suppression equipment at the marina and maintenance area as approved by the localfire authority. Develop an "emergency action plan" with Fire District l#41 in conjunction with predevelopment, development, and operation to assure clear lines of responsibility and response in the event of any incident requiring emergency response. Any development of the existing marina complex as part of an MPR shall include improving emergency vehicle access to this portion of the resort. Through a memorandum of agreement with District #4, provide the equipment necessary to mount rescue and firefighting operations on any structure over 18 feet from ground level, including but not limited to the Condo-tel/Conference Center Building. a a a o a a ' -: --.. Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 149* Chapter I , Summary a O a a 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 Mitiqation Measures to be lmolemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63(c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approvat of the development agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owne/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 Gounty Fire District #4, DBA Brinnon Fire Department. sEs 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. Sig nificant U navoidable Adverse lmpacts 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. a Pleasa;nt Harbr Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 , Summary1-50 a a PUBLIG SERVICES - POLICE SERVIGES 2007 Ets Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction Project Level: Permit approval for both the marina and the golf resort shall address security-related issues, and shall include specific mitigation which may include: Controlled access at the entry and exit points of the resort and docks. On-site security and surveillance systems for the protection of resort guests, residents, and property coordinated with local service providers to assure appropriate communication and controlsystems are in place. a Community level: Explore the use of a development agreement or other assurance to provide a mechanism for the County to provide some public safety funding to the Brinnon area from the revenues received from the resort to assure that the funds will not be diverted to the more populous north county. BoCC Conditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson County Sheriff. sEs 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 U navoidable Adverse lm pacts 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. o Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemenfat EtS December 2015 Chapter 7 Summary'1-51 a PUBLIG SERVIGES - PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 Ets 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 Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Duinq 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. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for public schools would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternative s 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. PUBLIG SERVICES - HEALTH SERVIGES 2007 Ets Alitioation Aleasures to be Prior to and Durinq Construction a 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. a Pleasant Harbor Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter t Summary1-s2 BoCC Conditions Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Priorto and Duinq Construction r 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 owne/s Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson HealthCare. sEs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for health services would be necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under 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 Draft Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 1 Summary1-53 Ghapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives GHAPTER 2 DESGRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter of the SEIS provides: o An overview of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Draft and Final EIS (issued by the Jefferson County, Department of Community Development in September 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 A description of the Proposal and the Alternatives that are analyzed in this SEIS. See Ghapter 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, 2.1 BAGKGROUND The Statesman Group of Companies (Statesman) applied to Jefferson County for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2006 for a Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation in the Brinnon subarea. This application was processed with the County's 2007 docket of annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. ln September 2007, Jefferson County completed a programmatic-level EIS that addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and MPR approval for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort project. The MPR proposal represented a change in land use for the project site, from rural to urban, and proposed 890 units of housing, an 18-hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina and at the golf course. A 45- day comment period on the Draft EIS was open from September 5, 2007 through October 24, 2007. A Final EIS addressing all comments received on the Draft EIS was issued on November 27,2007. ln 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment with 30 conditions (Ordinance 07-0128-08), as well as requiring projecllevel 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 projectlevel environmental review to supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 ElS. Since 2008, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the 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 Eupplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-1 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. 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. ln addition, the applicant has a tentative agreement with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW to realign the upper portion of the WDFW boat launch access roadway further east to resolve a driveway spacing issue with the proposed Maritime Village access roadway and deficient geometric standards and sight distance conditions onto Black Point Road (see Appendix D for WDFW letter). ln order to analyze potential impacts of this road realignment, the WDFW property adjacent to the project site has been added to the SEIS site boundary, and is described in Section 2.3 below. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGESS Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort ElS, 2OO7 The 2007 EIS evaluated a Prooosed Action for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Master Plan approval for a Master Planned Resort consisting of a golf course resort, marina, and Maritime Village. The approximately 256-acre resort contained two components: the Golf Course and Resort, located on the Black Point campground portion of the property, to the south of Black Point Road, and the Marina/Maritime Village, adjacent to the current Pleasant Harbor Marina, and north of Black Point Road. See Figure 2-1 for a figure showing the study area under the 2007 EIS; the Proposed Action is the area east of U.S. Hwy 101. The main features of the MPR proposal included: Golf Course Resort Area: . 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 o 128-unit terrace lofts for resort occupancy . 462 two-story Black Point garden townhomes . 97 one-story Black Point villas e 52 units of staff housing o 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 Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Altematives2-2 Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS +b#$ .rc s "ct' +qb -a Rd @ a a d*,a 1*ho*2r*),a , /,t a 1,8e", 9aa I, F-r-Lilsc \+l Eol 1 l1 --I I I I q,n"4o taE ?drl. gd I I I Ih ,a' q fo d5,*i \g'd -t 1 /\€ B 6g .o#d I I IlErrE'@ dY'eo LN 't I 5 +o **J q'q661+1fa 4oqroon *o ,I Rd 9(r I I \\ \ PatJ I I \\\--__ - - 2007 EIS Site Boundary t North Source.' EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-1 2007 EIS Site BoundaryHIftiriihi,l lrrmn d rlffili-, I 7 ./ @ [B % 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 ln addition to the Proposed Action, two action alternatives (the Brinnon Subarea Plan Alternative and a Hybrid Alternative) and a No Action Alternative were evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The No Action Alternative assumed the Master Plan proposal was withdrawn or denied, and that the area would be developed under the cunent 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 cunent zoning, but that such development could be accelerated under the cunent proposal and developed on a timetable in concert with the MPR. The 2007 EIS analyzed nine elements of the environment on a programmatic, non-project action level including: Shellfish, Water, Transportation, Public Services, Shorelines, Fish and Wildlife, Rural Character/Population, Archeological and Cultural Resources, and CriticalAreas. Supplemental EIS Per the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules (WAC 197-11-600(4)(d), a SEIS may be prepared if there are: 1) Substantial changes so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or 2) New information indicating a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, this SEIS is being prepared due to substantial changes in the proposal, to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment as noted above in Section 2.1, and to satisfy project level SEPA requirements. The SEIS supplements the programmatic FEIS prepared in 2007 for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that approved the MPR boundary, adopted by the County in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, and satisfies the conditions within that ordinance. Preparation of this SEIS has been carried out following the procedures set forth in WAC '197-11- 620, as detailed below: 1) An SEIS shall be prepared in the same way as a draft and final EIS (WAC 197- 11-400 to 197-11-600), except that scoping is optional. The SEIS should not o a a a Pleasant Har@r Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter F._* Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-4 include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously prepared ElS. 2) The fact sheet and cover letter or memo for the SEIS shall indicate the EIS that is being supplemented. 3) Unless the SEPA lead agency wants to prepare the SEIS, an agency with iurisdiction 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 WAC 197-11-444. See Appendix B for an Overview of the SEIS Scoping. Both the Fact Sheet and Cover Letter of the SEIS state that this SEIS is being prepared to supplement 2007 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Draft and Final ElS, in accordance with WAC 197-11-620(2). As with the 2007 ElS, Jefferson County is the lead agency for purposes of SEPA review. The County's Planning Manager serves as the Responsible Official for the SEPA review. This SEIS includes all elements addressed in the 2007 FEIS with the addition of the following elements of the environment: earth, air quality, plants, energy and natural resources, housing and employment, light and glare, aesthetics and utilities. 2.3 SITE DESGRIPTION Location The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Cana!, 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 harbo/s north end. See Figure 2-2for a regional map and Figure 2-3for a vicinity map. The project site for purposes of this SEIS consists of 13 parcels and is located on approximately 231-acres; 220-acres are Iocated south of Black Point Road, 11-acres are located north of Black Point Road. See Figure 24tor the site boundary. As noted above, the marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. The BSP allows construction of a storage building shown within the BSP boundary and redevelopment of structures within their existing footprints. The marina atea includes the area Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2075 Chapter 2 2-i Description of Proposal and Alternatives Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Seattle Hill.Silver Frrs North Creek t,\ Lea East I Er3I R.nbn Highlrnd! State ! to*m lsd I i @ @) Bonney Llk! Pnirie II t North Source.' EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-2 Regiona! MapHlF.t'*irrl,l -t \, Pu#t I Sound Kingslon Ji Suquamish Cosewalhps State Park a (@ a'Lf t Project Site 7 a Sceflrc BeBch r Trrcylon Bsrnbndg6 lslandState Park / 7 )I Linooln Park F,, ,@,) Vashon Uafian isldnd (.;, r,ii-'trfitairor Olrll. )-/,{Des a rl I I.a I i state Park @ Covc ^ PointI D"fi"n""ParkArtondEle lr )) Steilamom Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Source.' EA, Google, 2013 Figure 2-3 Vicinity Map t! ! NW na.trry Hr Rd ll I I / 7. t. IIt I { t North Eltlfi':ri';ifl:, Itr[ Oebob Bav I ) @ Dotswllip! S1i. P.rk a 8m,u / Project Site a ,of-to / S@nE Bclch Statr Park Saalsl I a./ g..b.cl 7 E 1, 1 7- \ 7 v, / $+a1 ,*etN{ Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS .}r tlt00 lt .g rL-r, I zoo m.^ lE ' +Ug o I6d s.rf + %nro .aPoC rdt @ ,l+. \+o v aa,Q"n rl Lilac + 1" QLiFa, I C.\ \ IE lrr r.ri$ ! B6! -"td I I tal,.!g I Irt I L I I **Joo 61"sx6&r$fa @ fo LI\ 4oaro* "o ,6 I R6 \\ \ E aa,?J @ t t \\_\_ t-r - - SEIS Site Boundary t North Source; EA, Google, 2013 Figure 24 SEIS Site BoundaryE[fil{Tiffrffi. -I t / !Gd { 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 Gharacter and Uses The Pleasant Harbor site as delineated in this SEIS is generally comprised of two distinct areas: 1) the generally forested area to the north of Black Point Road which includes three structures; and 2) a former RV parUcampground (hereafter referred to as the Black Point campground) to the south of Black Point Road. A small building that contained a former real estate office is located at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The area from this intersection to the BSP boundary is forested with a narrow paved and gravel road that connects the gravel parking lot for the small office building with the marina area. Two single family residences are located at the north boundary of this area including the Pleasant Harbor House, and a Bed & Breakfast Currently, the Black Point campground located to the south of Black Point Road is unused and consists of overgrown vegetated areas (trees, shrubs, and grasses), a system of paved and graveled roads, paths, parking areas, tent camp sites, recreation vehicle (RV) pad sites, picnic areas with shelter buildings, an activity center and swimming pool that has been filled with soil, playground equipment, restroom buildings with septic tanks and drain fields, wells for water supply, gravel borrow areas, an entry guard house, and fenced equipment storage areas. None of the buildings within the former Black Point campground are in use. The southern portion of the site is a steep bluff (100+ feet high) and a narrow beach fronting the shellfish beaches on the Duckabush River delta south of the Black Point peninsula. A small path presently leads from the top of the bluff to the beach, but no development is located in proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. The WDFW property located north of Black Point Road is approximately 28.7-acres and contains a boat ramp and picnic facilities at the sound end of Pleasant Harbor. A boat access road connects Black Point Road to the boat launch. The remainder of the WDFW property is forested hillside. See Appendix D for details of this existing access road and surrounding property. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS D*ember2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Altematives2-9 Past Uses The majority of the Pleasant Harbor site was previously developed as a 500-unit RV parUcampground (NACO/Thousand Trails) which was established about 50 years ago. Prior to that, the site was logged. A Conditional Use permit was obtained by the previous owner of the site in December 2006 to re-establish a portion of the site as a commercial campground, including a 60 unit commercial campground. This was in use until late 2007. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Direct access to the Pleasant Harbor site is provided via Black Point Road. No vehicular access currently exists from Black Point Road to the north within the site area; however, a 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 BreaKast is direct via the gravel driveway (see Figure 24). 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 lhan 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 tenaces, 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 mslto approximately 100 ft. above msl in the area north of Black Point Road. SIopes 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 Ha@r Final Supplemental EIS December 20i5 2-10 Chapter 2-:;;-;;r: i l- -r Description of Proposal and Alternativeg 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-S 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.O-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 26). Both streams are seasonal streams that do not support fish use or habitat and are classified as Type Ns streams that require a minimum SO-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. ln the past approximately seven years, the resort has not operated and maintenance of the aged water system has abated. However, existing wells on and adjacent to the site remain. Water Supplv - Two wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second well north of Black Point Road serves the existing Bed and Breakfast. Another well outside of the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula. a a Water Storaoe - One highly deteriorated wood stave storage tank on top of the hill in the southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground cunently serves the site. A metal storage tank and a concrete storage tank outside of the site boundary in the marinaupland arca serve the marina area. Pleasant Harbor December 2075 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Altematives FinalEupplemental EIS 2-11 Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Section 3: Marina Sectlon 2: Maritime Village Section 1: Golf Resort \t *od*o oo"o*o \ e *oo* i 2,000 \ a!c ( Ii'I I I ) I \ opoo3 I L , \ I I I \\ l. R6 ct ) I ( ,) ( I I -#, s 0 2,000 Feel Source.' GeoEngineers, 201 2 E[lffix'i,u:,j: Figure 2-5 Kettles I I I Harbd State Puk t 6t Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Site ^rr..a- Delineated Streams , 75-ft Stream Buffer I Delineated Wetlands *@, , 80-ft Wetland Buffer 150-ft Wetland Buffer 1,ooo 0 1,000 Feet Source.' GeoEngineerc, 2012 EII#f*3ffiil: Figure 2-6 Wetlands and Streams r} t t/ t \ ,a "ttl f^i'. /Smo IhI @*[ J'^Tm 7 I I I t \ ^1 a 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 cunently 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 deflned surface water drainage channel was identified upslope or downslope of the culvert. Powern Propane Gas, and Gommunication Existing utilities in both areas of the site include electrical power, propane gas and telephone. Electricity is supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Propane gas is utilized by the adjacent marina and sunounding residentia! uses. Naturalgas is not provided in the area. Centurylink is the communication provider in the area for telephone and DSL internet service. CenturyLink is the only DSL option in the area and is currently not available to new DSL customers. HughesNet is a rural satellite internet service provider in the area. Pleasant Harhor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter ?.=:: Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-14 Existing Land Use Designations Gomprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site is Master Planned Resort (MPR), which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2008. Prior to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the area was designated Rural Residential. Zoning The Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2008 changed the land use designation for the site, but the zoning for the site will not change until a development agreement and site-specific zoning regulations are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to adopting a site- specific zoning ordinance for the MPR site, Jefferson County requires preparation of this SEIS. Upon adoption a site-specific zoning regulations, the site will be zoned MPR-BRN Brinnon. Surrounding Land Uses The site is within the greater Brinnon Subarea Planning Area which extends to the county line on the south, Dosewallips State Park on the north, Hood Canal on the east, and the Olympic National Park on the west. The majority of the surrounding lands in the Brinnon Subarea are forest lands owned by the federal and state government and private timber companies. The Brinnon Subarea Planning Area is generally characterized by low density residential development with a remote, rural character. There is also a small concentration of retail and commercial services in Brinnon, approximately 1.5 miles north of the site. lmmediately north of the site, the Pleasant Harbor Marina contains 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 OBJEGTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL For purposes of SEPA (WAC 197-1'1440) 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. a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenfal EtS December 2015 Chapter 2 D*cription of Proposal and Altematives2-15 Establish appropriate styles, materials and scale of development that contribute to a consistent and complimentary architectural character. Encourage the use of the extensive pathway system and open space and reduce reliance on motorized transport. Reduce the impact on environmentally sensitive areas by designing a road network to preserve and protect more of the naturalvegetation, drainage courses, and slopes. Establish the siting of buildings to reduce impacts on sensitive areas. lncorporate a fire protection plan that preserves a beautiful blend of forest and home by adopting FireSmart planning principles that combine clearing of selective undergrowth with the use of proven non-combustible construction materials. lncorporate a well designed system for potable and non-potable water conservation and treatment. lncorporate a state-of-the-art sewage and effluent treatment plant to deliver Class A water. Eliminate the risks to Hood Canalfrom the eutrophication effects of poor development. Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. 2.5 DESGRIPTION OF THE SEIS ALTERNATIVES ln order to disclose environmental information that is relevant to the approval of a Development Agreement and adoption of a zoning ordinance for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, this SEIS evaluates thr@ development alternatives (Alternatives 1,2 and 3), and a No Action Alternative. a a a a a a o SEIS Alternatives Summary ln order to conduct a comprehensive environmental review, a range of Alternatives are included in this SEIS that both fulfill the applicant's objectives and provide a useful tool for the decision- making process. These alternatives create an envelope of potential development for the analysis of environmental impacts under SEPA. See Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 tor illustrations of the site plans for potential development under Alternatives 1,2mt. 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 @t!ve '!-); a modification of Alternative 1 to make more efficient use of the site and to minimize environmental Gomparison of SEIS Alternatives to 2OO7 EIS Proposed Action The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a master plan for a golf course resort on the Black Point campground and the marina area. Since 2008, the applicant has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new Shoreline Management Plan buffer of 150 feet. The SEIS Alternatives have been drafted to conform to these 30 conditions and the SMP buffer, and Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 D*cription of Proposal and Altematives2-16 of Alternative 2 to reduce the size of the more on the site Pleasant Harbor Fina! SEIS uxlT MARITIME VILI.AGE HAREOR VIEW EXtSnNG SYYIYI/ING raARtr)rE BUILDING vtstToR OWNER t0t REUNION HOUSE PLEASANI HAREOR RECONSTRUCTED IIARINA CENTER V']T}IIN EXISTITIG FOOTPRINT Oavld Hamllbn Archlt€ct wAgag,1.&tc}7ru Prolet Name: FlOure:11166"9va 1: OyGrall SltG Date: OctobCr 28,2014 -tcaEImuoG llt,BwB fi ^I&ry@IJIEE SHOREUNE MMMW&s& lJm6l - @lExamI Me@0m50$.rc - gvBM Iam SEA LEVEL @wNxIJm I TMC,*rcrclJ,us.M I I I Ir ruNION12m HOUSE IMTVEYrcUE 12lJm {6rs.m I I^IWEJDMMI s^frou^rril52Im MemmlJmM&(retJ,E3S GOLF COURSE AND RESORT 0 A wEtt Source.' David Hamifton Architecb, 2014 HIft.:Hffiil: Figure 2-7 Alternative 1 Site Plan \ h(" \,{ T\\ KETTLE .a ,l I/ @ a L/6 ,T\ L.J/rr PLETSNf,I HARIDRfabr Plaon d REt PLEASANT HARBOR - MARIIIAAilDC,O{I FESORI - 2OO FT SHOREUNS AND CONSERVATION TENNIS TENNIS it: B Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS BOAT ROAD CO-GENERATION UNIT GAIE Davld Hamllton Archlbct wAgZXD 1-OOOGI-7C5 Proj€ct Narno: Flgur€:Altcrnrtlve 2: Over.ll Stta Dat€:OCtODOT ZEr 2Ol4 MARITIME VILI-AGE PI.EASANI HOUSE 2OO-FT SHOREUNE XARINA ACCESS (PROPoS€0) vARmltE BUIU'ING vtstToR OWNER us 101 HIGHWAY @ L PLEASANT HARBOR RISORT -flryH &&&MEBvIm6 ^lft rAG @rrcNmmgImm$.mr r,ffi* reWA{lJm SHOREUNE SEA IIVEL IyIMEJNNI sm@Ams9mIm***a@s.m - ETW&I rmtrurumnffi IMlrcMl{reIffiI rmuwqnmntm M&lWOlJmMlmros. BT,,ILDING eO GOLF COURSE ANO RESORT PUMPED WATER FEATURE STREAM WAIER *Figure modified since Draft SEIS publication to remove water feature connection to Wetland D at direction of applicant Source.' David Hamilton Architects, 201 1 Figure 2-8 Alternative 2 Site PIanHlilnri*r.l Ii-trm (ETTLI B aJ'i t f H Er Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS MARITIME VILLAGE BMnmm}},rrmm&,8 I&RT 6 PTIASANT HOUSE 2OO-FT SHOREUNE rurcmre@o&h,TM4@s.m@I r,m"* SHOREUNE ffiWA{m SEA TEVEL -xMffimI rMqJaI4am I reM88!rurc 2r&g.m - @lnrc&I rtm(ruwmmtmB) rffirWffireIruI rumcrwqisrrcf,itm) M&ImillJmM&mr,@s. ITARNA accEss (PRoPosED) MARITII'E EUIl.oING vtstloR ANo OWNER PARKING JEFFERSON TRAXSIT BUILDING AND SIOP g0 US 1O1 HIGHWAY ) GOLF COURSE ANO RESORT @ D It A PLEASANT HARBOR - MARINA AND@II RTSORT - WATER BOAT ACCESS G TE Devld Hamllton Archltect wA 9rxx)1ffi-ro Prol€ctl\lsna: puEAtAIfTltAR!fi Flgrre:Altarnltlve 3l Overall Slte Oato: t{ot mb-tfO;ZOI5 Source.' David Hamilton Architecb, 201 5 Figure 2-9 Alternative 3 Site PlanEIIfr',riaill l-J. rmu B I **rnr/ I reduce the potentialfor environmental impacts associated with the proposed Master Plan. While Altematives 1,2 ffi include a golf course and the same total number of residentiat units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the distribution of the units are more consolidated under the SEIS Altematives 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 more natural and more follow the See Table 2-1 fior a basic comparison between the 2007 Proposed Action and the SEIS Alternatives. Table 2-1 2OO7 EIS AT{D SEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and resort with 890 residential units and approximately 79,000 sq.ft. of commercial uses located on the Black Point campground and the upland portion of the marina area. Under the current proposal, the number of total residential units remains the same, but the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced to 56,608 sq.ft. Pleasant Har@r Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 2-20 Description or erop,osJ "r, o,fJi!li,L?i=::^r u '=" Site Area 256-acres 231-acres 231-acres 890 unitsTotal Residentia! Units 890 units 890 units Total RetaiUCommercial sq.ft. 73,000 sq. ft.49,772 sq.ft.56,608 sq. ft. Same as Alternative 1 Maritime Village location Adjacent to marina Upland near Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection Golf Course Area 220-acres 220-acres 220-acres . ResidentialUnits . 739 units 828 unitsa 822 unitsa 63,000 sq. ft.a o 36,000 sq. ft.o 36,000 sq. ft.o CommercialSq. Ft. Maritime Village Area 36-acres 1 1-acres 1 1-acres Residential. New Units . 151 units 60 units 66 units 16,000 sq. ft.a 13,772sq.ft.a 20,608 sq. ft.a. CommercialSq. Ft. 1 million cyGolf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 2.2 million cy golf Alternative 3 is reduced to 9-holes in order to amount of undisturbed on the 2OO7 EIS Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 231-acres 890 units 56,608 sq. ft. Same as Altemative 1 220-acres . 822 units r 36,000 sq. ft. 1 1-acres . 66 units . 20,608 sq. ft. 'l million cy Redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan on the north side of Black Point Road. The commercial development and a portion of the residential development proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area is now relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Hwy 101. Compared to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, an increase in surface parking would be created on the north side of Black Point Road by a more southerly realignment of the Black Point 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. ln order to reduce the built or impervious footprint on the site, the majority of residential units are now housed in four Golf Terrace buildings. The number of original two-story Black Point Townhouses has been reduced significantly and renamed to the Golf Vistas. The number of one-story Black Point Villas has approximately doubled and renamed the Sea View Villas. Under the 2007 ElS, the staff quarters and maintenance building was located in the northwestern comer of the site. Under the current proposal analyzed in the SEIS, the staff quarters and maintenance building has been relocated to the northeast corner of the site, but still contains 52 units and remains at 3 stories in height. Golf course 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 { 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 fainrvays 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€). Gotf course fairways would be located in areas of permeable soils to Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives ,-- Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 2-21 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 conidors, 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 gotf 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 Tenace 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. ln response to the_new Shoreline Management Plan, which requires a buffer of 150 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), the Maritime Village is now proposed to be located uphill with the primary access off of Black Point Road near the intersection with U.S. Hwy 101. The largest structure within the Maritime Village would be three stories in height. The structure would be built into the eisting topography, with two stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories visible internal to the site to the east. lt would accommodate 36 to 66 residential units and provide 13,772 to 20,608 sq. ft. of commercial space, depending on the alternative. Under Alternative 1,two additional three-story buildings to the north of the proposed Maritime Village building would provide 12 residential units each that could be rented out for group gatherings. See Table 2-2 below for a breakdown of units within the Maritime Village. Pleasant Ha@1 Final Supplemental EIS December 20t5 Descrtpuon or proposar "ra efl*lf{St'u-2-22 Table2-2 SEIS ACTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON . RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERGIAL Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Residential Units Golf Resort Area . GoJf Tenaces a 500 units a 520 units o Sea View Villas a 200 units a 206 units o Golf/Alpine Vistas a 76 units a 44 units o Staff Quarters r 52 units . 52 units Maitime Village Area . Reunion House . 12 units . 0 units . Harbor View House . 12 units a 0 units . Maritime Village Building . 36 units . 66 units . Existing Residences - to remain 2 units . 2 units Total Residentia! Units 890 units 890 units Total Retail/Commercial 49,772 sq.ft.56,608 sq.ft. . GoJf Resort Area a 36,000 sq. ft a 36,000 sq.ft. . Maritime Village Area a 13,772 sq.ft a 20,608 sq.ft. Tota! Surface Parking 533 stalls 663 stalls . Golf Resort Area a 268 stalls a 413 stalls o Reunion House & Harborview a 32 stalls a N/A o Maritime Village Area o 88 stalls a 104 stalls . Transit Stop a 60 stalls a 60 stalls r Maintenance/StaffMater Treat. a 85 a 86 Total Structured Parking 1,003 stalls 887 stalls . Golf Resort Area a 999 stalls a 817 stalls e Maritime Village Area a 4 existing stalls a 70, including 4 existing stalls Total Parking 1,536 stalls 1,550 stalls Architectural Concept The proposed architectura! 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. Sife Access ments would be made to Black Point Road, and to theUnder both Alternatives 1 and 2, improve intersection of Black Point Road with U.S 101 Ptsasant llarbor Fln al 9u pplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Altematives2-23 12-ft wide (with turn-outs) Marina IS to the east side of U.S.101 between Black Point Road and 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 Halb* Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter PlEtse,:! ii. Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-24 marina. ln order to keep Resort traffic internal to the site to the maximum the Marina Access Drive would be used by visitors to travel between parking lot and the marina. This drive would accommodate pedestrian access, vehicle service and emergency vehicle access, between Black Point Road and The applicant is in the process of negotiating an easement or purchase of installation of the Marina Access Drive. See 3.9-6 bottom of Stormwater Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, golf course fairways would be located in areas of permeable soils to allow for infiltration of stormwater runoff to recharge the local groundwater aquifer. Kettle B would be partially filled and lined with synthetic liners to receive site runoff along with Class A effluent from the wastewater recovery plant for irrigation and fire protection. Kettle C, which would be reconstructed as a new created wetland, would also receive site runoff if Kettle B reached capacity. The basis for stormwater management on the site would be to infiltrate runoff near its source or collect and treat runoff as required near its source and convey it to the irrigation pond for storage, to be used for irrigation and fire protection. Where development patterns and topography allow, small distributed bioretention facilities would be designed along roads, parking areas, and fairways. To the extent practicable, runoff from roof areas would be infiltrated near the structures producing the runoff. Parking areas where slope and subsoils are suitable, would be paved with pervious pavements to eliminate runoff. The proposed new portion of the WDFW road would be constructed with a collection and conveyance system to control and treat the runoff from the pollution generating surfaces. The treated runoff would discharge into the local depression to the southwest of the new intersection of the proposed road and the existing boat launch access road. Power and Communication Electricity would continue to be supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Geothermal exchange within Kettle B and in drillwells would be utilized for heating and cooling of buildings. Centurylink is the communication provider for telephone and DSL internet service for existing customers. Broadband is coming to the area, with govemment agencies getting connected first in 2013. Shoreline The proposal includes preserving a riparian buffer along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve the 200-ft wide Shoreline Environment and a steep slope setback in a conservation easement. Gomparison of Action Alternatives While both Altemative 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 Pleesant Harbor Flnal Sttpplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 D*cription of Proposal and Alternatives2-25 Gommon to Alternatives 2 and Alternative 3, the Golf Resort, Maritime Village, architectural concept, site utilities and shoreline buffer would all be the same as described for Altemalive 2. of residential units, the amount of commercial space and the number and buildings in the Maritime Mllage and the Golf Course area would also remain the same 2. The amount of cut and fill would be the same as Alternative 1 million more natural and to more follow the Alternative 1 clearing and grading would be greater than that of Alternative 2 because of the golf course design philosophy difference. ln Alternative 1, the golf course design would use larger gentler graded sloping areas of play in contrast to the Alternative 2 golf course design that would use existing site topography with limited areas of grading. Total site grading would be approximately 2.2 million cubic yards under Alternative 1, compared to approximately 1 million cubic yards under Alternative 2. Approximately 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 gotf course with 890 residential units, including 828 units in the Golf Resort area and the remaining 62 in the Maritime Village area. Under Alternative 1, the applicant is intending to include a Tree-Top Adventure Course near the Maritime Village Building with a Zip Line that would connect from that area to a landing platform within the pool area of the marina. The applicant is coordinating with the County for the required permits for this project. Golf Course The golf course layout would be similar to the 2007 ElS, utilizing large gentle graded sloping areas of play. The orientation of the fairways would be similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, with the exception of the fairways in the far southeastern comer of the property (Fairways 7-9), Pleasant Harber Final Supplemental EIS December 2015' Chapter ?: - - "- - - "'t=.1 ;,- l Description of Proposal and Alternativef ^^'2-26 3 includes a smaller, 9-hole course and associated which which would be aligned in a more north-south orientation than the east-west orientation proposed in the 2007 ElS. Golf Resort A total of 828 residential units would be provided in the Golf Course/Golf Resort area of the site under Alternative 1. ln order to reduce the built or impervious footprint on the site, the majority of the units (500) would be located in four Golf Terrace buildings; each 4 stories in height. An additional 200 units would be located in 31 one-story Sea View Villas buildings, and 76 units would be located in 13 Golf Vistas buildings. A 3-story staff quarters and maintenance building would be located in the northeast corner of the site, containing 52 residential units. Tennis courts would be provided adjacent to three Golf Terrace buildings, as well as a swimming pool next to Golf Terrace 3 building. Other recreational amenities proposed adjacent to the Golf Terrace 1 building include a bocce ball court, pool and deck area. Parking would be provided under the proposed Golf Vistas and Sea View Villas buildings, as well as under the Golf Terrace buildings. Surface parking would be provided for the Golf Terrace buildings as well. The staff/maintenance building would include surface parking, and surface parking stalls would also be provided within the site for golf guests. Maritime Village A total of 62 residential units are proposed within the Maritime Village area. Of the total, 60 units would be located in three new buildings, and the remaining two units are existing buildings that would be retained (Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed-and-Breakfast).1 The Pleasant Harbor House, which is owned by the applicant, could be renovated with no change to the footprint of the structure. The largest of the three new buildings would be the Maritime Village building, which is proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The Maritime Village building would include 36 residential units and 13,772 sq. ft. of commercial space. The remaining 24 residential units would be located in two buildings (12 units each) designed to accommodate group 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. Pled€ant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2075 ' Chapter2',-2-27 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 Fainaray 14, as these fairways will be developed during later construction of the project. A sprinkler inigation system would be installed to temporarily maintain plants kept in this area for relocation during phased development of the site. ALTERNATIVE 2 The Alternative 2 site plan was modified from Alternative 1 to improve constructability by refining the development to further minimize environmental impacts. The primary modification under Alternative 2 is the golf course design which uses existing site topography with limited areas of grading. Maritime Village A total of 68 residential units are proposed within the Maritime Village area under Alternative 2. Of the total, 66 units would be located in the new Maritime Village building, and the remaining two units are existing buildings that would be retained (Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed- and-Breakfast).2 The Pleasant Harbor House, which is owned by the applicant, could be renovated with no change to the footprint of the structure. The Maritime Village building is proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The Marina Village building would include 66 residential units and 20,608 sq. ft. of commercial space. Parking would be provided in an underground parkade for residents and staff of the commercial spaces and in surface parking lots atthe intersection of U.S. Hwy 101, for visitors and Marina slip owners. Surface parking for transit users and marina and resort visitors would be provided south of the intersection. The re.designed intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101 includes relocating the access to the WDFW boat launch approximately 1000 feet to the east of its cunent 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. ln order to reduce the built or impervious footprint on the site, the majority of the units (520) would be located in four Golf Tenace 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-BreaKast, 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 Harbs Final Supplemerrtal EIS December 201i Chapter Pi ,'t:=c* Description of Proposal and Altem?tivedTo^- --'2-28 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 Gotf Tenace buildings and significantly less stalls for the Sea View Villas buildings. Additional surface parking would be provided on site for golf users. Less parking would be available overall compared to Alternative 1 (see Table 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 Altemative 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-? below for a full comparison of the two action alternatives. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS '-,,;-:- :rr::'. ,- : ' - - Chapter 2 December 2013' ' 2-29 Description of Proposal and Alternatives -:.. Alternative 3 differs from Altemative Golf Course to Altemative the to1 perennials and annuals would be placed in select locations at the Maritime and See Table 2-3 below for a full comparison of the three action alternatives. Table 2-3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES COM PARISON Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Fifty-two buildings, 828 residential units Maritime Village: Three new buildings, 60 new residential units Total New Buildings 55 Existing Buildings lncluded ln MPR 890-Unit Count: Pleasant Harbor House - 1 Bed and Breakfast House - 1 Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Thirty-six buildings, 822 residential units Maritime Village: One new building, 66 new residential units Total New Buildings: 37 Existing Buildings lncluded ln MPR 890-Unit Count: Pleasant Harbor House - 1 Bed and Breakfast House - 1 Number of Buildings and Unlts: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: 500 units Golf Vistas: 76 units Sea View Villas: 200 units Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: 52 units Maritime Village Building: 36 units Reunion House: 12 units Harbor View House: 12 units Maritime Village: Number of Buildings and Units: Golf Resort: Golf Terraces: 520 units Alpine Vistas: 44 units Sea View Villas: 206 units Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: 52 units Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 66 units Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives rt 2-30 f''l ALTERNATTVE I (2010-201 1)ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 Alternative 3 (2015) Number of Buildings and Units: Same as Alternative 2 Number of Buildings and Units: Same as Alternative 2 L i I I I L :, l lir ,1:I ll3 H U lll ,B lI) iit l'irr,liI I il. lr Building Heights and Square Footage: Golf Tenaces: 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, 1story Existing Bed and BreaKast House: One building, to remain (counted as one residential unit) Golf Resort: 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.) Marltime Village: Maritime Village Building: One building, 3 stories (52 ft. 3 inches height, 72,453 sq.ft.) Existing Pleasant Harbor House: One building 1 story (same as Alternative 1) Existing Bed and Breakfast House: One building to remain (counted as one residential unit). Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Maritime Village: Maritime Village Building: 36 units located up the hillside away from the waterfront Reunion House and Harbor View House: 24 units in two buildings 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 - Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-31 ALTERNATTVE 1 (201 0-201 1)ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 Alternative 3 (2015) Building Heights and Square Footage: Same as Alternative 2 Number and Type of Residential Units Proposed within the Maritime Village Same as Alternative 2 away from the waterfront. Retain Existing Pleasant Harbor House Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House (owned by others) Retain Existing Bed and Breakfast House (owned by others) same as Alternative 1 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 (67o/"\ Long Term Tourist Residential Units: 278 (33%) Gommercial 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. 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 Altemative 1 I r Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental ElS December 2015 2-32 t, I ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATIVE 2 (20121 Alternative 3 (2015) Short Term Stay vs. Long Term Stay Units: Same as Alternative 2 Commercial Development Proposed: Same as Alternative 2 : Proximity of Structures to Pleasant Harbor OHWM: Same as Alternative 2 Chaptar 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatlves would also occur. Length of Project Roads Proposed: Overall length of project roads approximately 12,700|f. 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. Marina Access to/from Black Point Road Construct the Marina Access Drive (12 ft. wide with tum outs) to be used for two way shuttle service and emergency vehicle access. Marina Access to/from Black Point Road: Same as Alternative 1 Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Resort main entrance controlgate relocated from previous plans to the northeast corner of the site with primary access from Black Point Road. U.S. Hwy 101 intersection realigned further south. Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Same requirements as Alternative 1 Provisions for Transit Service: Surface parking at the Black Point Road/U.S. 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 slightlyfrom 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. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatlves2-33 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-2011'ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 Alternative 3 (2015) Length of Project Roads Proposed: Same as Alternative 2 Marina Access to/from Black Point Road: Same as Alternative 'l Main Entrance to the Golf Resort: Same requirements as Alternative 1 Provisions for Transit Service: Same requirements as Alternative 2 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. Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Ground water supply from on-site wells. Two options for second well location: west of Fainruay 2 or west of Fairway 7 (rather than west of Fairway 9) as a result of water right negotiations. Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Ground water supply from on-site wells. Two options for second well location: east of Fairway 2 or west of Fairway 8. Wastewater 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. Energy Proposal: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site biodieselco- generation, propane and geothermal sources proposed. Energy Proposa!: Electrical supply up to the limit of availability from Mason County PUD; on-site propane and geothermal proposed. Wetland Mltlgation Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Kettle: Create a replacement wetland in the bottom of Wetland Mltlgatlon Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Keftle: Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental ElS December 2015 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-34 ALTE RNATIYE' 1' :" (2010 -20 { 1 }ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 Alternative 3 (2015) Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters: Same requirements as Alternative 2. Domestic Water Supply Proposal: Same requirements as Alternative 2. Wastewater Recovery Plant (WRP): Same requirements as Alternative 2. Energy Proposal: Same as Alternative 2 Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Placement of Fill in the Large Keftle: the smaller of the two Kettles (Kettle C) and retain this Kettle feature within the development. 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. 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 atea. RecreationalAmenities (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. !mpervious Area: 30 Ac (13% of total site area) lmpervious Area: 28 Ac (12% of total site area) Pervious Area TotalPerviousArea: 201 Ac or87Yo of site Pervious Area Total Pervious Area: 203 Ac or 88% of site Pervious Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2075 Chapter 2 Description of Proposal and Alternatives2-35 iAtT,ERilAfilYEl,'.',,',{2010;29i|1)ATTERNATIYE 2 l2o12l Alternative 3 (2015) Same requirements as Alternative 1. Amenities (4): Same as Alternative 2" Recreational Amenities {4) (in addition to the golf course, driving range and putting green): lmpervious Area: Same as Alternative 2 Pervious Disturbed Area: 170 Ac 74Yo o'f totalsite area or 85% of total pervious area NaturalArea: 31 Ac 13o/o 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 NaturalArea: 80 Ac 35% or total site area or 40% ol total pervious area Maritime Village: 25 ft. Minimum building setback Golf Resort: 25 ft. Minimum building setback Perimeter Buffers:Perimeter Buffers: Same requirements as Alternative 1. Pleasant Harbor Flnal Supplemental EIS December 2015 Chapter 2 Descriptlon of Proposal and Alternafives2-36 ALTERNATTVE 1 (2010-20111 ALTERNATTVE 2 (20121 Alternative 3 (2015) Pervious Disturbed Area: 100 Ac 43o/o of total site area or 49o/o of total pervious area NaturalArea: 103 Ac 45% or total site area or 51% of total pervious area Perimeter Buffers: Same requirements as Alternative 1. PHAS!NG The applicant proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort over the course of approximately 10 or tn to market demand. The phasing plan for development under Altemative 2 11): is as follows (see Figure 2-10 and Figure 2- 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 Fainruay 14 (LOSS) . Set up Construction Camp o Construct Maritime Village Building and Parking . Construct Transit Stop Paking Phase 2: . Construct Electric Power lnfrastructure for Resort Site (Mason County PUD lmprovements) o Construct site utilities for Phase 2 - utilities underground and roads o Construct Tenace 1 Building (191 units; 36,000 sf commercial) o Develop second well . Construct Kettle B Reservoir o Create wetland in Kettle C . Construct storm pond at Fairway 10 with stormwater pumps o Clearing and grading of site o Begin Golf Course construction (grading/contouring) and create planUtree nursery Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 2-37 Chapter 2', Description of Proposal and Alternatives Alternative Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Oav,ld Harnllton ArchlEot wA92(pr4@a.ll-rt6 Ptojcct NaT€: ?LlltAfir Hrruoi Flgur€:Attsm.lrve 2: phr3lnd Overell SIta Dat€: OctobGr 2E,2Ol4 tHAlEqrel reEMBllruM6Umx8u.m lGDM OffilMNisuJYtH) TABllueTffiWDEWllErcATE9 BEffiAYIOMMrcMroMm NWxrm^@Dlrc@MWrDryBTUre@@EMUrunffioImrsGffimm IlNMP ro2 *M?ABlIaffiN @EWrmc tot,aEY ffiMlreml9lm10s.@mgl.m MN@U@Ure@M DroPSEmDlzu relrurc1nrL311maolJm IsIffilJWmnmQUm3Im M@U@Em rffiKMlm ottntm$mlYsEMTArIm MWf,AYffi 1ro.gVWM&lJm ruffiN{m Source.' David Hamilton Architects, 201 4 Figure 2-10 Alternative 2-Phasing MapHlitiliffrfli xofx f,r t 7t t, / ,/ n i-\ 7 / ffi0il8 UEilIilurc r--}srE PLEASANT HARBOR - MAnINA AND@rt RtSOflT - US ]t Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Davld Hamllton Archlt€ct wA t[xto I &aat -7765 Prdcctllarr.: PrEllrxrlunEmLdrP.I5iEt Eat6:toylmE fg;zOls trlsIHi,**,** 6lJmaIEg.m 6M(,^ffiABWi,NEUSE) XATslrcIMlmMMA'86 BffiAYIGMKWrumlilM ffiMMGDlB(mEtN (MEffiUMUruNMIOXONru6U&sm ]IrMt@ rc2 rymf,mffif,ff@Emffmc r!rrr (trIxlrc affima glffi Itl lJm*es.@EN@TqrcNroM Mm@ -[E!r**M11S.DlJm rcImresffiffi 'lMffiGroffi lffif.grcmre MEMIYmmnalw qnEruTAYffi Ire1gvwMIlJW @uwN{lJm Source.' David Hamifton Architects, 2015 Figure 2-11 Alternative 3-Phasing MapE[fl'l*il;rll ffiBT ,, ffio ml ( I \ -.1 gcmrummm 2 uuffi urflrE]rus -t gItE t[: PLEASANT HARBoR - MARTNA ANDAr ftSrt - . ConstructWastewaterRecoveryPlant . Construct Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters (52 units) Phase 3: . Construct Golf Tenaces 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 o Construct Golf Hatfway House (snack and beverage) at Fairway 9 . Reconstruct Black Point Road . Golf Course opens Phase 4: o Construct Seaview Villas (206 units) . Construct Golf Vistas (44 units) NO AGTION ALTERNATIVE are Scenario A - Continuation of Existing Conditions Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EISDecember207i 240 Chapter ?tt Description of Proposal and Altematives ,t I'l Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that the current land use designations No Action scenarios are below. Scenario A, no redevelopment of the site would occur. The existing buildings House, Bed & Breakfast, campground structures, etc.), roadways, paths, would remain. Many of the existing buildings and facilities would continue to some over time. The amount of area on the site would remain B.Land the No Action Alternative described and analyzed in the 2007 ElS, Scenario that the site would develop as a single-family residential area along with a 9-hole Plan andand retail area consistent with this scenario a total of 30 single-family residential homes would be developed on the 24 homes associated with a 9-hole golf course south of Black Point Road and course is assumed to be located in thearea. A 9-holein the Maritime 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 Altemative Scenario B with the development alternatives analyzed in the SEIS (Alternative 1, 2 and 3). Table 24 ASSUMED NO ACTION SCENARIO BISEIS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON The overall number of residential units under Scenario B of the No Action Alternative would be 860 units less than underAlternatives 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 Altematives 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. I Plasant Harbor Fioal $upplenental EIS Debember 2015 2-41 Chapter 2 D*cription of Proposal and Altematives Alternative I Altemative 2 Alternative 3 No Action - Scenario B Site Area 23'l-acres 231-acres 231-acres Total Residential Units T 890 units 890 units 890 units 30 units Total RetaillCommercial sq.ft. 49,772sq.ft.56,608 sq. ft.56,608 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft. (fudor/Jupiter property, no longer part of SEIS site area) Maritime Village location Black Point Road/U.S. Hwy 101 intersection Same as Altemative 1 Same as Alternative 1 NA Golf Course 18-holes 18-holes 9-holes 9-holes . ResidentialUnits a 828 units 822 units a 822 units a 24 . CommercialSq. Ft.36,000 sq. ft.a 36,000 sq. ft.a 36,000 sq. t.a NA Maritime Village Area 11 -acres 11-acres 1 1-acres 36 acres o New Units Residential o 60 units . 66 units 66 units 6 . CommercialSq. Ft..13,772sq.tt.20,608 sq. ft. Golf Course Cut and Fill 2.2 million cy 't million cy 1 million cy Less than Alts 1- 3 256-acres a . 20,608 sq. ft..NA 2.6 SEPARATE AGTIONS Two separate projects would occur independent of the Proposed Actions/ElS Alternatives, and may be subject to additional environmental review at the time that permit applications are submitted. Agency decisions regarding environmental review under SEPA would be required prior to issuance of any applicable permits and approvals. Separate projects known to be planned or proposed in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort include: o Float Plane Dock at the Pleasant Harbor Marina for regularly scheduled flights. Renovation/Reconstructionof Marina Buildings FLOAT PLANE DOGK The applicant is investigating improving float plane access to a dock at the Pleasant Harbor Marina. The float plane dock would allow air access to the area for the general population, marina users, and resort visitors. lt is assumed that the float planes would land outside the mouth of Pleasant Harbor and taxi into the harbor itself. The applicant may also investigate the possibility of establishing future regularly scheduled float plane service to Pleasant Harbor. A Substantial Shoreline Development Permit would likely be required for this addition of service. RENOVATION/REGONSTRUCTION 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 BENEFTTS 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 deferralof: 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 ! December 2015 242 a a Chapter * ees4ir. rie :o;:,; 1 Description of Proposal and Alternativef'-'- - Upon resort consultation with the U.S. Navy, the applicant has agreed to limit to helicopters for medical only.No float including the sale of aviation be the o Potential impacts from development on existing views from surrounding areas; . Potential impacts from development on water resources and critical areas onsite. The disadvantages of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of development include deferral of: The potential opportunity to create a golf course development with a variety of housing types to support a range of site amenities; The potential to site buildings that complement the natural setting and reduce the impact on environmentally sensitive areas by preserving more of the natural vegetation, drainage courses, and slopes; The potential direct and indirect employment associated with construction and operation of the proposed project; The potential opportunity to provide economic opportunity to the region through tourism; and, The potential loss of tax revenue that would benefit county public services. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenfal EIS December 2015 2-43 Chapter 2 Description of Proposat and Aftematives a Ghapter 3 Affected Environment, lmpacts, Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts CHAPTER 3 AFFEGTED ENVTRONMENT, IMPAGTS, ALTERNATIVES, MtTtGATtON MEASURES, AND SIGNIFIGANT 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.{ -{ 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 lnvestigation, the 2012 SEIS Soil and Earth lmpacts and Mitigation report, and the 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (Appendix E). 2007 Ers Within the 2007 ElS, a technical report, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resod - E/S So/s and Geology, was included as an appendix (DEIS Appendix 4). However, except for a very brief discussion regarding Geologically Hazardous Areas in DEIS Section 3.10.5, a discussion of soils and geology was not included in the body of the 2007 ElS. The 2007 Soils and Geology technical report includes field reconnaissance, a review of geologic and subsurface information, and geotechnical drilling. A full description of the topography and the regional and site geology was provided within the report. The project site lies on the boundary of the Physiographic province of the Olympic Mountains and the Puget Sound Lowland which has a complex history of mountain building, volcanism, faulting, erosion, deposition of sedimentary rocks, and several periods of glaciations. These forces have formed the present landforms in the region. Within the Black Point area, the site topography rises up from Hood Canal on the southern property line to the upland area at about 200 to 300 foot elevation. The upland area is hummocky terrain which was sculpted by glacial processes, and includes a series of kettle depressions that are about 120 feet deep. The slopes along Hood Canal consist of near vertical 100 foot high bluffs along the eastern half of the southern property line. The westerly shoreline slopes are inclined at about 1.5 foot horizontat 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 Find Supplemental EIS -'; " : December 2015 3.1-1 3.1 '-.- Eafth The Maritime Village area between U.S. Highway 101 and Pleasant Harbor generally slopes down to the east at about 2H:1Y to 3H:1V. Most of this portion of the site is vegetated by Douglas fir trees with a thick under story of salal and ferns. Three intermittent streams flow through the site and discharge into Pleasant Harbor. The project site is comprised of predominantly Vashon Age glacial soils that consist of dense to very dense sand or sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt and some cobbles and occasional boulders. Older Pre-Vashon non-glacial deposits consisting primarily of dense to very dense silty sand with minor layers of hard lacustrine silts and clays were observed at depth in one test boring and exposed in the bluffs along Hood Canal. Fill soil was generally found under existing roads, graded campsites and along the margins of existing buildings. Fill soil was re-worked native soil consisting of loose to medium dense, silty gravelly sand with trace organics to few organics. Fill soil in the project area may range in thickness from a few feet to 10 feet along the edges of roadways and campsites. Vashon Stade glacial deposits were mapped on the ground surface across the project site and observed in test pits and borings. These deposits were generally dense to very dense and should provide a suitable earth material for support of proposed structures, slopes, roadways, and other site improvements. Pre-Vashon non-glacial deposits underlie the Vashon age glacial deposits along the south- central and southeastern portion of the beach bluff. The interglacia! 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. sEts The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E) builds upon the 2007 EIS Soils and Geology technical report (DEIS Appendix 4), this report contains much of the same existing information, plus on-site infiltration test and engineering analysis. The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Grading and Drainage Engineeing Repoft 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 tillJike soils; however, because there were no streams and only minor seeps observed on the bluffs at the site, it is assumed that perching layers are discontinuous, and the majority of groundwater percolates to the sea-level aquifer. ln the Maritime Village area, it is anticipated that low-permeability till is directly underlain by bedrock. ln this environment, groundwater recharge is limited and surface water flow is typically seasonal and intermittently related to precipitation events. Groundwater levets are likely just above sea level in these areas. Because the Vashon glacial deposits are discontinuous, particularly the Vashon lce Contact deposits, perched groundwater could be encountered where impervious layers underlie granular soils. The locations of perched groundwater conditions in the near surface glacial deposits are limited and could be encountered anywhere on the site, especially at end of the winter and early spring months. See Section 3.2, Water Resources, for add itiona I i nformation regard i n g g rou ndwater. Pleasat* Harbor Flnal Supplemental EIS December 201!i 3.1-2 S.Heasant Harfior Eafitr r'- ' 1^' - The soilwithin 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 lmpacts 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS (DEIS Appendix 4) indicated that the site consists of predominantly glacial granular soils that could be used for general site regrading, structural fill beneath buildings, infiltration areas, and for bedding beneath 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 ElS, the retention ponds would be constructed within the existing kettle features. Site grading would be accomplished to balance the amount of excavation with the amount of fill needed to fill the kettles for the stormwater retention ponds. Approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of excavation and new structural fill would be placed in the kettles to reduce the overall volume of the pond. The overall cut and fill for the entire site under the 2007 EIS would be 2.2 million cubic yards. ln order to minimize the area of site disturbance while obtaining sufficient fill material, full basements would be excavated beneath the residences. Site grading would occur in the residential dwelling areas, roadways, retention pond areas and in the wastewater treatment plant area. These site areas would be stripped of vegetation and topsoil (which would be reserved for future use) to expose the underlying soils which would be excavated or compacted. During construction, these areas would be exposed to increased stormwater runoff and erosion into adjacent intermittent streams in the Maritime Village area and in the south side of the Black Point area near Hood Canal. Localized areas of soil erosion could occur on the slopes along Hood Canal during site grading due to temporary increases in groundwater runoff. Long term project impacts to the stability of the steep slopes along Hood Canal were not anticipated due to the design of the proposed stormwater facilities capture stormwater runoff and avoid any increase of groundwater levels on the slope. sEts ln addition to the 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E), a So/s and Eafth lmpacts and Mitigation report was prepared in January 2012 (Appendix E) for this SEIS to supplement prior information on impacts to soils and earth within the project site, specific to the cunent SEIS Alternatives. Similar to that analyzed in the 2007 ElS, under significant clearing of vegetation and grading would be required. Over the entire site, it is Alternative 1, approximateV ffi acres, or m percent of the site, anticipated that under SEIS will be cleared and SEIS Altemative 2 would have less surface area disturbance than SEIS Altemative 1 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.1-3 3.1 Earth' 1 and 151 acres, or approximately 65 percent of the site, cleared and graded. 3 of the would be cleared and128or 55 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 F 3.1-1 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). lt is estimated that it would require approximately 30,000 large off-road transport vehicle trips to move this material from the source to its final destination onsite. Use of public roads for transport of excavated materials or aggregates for building materials would be very limited. Stumps, branches, topsoil and other materials would be stockpiled on the site as clearing and grading activities take place. Stumps, branches and other vegetative materials would be stockpiled for possible wood chipping, saved for use in landscaping, or disposed offsite. Mobile tree spades would remove and place trees of manageable size in temporary storage in an onsite nursery for later transplanting within the site. Other trees and stumps would be stockpiled for reuse in stream and wetland restoration projects both on- and off-site. 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. ln general, the proposed buildings could be supported on shallow spread footings found on native glacial soils or compacted structural fill. Much of the native soils could be used for structural fill. On-site soil processing could be used to produce sand and gravel for storm water infiltration and bedding beneath fairways, tees and greens, and aggregate for concrete production. The existing kettles would require placement of a flexible synthetic membrane or geosynthetic clay liner to construct retention ponds or wetlands. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.1-4 3.1 Earth Pleasant Harbor Fina! SEISr) I us 101 HICHWAY 22.a 21.O 1e.60 1l.o 1C.50 15.@ , s.50 12.O !0.s e.o 750 6.O a.s 3.q)l.sr.lot.s 3.Oaa 6.@ 7_S e.o 10.s 12.O 1 3.60 15.O 16.50 1t.o 1e.30 21.O 22'o DUCKABUSH OYSIER IRACIS NATTVE THINNED GRAPHIC SCALE 400 2N 400 u ( IN FEET ) 1 iasS = 400 ft. r6m Source; Cnig A. Peck & Associates,2013 Figure 3.1-1 Alternative 2-Grading Plan EA Engineering, Sclence, and Technology, lnc.E[t !i8 rrnlrfi hr* ta xl\ Itll I lii l\, t I \ l Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS I WOD CAIIAL I',l rlff 5I.iHE _1 - r.o gl J * 2.@F" i IBE *1ffi I us ,ol H'CHWAY, Y anct$BUgl olsTER 7RAC75 GRAPHIC SCAI,E }{AITvt NO CIEARING (trrrEr) t6-lO0n Source.' Cnig A. Peck & Associates,2015 Eltffi+$tffil: Figure 3.1-2 Alternative 3-Grading Plan 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 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of existing building footprints in the marina area under the SEIS Alternatives. The commercial development and residential development proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area would be relocated to a new 3-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, and two new 12-unit buildings under Alternative 1 and no new 12-unit buildings under Alternative 2. This new configuration under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 dff S 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. BLAGK 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 ElS. Similar to the 2007 EIS alternatives, site grading would be accomplished as a balanced cut and fill with significant quantities of fill being placed in the existing kettles which would become stormwater and Class A reclaimed wastewater retention ponds. While the balanced cut and fillquantities for SEIS Alternative 1 are similar to those in the 2007 ElS, 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 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplementat EIS December 2015 3.1-7 3.1 Earth Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and soil conditions, would remain no or fill would be Since no 3.1-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Els No mitigation measures were specifically proposed relating to topography and soils in the 2007 EIS. BOGC GONDITIONS The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. MITIGATION MEASURES GOMPLETED 63 (h) The possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved. o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation included field investigations and a groundwater modeling program to assess potential impacts to the aquifer that could result from stormwater infiltration within the proposed development. Results from these studies indicate the proposed development would increase groundwater recharge by approximately 10 percent; this is largely due to removal of existing vegetation that allows rainfall to and re the vegetative cover. 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply. The water rights were granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15, 2O1O- The existing onsite wellwithin the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated plus a second well would be drilled in one of two potential locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. 63 (q) Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. a o o a o The 2008 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Geotechnical lnvestigation (Appendix E) was completed and infiltration rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are illustrated in Appendix B of that report. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 20t5 3.1-8 3.?i+asarr t!, , -Earth '- $cenario B - Redevelopment under Existing Land Use Desiqnations the No Action Altemative described and analyzed in the 2007 ElS, Scenario that the site would develop as a single-family residential area''along with a 9-hole and retail area consistent with underlying Comprehensive Plan and zoning some grading would be required, given the lesser amount of roadway and it is assumed that would be less than that which would occur under 1 2and C will be with a created wetland at the sErs ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, these additional mitigation measures could be implemented. A site specific geotechnical evaluation of any structure, utility, or roadway located within 100 feet of the landslide hazard area at the southern portion of the site wil! 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 CriticalAreas Ordinances. 3.14 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development under Alternatives '1, 2 ffi would permanently alter the site's natural as described in Section 3.1-1 above. Alternative 2 would have less im due to the lower area of site and quantity of cut and fil!, With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, significant impacts to earth would not be anticipated a o P,lesant Harborllpal Supplemenfal EIS Dd16mber 2015 3.1-9 3. ,-Lr r,,:-. Eartlr 3.2 WATER RESOURGES 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 Resorf Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (Appendix ffi), Groundwater lmpact Addendum (Appendix F), and the 2010 Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memo (Appendix F). 3.2-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ers Surface Water Hvdroloqic Settinq As noted in the 2006 Fish and Wildlife Assessment (DEIS Appendix 7), five unnamed streams were identified within lhe 2007 site area and ranked as seasonal "Type N" (non-fish bearing stream) based on impassable fish barriers, particularly hung culverts. These streams were located within the Maritime Village portion of the site and discharged into Pleasant Harbor. No streams were identified within the Black Point area of the site. As noted in the 2006 Wetland Delineation (DEIS Appendix 9), there were three wetlands (Wetlands B, C and D) identified and delineated on the site within the Black Point area. No wetlands north of Black Point Road were identified. There were no direct hydrologic connections between wetlands onsite to wetlands or streams located offsite. Wetlands C and D have well established native buffers. Wetland B has seasonal ponding in a large glacial depression known as a kettle and has some vegetation, but has been affected by human activity. The southern boundary of the site abuts Hood Canal with a nearly vertical steep slope approximately 100 feet in elevation. The 2007 site boundary included a portion of the western shoreline of Pleasant Harbor, an inlet of Hood Canal formed by the peninsula of Black Point. Surface Water Qualitv The 2006 Marina lmpact Analysis (DEIS Appendix 2) and the 2006 Shoreline Characterization Report (DEIS Appendix 3) highlight the water quality issues in Hood Canal, in particular the pollution and poor dissolved oxygen levels. Hood Canal is prone to developing low levels of dissolved orygen, 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. Sheltfish harvesting in Pleasant Harbor is prohibited based on standard concerns with any shellfish grown in an area adjacent to a marina. 3.?tea:an:, Water Resourcegl.e- *,,iFleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EISDecembertlll-- 3.2-1 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 sunounded 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 signiflcant fresh water aquifer beneath the peninsula, it is important to maintain a positive fresh water head above sea level in the aquifer. The change in fresh water head has a large impact on the location of the salt water interface. A reduction in head below sea level could cause sea water intrusion on the Black Point peninsula. Groundwater flows toward the center of the Black Point peninsula from the north, east and west sides (2006 Hydrogeologic Evaluation, DEIS Appendix 5). The center and western portions of the peninsula are anticipated to be composed of higher permeability soils. The presence of bedrock also affects groundwater flow directions, as the northern and eastern portions of the peninsula have high elevations of bedrock. Based on studies performed for the 2007 EIS (2007 Soils and Geology Report by Subsurface Group LLC, DEIS Appendix 4), the hydrology of the Black Point aquifer is strongly influenced by recharge over the upland areas including the Pleasant Harbor area. Aquifer recharge in the Black Point area of the site is primarily from the direct infiltration of precipitation. As water percolates downward, it may perch on low-permeability till or till-like soils; however, because there were no streams and only minor seeps observed on the bluffs on the southern boundary of the site, it was assumed that perching layers are discontinuous, and the majority of groundwater percolates to the sea-level aquifer. Groundwater north of Black Point Road also resides in the sea level aquifer. ln this area, the aquifer material may be sand, till or more likely basalt bedrock. The aquifer is recharged by the direct infiltration of precipitation, and from groundwater seepage from the upslope area to the west. The regional groundwater levels are approximately 20 to 25 feet elevation, based on three borings and existing static water levels in domestic wells. The 2007 EIS identified the site as within a Seawater lntrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ), which covers property within one4uarter 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. Ple*ant Harbor Finaf3uppbmental EIS December 2015 3.2-2 3.2-,, Water Resources The 2007 EIS also noted that the site is designated as a Critica! 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. sEts Surface Water The site is located in the Hood Canal Watershed, within the Skokomish-Dosewallips Water Resource lnventory Area (WRIA 16). Two streams have been identified within the SEIS site area north of Black Point Road in the 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 conidor 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 ln 2010, a hydrogeologic memo (Appendix F) was issued by the Department of Ecology (as part of the processing of the applicant's groundwater rights application) to present findings of an investigation of geology, groundwater quantity, groundwater quality, and seawater intrusion potential on the Black Point peninsula. The agency determined that seawater intrusion was not a widespread problem on the peninsula, although there were two areas near the shoreline where it appears to be occurring in the sea level aquffer. 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 FinalSupplemental EIS December 2015 3.2-3 3.?teasant Harhcr t Water Resourceg 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). ln compliance with BoCC Condition 63(q), the existing infiltration rates for the soils within the site were calculated and are presented in Figure 3.2-2. The primary areas with soils with low infiltration rates include the area north of Black Point Road and Kettles B and C. Other areas bordering the boundary of the Black Point area of the site also have low infiltration rates. The majority of the Black Point area of the site includes soils with moderate infiltration rates with scattered areas of high infiltration rates. 3.2-2lmpacts 2007 Ets 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. lrriqation Water Because the source of the irrigation water would be partly provided by the collected rainwater (in addition to the reclaimed water), the irrigation supply would be dependent upon the local climatic conditions. lrrigation requirements would be highest during the drier periods of the year; thus water would be collected during rain events and stored in ponds for water demands during the remainder of the year. Pleasant Harbor Flnal Supplemenfal EIS',- -- :,-:: .; "-., -, . December 2015 3.2-4 3.2 Water R*ources 1 Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS ROEIVSO',/ RD. SCALE I (DlrEr) r boL - 400 lt , F@T CO{TOUN.DiTERVAL --t roi, Source.' Craig A. Peck & Associates,2013 Figure 3.2-1 Existing Drainage BasinsE[tilirii'ui,l It-- Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS *J!, V E)lf 4 + $ 4 Legend Eflontions O Borirg O Moduiry*l A ldluioTa O IG.r Ht + Etrdriryvut Excavttian Suaatryr 77 q, li:!::r:il Fil I---l uo* InfiItztion Retes I ld(1io5ir/td) lfiH ncauGrtsir/Lr) I mr&(rsrxi./L') Itood Ceaa! Fot0 25ll 500 1,0u, r,s(xt 2,@0 2,500 D.um : MVD88 Cobr lnt-d i.z) t. Srr Source.' Cnig A. Peck & Associates,2013 Figure 3.2-2 Soil lnfiltrationElIits#i';rll la xt lotu ) A constructed water storage pond (Kettle B), which would include a combination of reclaimed water, treated stormwater, and rainwater, would pump water in a pressurized piping system partially for the purposes of the irrigation of the golf course. The pond would be designed to retain sufficient water to provide full irrigation supply to the golf course, and supply is dependent upon securing necessary water rights permits (see Water Supply and Groundwater lmpact Analysis, DEIS Appendix 5). A key element of any irrigation plan for the golf course would be the adoption of a best management program to address golf course operation to prevent direct runoff from the golf course to Hood Canal or the harbor and the potential for ground water impact would be minimized. Jefferson County uses the King County aquifer protection guide for golf course management BMPs, and the same conditions or substantially similar programs would be required for this project at the permit level. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge As noted previously, the proposed storage pond (Kettle B) would retain Class A water from the wastewater treatment plant as wells as stormwater from impervious surfaces. Approximately 20 percent of the captured water would be used for irrigation; the remaining water would be infiltrated back into the aquifer. This type of infiltration would be a more direct means of aquifer recharge than natural infiltration. Section 3.2.2 of the 2007 EIS notes that the only net loss of water in this approach would be from evaporation of water as it is stored in the ponds, and evapotranspiration of the portion of the water used for inigation. 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, postdevelopment 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 courses. Golf course would conform to Jefferson County !n addition, less than 15 percent of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces; the water from these surfaces would be collected and eventually reintroduced to the aquifer. The only losses to the system would be through evaporative and evapotranspiration processes, which were estimated at less than one percent of the annual pre- development water budget. Stormwater The 2007 EIS indicated that the site would be designed to meet the recommendations of the current edition of WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Westem Washington, February 2005 together with WDOE's adopted Low lmpact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, January 2005. The stormwater management plan for the site would be designed to meet the project's requirement for zerodischarge of water to the Hood Canal from the golf Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December fr75 3.2-7 3.PlL i' \ ' Water Resources -tt.24:. a' dliltF! 18.20.190 Performance 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. sEts This section identifies and analyzes impacts to water resources on and of the waterPleasant Harbor site with proposed general, the potential in the vicinity for impacts to resources from SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 ElS. Altematives 2 consolidate development into fewer buildings, thereby reducing impervious surface area and increasing aquifer recharge compared to the 2007 Ers. Sufiace Water Compared to the 2007 ElS, the SEIS project site now only includes two small, non fish-bearing streams south of the marina compared to the five described in the 2007 EIS (three of the small streams are outside the current site boundary, north of the marina). As with the 2007 ElS, these streams would be left in their natural state and buffered from development. Stormwater from the proposed development area would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge, thereby potentially improving water quality compared to existing conditions. The intermittent, non fish-bearing stream within the WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road is located downslope of the new WDFW boat access roadway alignment and would not be impacted by construction of the new roadway alignment (see Appendix D). ln compliance with BoCC Condition 63(r) in the 2007 FEIS, a draft water quality monitoring plan (Appendix F) has been developed that requires monthly water collection and testing for pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading. Additionally, a Golf Course Best Management Pleasant Harbdr Final Supplemenfal EIS December 2075 3.2-8 3.2 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 ElS, the Washington State Department of Ecology issued a memo in response to the Pleasant Harbor Resort application for additionalwater rights. Part ll of the Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memo (Appendix F) identifies the validity of Pleasant Harbor's aquifer test and also gives specific requirements for groundwater monitoring and testing in Pleasant Harbor wells. The memo indicates that if pumping is concentrated at the existing Black Point well site and is allowed to vary seasonally up to 300 gpm for several months at a time, conditions are marginal for avoiding saltwater intrusion. The memo further indicated that the Department of Ecology would require Pleasant Harbor to conduct groundwater monitoring on proposed production and monitoring wells to ensure saltwater intrusion does not occur in Pleasant Harbor's wells as well as coastal domestic wells. A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is included in Appendix F to comply with the DOE recommendation for future continued monitoring of groundwater levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance which could indicate seawater intrusion. This Plan also fulfills BoCC 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 m 840 acre-feet under Alterative 1,804 acre-feet per year under Alternative 2 compared to 759 acre-feet per year under existing conditions; thus resulting in increased recharge to the aquifer compared to existing conditions. See Figures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 for a graph depicting cumulative annual aquifer recharge over the resort build-out to full operation. [See Table 3.2-1 lor a detailed comparison of annual aquifer recharge under existing conditions and the alternatives.l As shown by the figures and table, the calculated ultimate aquifer recharge for all stages of the project development would be relatively stable, and would not decrease below existing conditions. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.2-9 3.2 Water Resources under Alternativeaere*feet Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS 900 800 700 600 500 zm0 300 2N lm 843 ac-ft 833 ac-ft 840 ac-fl 813 ac-ft September to December June to Augusl 6)o oL(f6 o EOLcl U0)g c) E U -lr January to May 0 01/01/15 Existing Cmditions 0v01/16 t2J3vt6 t2l3t/11 12J31/t8 Begin Pand lnigatiqr of Gdf Cdrrse t2l3r/r9 t2/30D0 r2/30D1 t2l3022 1?/30123 12t29124 tA29t2s Full Build-Out I I I I , I I II i 760 ac-lt I I I i I i i) I I I I I I I I I I , I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I j I I I i I I I ) I I i Source.' Bender Consulting, lnc., 2074 Figure 3.2-3 Alternative 1 -An nua! Cumulative Aqu ifer Recharge During Resort Build-out and Completion EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc.E[l t I I I I t _) I I Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS 900 8m 7W 600 5m 400 300 2N 100 793 ac-ff 794 ac-fi 804 ac-ft Septcmbcr to Deccmbcr Junr to AJgust ra)IIo Id a)Utr6 t, C)fr o 6 E (J January lo May 0 0l/01/15 Exiding Coditlons 0l/01/16 t2J3vt6 12J31/17 ty3vt\ta3v19 1?J30120 Bogin Pmd lrrigBtlqr of Golf Ccursc nBum ty30n2 ta30D3 Full Br.tlld-Ort t2l29D4 12129D 760 ac-fi760 ac-ft I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I ' I , I I I i I I I I I Source.' Bender Consulting, lnc., 2014 EIIil{*i;trfl: Figure 3.24 Alternative 2-An n ual Cu m u lative Aq u ifer Rech arge During Resort Build-out and Completion / rrrl I I 1 I I I I I I i I I Table 3.2-1 Annuat Recharge to Aquifer Under Atternatives 1,2ffi Source.' Bender Consulting, lnc., 201 4. 1 No consumptive use /oss occurs under existing conditions because wastewater is infiltrated. 2Evapotranspiration is reduced under the alternatives compared to existing conditions due to the introduction of additional imperuious surfaces on the site. sConsumptive use does not contribute to aquifer recharge, because wastewater would be used for irrigation; no infiltration would occurfrom inigation. The increase in recharge over existing conditions is due to a decrease in vegetation at the site through construction of roads and buildings. Water from precipitation would normally have been consumed by existing trees and plants through evaporation and evapotranspiration processes. Runoff from new impervious surfaces would be routed directly to infiltration, routed to Kettle B, or discharged offsite as in the existing runoff condition. ln addition, precipitation would infiltrate more quickly due to changes in soil moisture associated with irrigation of the golf course. The decrease in aquifer recharge between Alternatives 1 and 2 would be due to the reduced amount of impervious surfaces under Alternative 2. However, even under Alternative 2, aquifer recharge would increase by approximately six percent above existing conditions. Stormwater Alternative 1 would result in 87 percent of the overall site form of the golf course, natural areas, and buffers, and approximately 88 percent of the site being retained in initial cleared and alternatives would be similar being retained in pervious area in the and 3 would result in Natural areas those not would total The basis for stormwater man ement on the site for the Existing Conditions (Acre-feet) Alternative 1 (Acre-feet) Alternative 2 (Acre-feet) Alternative 3 (Acre-feet) TotalAnnual Rainfall 1,189 1,189 1,189 1,199 (Minus Actual Evapotranspiration)430 3222 3492 348 (Minus Pond Evaporation)I 11 11 (Minus Consumptive Use)01 1213 1213 121 (Minus lrriqation)120 120 80 Plus Wastewater Generated 121 121 121 Plus lmpervious Runoff 102 94 94 TotalAquifer Recharge 759 840 804 844 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.2-12 3.2 Water Resources Alternative 3, aquifer recharge would be the highest at M4 acre-feet per year due to Shole golf course reducing irrigation demands. Because the irrigation demand less (80 ac-ft versus the would fuller then acres (13% Alternative 80 of 2 1 site) under Alternative to the 1 in total 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"an9_volumes for the area south of Black Point Road would be similar for Alternatives 1, 2 , however pervious pavement is not proposed under Alternative 1, resulting in higher local rates and volumes of runoff. Where development patterns and topography would allow, more numerous small distributed bioretention facilities would be provided along roads, parking areas, and 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 lmpact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, January 2005. lnfiltration (groundwater recharge) from the irrigation pond would begin to occur when the irrigation pond water surface rises above the pond liner elevation. lf the water surface elevation continues to rise in the irrigation pond, a long control weir would divert an increasing greater proportion of pond discharge to Kettle C. The stormwater runoff that would be diverted to Kettle C during periods of high runoff would be contained within the kettle and infiltrated through the walls of the kettle. The plants in the created wetland at the bottom of Kettle C would be tolerant of this infrequent flooding. For the Pleasant Harbor project, Jefferson County has required a more stringent restriction than the state by mandating in BoCC Condition 63(q) that no runoff from the golf course is to enter Hood Canal regardless of the size or frequency of the runoff event. This requirement would restrict direct runoff to Hood Canal specifically from the golf course fairways within the Master Planned Resort. Runoff from areas other than the fairways that discharge to adjoining properties Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.2-13 3.2 Water Resources Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS R€rrsov Ro. Source.' Craig A. Peck & Associahs, 2013 Figure 3.2-5 Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage BasinsEllft',rie#"1 would be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that complies with State requirements. !n drainage Basins 1,2, and 12 in the southern portion of the site where runoff has a high potentialto 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 Ganal 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 ftom 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 controlof the flow rate and water quality prior to discharge into Pleasant Harbor. Potential Construction I mpacts Stormwater impacts associated with site development construction activities would be largely related to the potential water erosion of disturbed and exposed soils. During construction, stormwater management measures would be implemented to limit or reduce potential impacts for sediment-laden water and wind-blown particles to leave the site. Because grading activities would alter the size of existing drainage basins, it is possible that sediment-laden water from either existing areas or newlygraded areas near the site perimeter could cross the property line onto adjacent land parcels if proper mitigation measures were not installed. lf altered, stormwater drainage characteristics would change by directing runoff from an existing basin to another location within a different basin. Areas within the Master Planned Resort site that contain soils with higher rates of permeability would receive runoff from areas with soils with lower rates of permeability. To minimize this potential impact more successfully, detailed final designs would consider redirection of runoff into different basins with better permeability so that runoff could be retained onsite. P ote nti al O pe ratio n al I m pa cts 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 Quantitv Chanoes. 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 Pteasant Harbor. Final Supplemental EIS December fr15 3.2-15 3.?teasanl HaroorWaterResourceg ' - : 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 maintainedgolf 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 Qualitv Chanqes. New pollutant-generating impervious surfaces such as roads and parking !ots, and pervious surfaces of the golf course, would introduce additional quantities of pollutants to the site during construction and long-term in the form of oils, gasoline, other mechanicalfluids used to operate motorized equipment, and materials used to maintain the golf course vegetation. These pollutants would have the potential to degrade the quality of water being infiltrated into the ground if not properly treated. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE that the site would continue to asa 3.2-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets Ihglollowing mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 ffi. The stormwater mitigation measures listed in Section 3.5.3, Shellfish, would also apply. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.2-16 '.) ! i it . 3.? _-_ _,,-. - Water Resourcelt Scenario A, the site would remain in its present condition, and there would be no or permanent impacts to surface water or groundwater and aquifer recharge. stormwater collection which into Pleasant Harbor would that a described in the 2007 Scenario B course would be built on Black Point area the atea on the zoning The potential to water resources tn 28 acre feet of water rights per year remaining from past uses assumed to be residential uses. Overall, the amount of required water rights, water use and potential would be less than underAltematives 1,2 and 3. New residential lots would be individualwells and septic systems. Because pumping to allowed limits has not created intrusion risk in the past, and given the water profile for the area, water use for would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact. The golf course approximately 31 acre feet of additional water rights, which would on the but to a lesser extent than under Alternatives 1 2and the Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction Any project approval for the resort shall contain a condition that the applicant demonstrates entitlement to sufficient water rights to serve the approved phase from WDOE (water rights, transfer, and/or rainwater harvesting rights and use conditions) prior to preliminary plat approval and construction of any facilities on the property. Stormwater management plans for clearing and grading and for construction and operation phases must be approved and systems in place prior to land disturbing activities to assure control of the stormwater as provided above. The golf course project approval shall require the adoption of best management practices for the management of stormwater onsite and the reuse of water as irrigation water, with a condition that the system demonstrate no direct discharge to Hood Canal of any stormwater from impervious or golf course surfaces, and that the grass management program include specific BMPs to assure proper management of all elements of the golf course management system consistent with best available technology for management in aquifer sensitive areas or its substantial equivalent. Approval of any permits for the marina redevelopment area shal! be conditioned upon the approval of a stormwater management plan that intercepts and treats all stormwater from existing or new impervious surfaces to Puget Sound water quality management standards prior to discharge, and that the Maritime Village has a plan and facilities in place to deal with any upland upset that may threaten pollutant discharge to Pleasant Harbor. a a a a a a o a a The Project Engineer shall be responsible for ensuring that State and County stormwater management standards are met. Clearing, grading, implementation of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and construction of roads and stormwater management facilities shall be conducted under the supervision of the Project Engineer. The Project Engineer shall submit weekly reports to Jefferson County while construction is in progress. Preliminary plat approval for the golf course resort that requires water use in excess of current approved water rights. Preliminary plat approval shall require a hydrogeological report demonstrating that the additional water use does not pose a threat of saltwater intrusion to existing wells or sources of water supply. A hydrogeological report is required for each construction or development phase to demonstrate compliance with this condition. Adequate and sustainable fire flow will be provided by the Class A water system. The Class A water system will provide this level of service at all times. Construction site stormwater runoff for the project is to be regulated at the state level by WDOE through the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and at the local level by the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Code (JCC 18.25.070). A Construction General Stormwater Permit is (NPDES) required for all development activities where more than one acre will be disturbed and stormwater will be discharged to surface water or to storm drains that discharge to surface water. Flears,ant tlad,q timl Supplemenfal EIS December fr15 3.2-17 3.?,e-str..' jr;!or Water Resourcesi ?'-'r- The project will require a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Low lmpact Development - all water on the site will be collected and either used appropriately onsite, routed to the storage ponds, or infiltrated to the groundwater aquifer - a zeto 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 GONDITIONS a o a The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Mitigation Measu res Com pleted a 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 a a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental ElS, tr.,-rai sur..'. t, " ':1: ''! ' December 2015 3.2-18 3.2 . Water Resources a a 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 the20'12 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix fi). 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 lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (p) An NWP shall be established that requires Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for additional recharge wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause mounding. o A draft Neighborhood Water Policy has been drafted by the applicant and reviewed by Jefferson County Health and WDOE (Appendix F). The NWP shall be finalized prior to approval of the Development Agreement. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following additional water resources mitigation measures could be implemented. There are some areas within the site that have slow to moderate rates of infiltration. Until the actual allowable rate of infiltration of the soil at each facility can be determined, the facilities may need to be sized to retain water to allow for a slower release. The stormwater design team will work closely with the wetlands biologist to develop a stormwater management system that will minimize hydrologic alterations to existing wetlands. Surface ponding in existing kettles and depressed areas and subsurface infiltration beds designed under some roads and parking areas would be constructed using soils processed on the site with suitable rates of permeability to infiltrate stormwater to the aquifer. a Measures such as rainwater harvesting (i.e., collecting and storing stormwater for beneficial use, such as inigation, fire flow, etc.), and drought-tolerant landscaping could minimize requirements for irrigation with potable water. Although rainwater harvesting a a a a 3,huu>ar"l !:srlu'4 WaterResources- --' -r+4R,Pleasald-llarbot tin al Su pplemental El S December 2A15 3.2-19 a may not be economical on a large scale, it is a measure that could be implemented on case-by-case basis. Measures to reduce the amount of stormwater to be infiltrated could include increasing evaporation and transpiration by introducing vegetation that requires significant quantities of water to survive, and/or by reducing the amount of new impervious surface proposed. Certain areas of the site not planned for development could be reserved for maintaining or adding vegetation to maximize evapotranspiration. Reduction of roadway width to the minimum acceptable to Jefferson County and the local fire district would reduce runoff quantities. Periodic monitoring of groundwater levels, chloride concentrations, and specific conductance in select wells will be conducted to monitor potential seawater intrusion. lmplement the best management practices within the Pleasant Harbor Golf Course BMP Plan (GeoEngineers, 2012) as applied to water use, water quality, and construction management. 3.24 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 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. a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental HS :i.r.r,i -,- :er.'.:,.i - a''- December 2015 3.2-20 3.2 Water Resources. 3.3 PLANTS 3.3-{ 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 Resorf Forest Repoft, the 2012 Presciptive Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix G), and the 2012 Habitat Management P/an (Appendix.il). 2007 Ets Existing plants and vegetation were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts This section is based on field reconnaissance conducted by GeoEngineers in 2006 as part of lhe 2006 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessmenf (2007 DEIS Appendix 7). Cunently, the Pleasant Harbor site is largely undeveloped with development limited to scattered vacant buildings within the Black Point area from the historic campground use, and two single- family residences and a real estate office north of Black Point Road. Vegetation presently found on the overall site consists primarily of an overstory of Douglas-fir (Pseudofsuga menziestt) 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 (Rrbes sanguineum), Scotch Broom (Cyfisus scoparus), 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 occurence of this species in the DNR NHP rare plants !ist, nor was suitable habitat or individual plants observed during the site investigation. Pleasant Hqrhor Final Supplemental EIS December 2Ul5 3.3-1 3.f,le: Plants 4rc€f - : Maritime Village Area The Maritime Village as a whole demonstrates a heavily impacted previously forest area. From past log dumping and rafting along the harbor shore, to the extent of the clearing and grading that has occurred adjacent to Highway 101, a very large percentage of this area is now converted in use from forest growth to other purposes and activities. The northern portion of the Maritime Village area is comprised of a fairly uniform stand of Douglas fir beginning at or just above the ordinary high water line of the harbor and extending up to the edge of Highway 101, with a small portion comprised of mixed conifer and hardwood. This area has been selectively logged in the area of the two existing homes, yards, and parking areas. Significant mass grading activity has occurred in creation of the building sites and also in creation of the access to the waterfront and to the existing dock and floats that serve the two houses. Trees in this area have been impacted by environmental and mechanical influences. The southern portion of the Maritime Village area is predominately a gravel parking area and also includes a small building currently being used as a real estate office. Expanding areas of scotch broom and blackberries and other invasive species compose the remaining landscape of this area. The WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road generally contains a mature, second growth coniferous forest with somewhat recent clearing at the eastern end of the proposed new roadway alignment. This area is dominated by a dense thicket of Scots broom intermixed with Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, and sapling red alder. Black Point Area Under existing conditions, the Black Point Campground area of the project site is currently primarily comprised of existing vegetation with several scattered vacant buildings. The Black Point area is divided into subareas based on the health of the forest: BP-1, BP-2, BP- 3, and BP-200' (see Figure 3.3-1). The BP-1 subarea encompasses approximalely 21 percent of the total Black Point area and is characterized by relatively low impact within steeper tenain, with larger trees than other Black Point timber stands, perhaps 50 to 70 years old. The BP-2 subarea encompasses more than half of the Black Point area and is comprised of a moderate level of impact caused by campground roads, trails, and utilities, causing poor stand development, insufficient reestablishment of tree cover and invasion of scotch broom and other non-native species. Some regrowth of vegetation and young tree groMh is evident due to cessation of campground use in recent years. The glacial kettles are also within this subarea, which have been logged in the past with skid trail evidence and timber stand regeneration. The BP-3 subarea encompasses almost one-fifth of the Black Point area and is heavily impacted by camp site, roads, buildings, recreational areas, and maintenance facilities. The 200 foot Hood Canal Shoreline buffer area (BP-200') is designated as Conservancy and the trees and vegetation have experienced light impact through human activity. 3.3-2lmpacts 2007 Ets The2OOT EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation. .-rr! 3; . ] : ir} - i ?-P.frraEEf rlp f,,l a rb o r F i n a I S u p p I em e ntal El S' December 2015 3.3-2 ,?_.:a 3,&har' 'rt' 1Plants I Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS BP. Pteasant Harbor Marina and Gotf Resort Btack Point Gotf Course Area / t NorthNot BP.3 lmpact Class Areas Property Llne lmpact Class lD lndicates Same lmpact Group Hood Canal Buffer Area =>200 feet,\- BP.2 ? Source.' Resource Management Group, 2013 Figure 3.3-1 Forested Subareas EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc,EII sEts 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 percent under Alternative 2, These areas would be cleared of existing and new maintained landscaping would be provided in us areas would be retained under SEIS Alternative 1 Maritime Village Area As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now proposed to be limited to occur within existing building footprints in the Marina Center (marina upland) area, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit, which does not require additional environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development other than a storage building approved on the Binding Site Plan would occur outside of existing building footprints in the marina area under the SEIS Alternatives. The commercial development and a portion of the residential development proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area would be relocated to a new 3-story building proposed atthe 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 propefi 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 December 2015 3.3-4 3.3 Plants to under Alternative would be retained under and 103 acres would be retained under Alternative the development. These trees would be irrigated and cultivated until replanting is possible within designated areas of the development. A typical area of non-golf course disturbance would be re-connected to the natural environment through transplanting healthy vegetation from the site, as well as using native and low water consumption plants such as junipers and on-site bark mulch and non-invasive ground cover. Certain areas would be attractively planted with annuals and perennials for color. No Action Alternative Under Scenario B,it is assumed that the site would continue to asa residential area based on the rural residential 3.3-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Els The2007 EIS did not evaluate impacts to plants and vegetation. BoGG Gonditions The following plant mitigation measures identified by the*Hflerson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) ire applicable to Altematives 1, 2 ffi. Mitigation Measu res Completed 63 (a) ['he SEIS shal] includel 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 individ ua I circumstances. a 3.?i=. -: Plantg' '^rrrrl.r. Pleasant Harbgq Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.3-5 --f a- nart Scenario A, the site would remain in its existing condition, and there would.be no or permanent impacts to'existing plant habitats and species.habitats habitat would remainintact would remain intact and that a 9-hole be developed in the Black Point area. Development under this scenario would result and 3, Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction 63 (s) The developer will ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to 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 natura! forest land buffers. Statesman at its expense shall manage these easements including removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees and replanting to retain a natural visua! separation of the development from Highway 101. o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135[1][2][6]), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they cunently 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 infil! plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. a a a o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6) and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings will be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings. o The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rightsof-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 Ddcdmber 2015 3.3-6 3.3 Plants a 63 (w) Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or more at breast height. An arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure roots and surrounding soil of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (10 inches or more in diameter at breast height IDBH]) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the BoCC conditions, the following mitigation measure for plants would also apply: 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). 3.34 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With proposed under either Alternative 1 areas of would be removed o Pleasant Harber Finat Supplemental HS Dicember f0i5 3.3-7 2 acres under Alternative 1, 152 acres under Alternative 2, and 132 form of 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 altematives could affect these resources. This section is based on the 2012 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H). Shellfish resources are described and analyzed in a separate section, Section 3.5, Shellfish. 3.+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 in2007 DEIS Appendix 7. Fish Several intermittent or seasonal stream channels were identified on site (Type 5 under the County classification system). The streams are steep in gradient and blocked from fish passage due to structural barriers. Hood Canal is habitat for multiple fish species, including Chinook and Chum Salmon, Steelhead, and BullTrout. The southerly beach of the site is adjacent to important tidelands and the mouth of the Duckabush River, which is important not only for shellfish, but for all stages of salmon and fish life cycles. The Duckabush River delta is considered an important shrimp nursery area, and important habitat and nursery for juvenile stages of Dungeness crab. Wildlife The site was evaluated for terrestrial habitat. The site is cut off from the balance of the peninsula by US HWY 101, but is still used by a variety of species, including birds, deer, and coyote. Large animals, including elk, may occasionally visit the site, but there is no evidence of regular use due to the highway. The site was examined for use by threatened or endangered species, but no nesting sites were found. The riparian edge, wetlands, and buffers do provide good habitat. No evidence of eagle nesting or roosting was identified onsite. A potential osprey nest, if still active, could exist in the Pleasant Harbor area. Threatened and Endangered 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 '::--' :;.ar:.yt:.-:\a! ^'t:,- December 2075 3.+1 3.4., Fish & Wildlife SEIS The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Maina and Golf Resorf 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 Cana! and Pleasant Harbor shorelines. Fish Consistent with the 2007 ElS, there are no streams containing ESA-listed fish species present on the site. There are two seasonal streams within the SEIS site, which are non-fish-bearing drainages that enter Pleasant Harbor along the northern shoreline near the marina and proposed maritime village. These small drainages are seasonal and primarily carry stormwater from US Highway 101 to Pleasant Harbor. Three additional seasonal, non-fish-bearing drainages enter Pleasant Harbor along the northern shoreline near the marina outside of the SEIS site. One seasonal, non-fish-bearing drainage is located within the WDFW-owned property north of Black Point Road. As noted in the 2007 ElS, Hood Canal, which connects to Pleasant Harbor and borders Black Point to the east, contains many fish species and serves as a migratory conidor 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 hening is the only species of forage fish with spawning areas along the southern shoreline of the site (WDFW, 2011). The preferred habitat for Paciflc 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,2O11). 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 sunounding 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 Harbg*Einal Supplemental EIS D*ember 2015 3.+2 3.€leasant narbat 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 eastem shoreline of Black Point approximately 0.5 mile east of the site. There are also two nests located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest along the shoreline of the Hood Canal and one inland nest located approximately one mile to the north (WDFW, 2011). The shoreline on the southern edge of Black Point and the Pleasant Harbor shoreline contain mature trees suitable for eagle perching. There are no nests, communal roosts, foraging areas or buffers located on the site. However, there is presence of bald eagles in the project vicinity, which indicates there is potentialfor bald eagles to utilize the site. Numerous snags that contained signs of use by woodpeckers and insects were observed throughout the site. lt is likely that the indicators of woodpecker use on the snags were caused by the Northern flicker. Visual observations of various birds were made during the investigation, including American robins, American crows, hummingbirds, and great blue heron. Although several bird species were observed at the site, no nests were observed during the site investigation. There is a documented osprey nest located offsite about 300 feet south of Pleasant Harbor. Ospreys were observed to be present in the nest during a field reconnaissance on April3, 2008. Marbled murrelets are associated with marine environments and oldgrowth 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 munelets 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-' December20li 3.+3 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 ranoe. Elk are not exoected to cross over heavilv traveled roads such as Hiqhwav 101. .Approximatelytwomilesnortheastofthesitethereare..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.+2 lmpacts 2007 Ers 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 Iand 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. Pleasanl llarbr Fthal Supplemental EIS December 20f5 3.tt-4 3.4teasan; J 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. sEts This section identifies and analyzes impacts to fish and wildlife on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site with proposed development. lmpacts are expected to be generally similar for Alternatives 1 , 2 and 3, except that development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consolidated into fewer buildings, thereby additional wildlife habitat red to Altemative 1 and the 2007 ElS. Fish Proposed site development is not expected to increase pollutants into the harbor. As part of this development and as part of the water quality mitigation effort, the existing septic tanks, pumps, and drainfields would be replaced with a sewage treatment plant and water system. The treated water from the sewage treatment plant would then be used as irrigation for the golf course. Also, as part of the water quality mitigation effort, the resort would be required to collect water quality data in the surrounding area using existing state monitoring stations. Should changes in water quality be identified, the resort would be required to notify Jefferson County and participate in rectifying problems. Runoff from new pollutiongenerating 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 conidors formed by areas of temperate coniferous forest that could connect the project site to the peninsula and additional undeveloped parcels in the vicinity. Various strategies would be implemented to help protect wildlife resources throughout the site from impacts caused from the development. These strategies include providing natural vegetated areas that would be protected from development and remain undisturbed. Pleasant Hdr&r Final Supplorhental EKl" ..-- December 2075 3.+5 3.+ Fish &Wildlife potentially more natural area would be left in additional wildlife habitat Pleasant Harbor Fina! SEIS L€gsl Deslptbn: 25 North 8d Range 2 \rH of lho Legend -v\f,datld-vthilrnd Burfr - ot{\,u, -oH\rvM Bufbr -Top{f-stopc-Top{t€lop. Butbf ----PDperty Bom&ry lunuiteconttor Falmys @waeraa"rer Rodudion lwetnna aurulooitton Source.' GeoEngineerc, 2013 Figure 3.4-1 Wildlife CorridorsE[til{rifflli T I '1" l-tr;r f (l ? /\ ir I I a tl f -"+ 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 R Elk do not currently utilize the site or may to a limited extent, elk could be ed from utilizin this site the installation of an exclusion fence because there is 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 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.+7 3.4 Fish &Wildlife for them to be atracted to the course for and its$cenario A,the site to fish and in and there would be no based on the r threatened and that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area underlying rura! residential zoning.The impacts to fish, wildlife and resources would as described in the 2007 Final EIS. 3.+3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets 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 Resorf Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this requirement. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction The three northerly streams shall be set aside in a natural area, and development shall be limited to that necessary to provide adequate access and road right-of-way. All culverts carrying streams shall be fish passable where the preconstruction reports identify that a stream has the potential for fish passage if obstructions can be removed. o These three northerly streams are outside of the SEIS site boundary. This measure shall to the Site Plan for the marina afea. The two southerly streams shall be protected during construction using best management practices, and road crossings shall comply with adopted standards. 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 5O-foot buffer of native vegetation. The Proposalwill 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 a o a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.+8 3,fl*;s,-. - '-.- l Fish &Witdlife -- -'r,o, i,n", Scenario B assumes small 9-hole golf course would retain more open space as compared to the 1,2 and 3. Because thiS scenario assumes that single family homes would be the southern site boundary, greater impacts to the natural habitat on the riparian edge could result, However, on an overall this scenario would be less than under Alternatives 1 2 and forthe Site Plan Permit. As well, the JCC 18.15.315 code reference should be JCC 18.22.270, and streams require a 50 to 7S-foot buffer of native vegetation. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrentwith Operation The resort shall be required to annually collect water quality monitoring data from the state water quality sampling station at Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the County. !n the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall consult with the resort, the !oca! 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. 63 (l) A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.9., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 101, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce the dangers to predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to humans. a BOGC GONDITIONS 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 a o The 2012 Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resorf Habitat Management Plan (Appendix H) fulfills this condition. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, the following fish and wildlife mitigation measures would also apply: Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction Designated vegetated areas/conidors shall be left undisturbed and extend throughout areas of development. These undisturbed vegetated areas will consist of the typical forested habitat that currently exists on the site. The areas will be dominated by a coniferous and deciduous forest, with dense to moderately dense shrub and herbaceous layers. lnstead of the JCC 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. o a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.+9 3.4,: Fish &Wildlife a a a a o 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 conidors that lead to offsite areas and to other remaining vegetated areas will be left throughout the golf course and housing areas. These conidors wi!! 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 conidors 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. lmplement the best management practices within the Pleasant Harbor Golf Course BMP Plan (GeoEngineers, 2012) as applied to wildlife management and construction management. 3.44 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the site would result in the loss of some existing upland wildlife habitat. However the would retain areas of habitat onsite (approxi of the site would be undisturbed under Alternatives 1 respectively). With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to fish and wildlife would be anticipated. mately 31 ,2 an;d 3, Pleasant llarbr Fiml Supplenenfal EISDecember2olS 3.4-10 3.P.eaa,a :- Fish & Wildlife - ''rr ... .;i 80 acres and 103 3.5 SHELLFISH 3,5-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ers Section 3.2.1 of the 2007 EIS (within the Water Resources section) outlines the methodology and information sources for the DEIS Shellfish subsection, including shellfish closure zones, marine water quality data records, cunent and tidal records, field assessments, and a marine survey. Shellfish resources, including mussels, clams, and oysters were observed within Pleasant Harbor and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor Marina. The southerly beach of the project site is adjacent to important tidelands and the mouth of the Duckabush River, which is considered an important shrimp nursery area, and important habitat and nursery for juvenile stages of Dungeness crab. Water Quality As noted in the 2007 ElS, Pleasant Harbor is vulnerable to water quality issues, as is the adjoining Hood Canal. A shallow sill, approximately 150 feet deep, exists at the entrance of the Hood Canal that restricts the exchange of water between Hood Canal and the Puget Sound. A detailed discussion of water quality outside of Pleasant Harbor in the vicinity of the site is found in the report titled Shoreline Characterization Report Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort (2007 DEIS Appendix 3). Water circulation in Pleasant Harbor is limited by a narrow (100 feet wide) and shallow (10 feet deep at low tide) inlet located at the east end of the harbor. The harbor area itself ranges from 30 to 40 feet in depth. The harbor water levels fluctuate with the tides and cunents of the Hood Canal. The water quality samples are detailed in the Marina lmpact Analysis (DEIS Appendix 2). Even though Pleasant Harbor has a narrow inlet and there are two marinas located in the harbor, water quality data suggests that the harbor is flushed by the tides on a regular basis to obtain the same water quality levels of the Hood Canal. The Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) has a water quality monitoring station, #293, in the Hood Canal near the mouth of Pleasant Harbor to measure bacteria levels used to determine shellfish closure zones WDOH 2005). Water quality in Pleasant Harbor "meets standards but there are some concerns;" however, the WDOH has prohibited shellfish harvesting in Pleasant Harbor based on standard concerns with any shellfish grown in an area adjacent to a marina (WDOH 2006a). This decision is not likely to change due to the risk of shellfish containing harmful biotoxins and pollutants to humans. Commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting is not allowed in prohibited areas. Outside Pleasant Harbor !n the 2007 ElS, the overall health of the sheltfish 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;; :f '-;:-:::.;,-::'=11Decemberfrl1-,'.1 ;'' 3.5-1 3.5.' -- Shellfish As part of the 2007 ElS, a review of available literature identified no presence of Priority Shellfish, Sea Urchin (Strongylocentrotus spp.), Dungeness Crab (Cancer magister), or Pandalid Shrimp (Pandalus spp.) located in Pleasant Harbor WDFW 2006). However, presence of these species was documented in the water of the Hood Cana! sunounding Black Point. The 2007 EIS noted that priority marine species may be present in Pleasant Harbor during certain times of the year. A detailed discussion of marine species in the vicinity of the site is found in the Shoreline Characterization Report (2007 DEIS Appendix 3). Pacific oysters were observed in the inter-tidalzone along the shoreline in Pleasant Harbor. Aquatic I nvasive Species Tunicates The 2007 EIS outlines the threat of Tunicate colonies, an aquatic invasive species that can cause ecological damage and has spread in multiple locations around Puget Sound, including Hood Canal. Tunicates, also known as Sea Squirts (Styela clava), are siphon-feeding marine animals. They have no known predators and can quickly blanket the hull of boats, pilings, and other hard surfaces, out competing or suffocating other sea life, including clams, mussels, and oysters. Section 3.2.3 of the 2007 EIS outlines steps the Washington Legislature and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have undertaken to address the spread of aquatic invasive species, including response plans, standards for discharging ballast water, education on boat cleaning, and enforcement and monitoring activities. As part of the response plan initiative the Department of Fish and Wildlife contacted the current owners of Pleasant Harbor Marina and the applicant to discuss the opportunity for partnership in addressing the issue. WDFW has determined that power-washing vessels and concrete docks are a more effective removal process than hand-picking Styela clava (Sea Squirts). ln 2007, approximately 4AYo ot the docks in the Pleasant Harbor marina were wooden or have Styrofoam billets, which are not conducive to the prefened method of power washing. ln order to facilitate the management and/or ultimate eradication of Styela clava in Pleasant Harbor, the WDFW is seeking to have all the wooden docks and those with Styrofoam billets to be replaced over time with concrete docks and concrete floats. sEts As noted in Ghapter 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 shelHish or water quality were undertaken as part of the SEIS. The existing water quality has generally remained as described in the 2007 ElS. Aqu atic I nvasive Species Tu n icates 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- - -Plewat ltaffiinal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.5-2 3.fima..e. ,tar* !Shellfislr ' ^^" , tuf'float system, composite decking with 60% grating for light penetration to the water. This type of construction allows for the power washing as requested by WDFW. D-dock has two small buildings on the far end and is also the fuel dock. The dock replacement also addressed water quality through the replacement of old galvanized gas and diesel fuel lines with double wall lines, installation of sumps and fuel monitoring system, and new fuel dispensers. The marine pumpout system was replaced with a new peristaltic pump system that provides pumpout stations at the slips as well as at the fuel end-tie. The new construction included a new dry fire standpipe system, new power pedestals and wiring, new water lines, and a new fuel building at the end of the dock. Creosote pilings were removed along with a large landing at the upland end of the ramp. New pilings are steel, with a much smaller landing to minimize shading over the tideland. ln February of 2013 Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced the E and F-docks and the headwalk that connects them to the Ddock. The construction was the same as D-dock, with better grating to provide more light penetration to meet DNR requirements. The new docks are connected to the pumpout system that was installed with the D-dock and provides pumpout fittings to accommodate each slip. Electricalwiring and power pedestals was upgraded to accommodate modern boats and improved the potable water system. Creosote pilings were removed, and new stee! pilings installed. The only wood & styrofoam floats remaining are small portable work floats used for maintenance and a small boat / kayak float. The l-dock is older concrete float construction. l, J, and K-docks were installed in the late 90's; no timeframe has been set for replacement of the !, J, and K docks. 3.5-2lmpacts 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS stated that the number of slips at the Pleasant Harbor Marina would not increase as a result of the proposed resort, nor would the operation capacity of the marina increase from a previously approved expansion. Boating traffic and movement in the harbor may be expected to increase from the general public over time as a result of increased interest in the resort. However, increased level of activity is occurring in marinas regionally due to the limited number of marinas available, and no material increase would be predicted over that contemplated in permits for the existing marina. The 2007 EIS noted that it would be possible that there will be an increased demand for public shellfish harvesting by visitors to the proposed development. Notification and information (before harvesting sheltfish) would be available at the proposed development at specific locations, such as the marina, Maritime Village, and Conference Center. ldentification of public shellfish harvest areas and limitations and mapping of private beds for which public shellfish harvesting is not permitted would be part of the public service kiosk information at the Maritime Village. No additional shellfish closures would be anticipated as a result of the approval of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Under the 2007 ElS, to protect fish and shellfish resources, the applicant pulled all development back from the southem shoreline (including closing the current dangerous trail access) to retain the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. This closure to direct public access would reduce the potentialfor harm to the significant shellfish beds located to the south. Pleasant Harbor Finaf$tpplemedal EISD*ember2015 ' -"3.5-3 3.5 Shellftslf -*., With the elimination of the septic system serving the existing marina and the capture and treatment of stormwater from the marina development prior to entering the harbor, the overall effect of the Master Plan proposal would be a reduction in pollutant pathways to the harbor and should result in greater protection of the overall harbor water quality than exists presently. The proposal would replace the existing septic system for the marina (a common source of contamination, particularly in harbors and bays) with a sewer system to eliminate the risk of effluent or treated wastewater entering the bay (all wastewater is treated to Class A standards in the new wastewater treatment system and used for irrigation in the golf course area away from the harbor). The elimination of septic tanks, particularly those serving commercial uses, should provide significant long-term benefit where usage of the overall facilities increases. Potential impacts during the clearing phase include the risk of runoff to the harbor or Hood Canal, a change in the hydrology of the site due to the removal of trees, and changing of the topography and potential impact to wetlands from silts, sediments, or hydrologic flow, both surface and subsurface. On the Black Point portion of the site, significant grading would occur, so special care must be taken to assure stormwater management measures will be implemented concurrently with clearing and grading for all phases, to protect water quality, both off site and in existing wetlands, during construction. All rainwater percolates through the soils on this portion of the site. Rainwater contributes to the wetland systems on the center and east side of the property, and there is no or limited runoff to the Canal from the majority of the site (see 2007 DEIS Figure 3-19). The construction of the golf course, residences, and commercial facilities are all designed to capture rainwater and stormwater onsite. This water would be utilized onsite, treated, and then be infiltrated back into the aquifer to eliminate site runoff and to maintain the aquifer system. The proposal does include a program to dedicate the central kettle to onsite retention and stormwater management, and the depth of the kettle is such that it can easily accommodate preconstruction stormwater from much of the site and prevent any accidental release (see 2007 DEIS Appendix 4). This innovative approach would eliminate offsite impacts and the potential for degradation of water quality and shellfish populations outside of Pleasant Harbor. The avoidance of offsite stormwater discharge either during construction or operation of the golf course facility would achieve the objective of no net impact to the water quality of Hood Canal by reason of the construction and operation of the golf course resort. ln addition, a 2QO foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation would be retained along the shoreline edge to retain the natural condition to the extent possible and provide native plant treatment for stormwater falling outside the developed area. The purpose would be to retain the natural filtration component of the riparian edge to retain the natural condition for stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas. sEts As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints with the exception of an approved storage building in the Marina Center (marina upland) area, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit, which does not require additional environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of existing building footprints or as shown on the Binding Site Plan in the 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. Pleasfuftllartu-Einal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.5-4 3. Pleas+--l !!-4. t.ilt Shellfistr A similar amount of clearing, and the risk of runoff, would occur under SEIS Alternative 1 compared to the 2007 ElS. There would be less clearing resulting in a lower potentialfor 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 Altematives, similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives. Public access to this area would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff. ln compliance with BoCC Condition 63(q), direct stormwater runoff to Hood Canal from the golf course 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 naturaland created detention areas including the lined stormwater pond on Fainray 10. The wastewater treatment system and proposed stormwater management system under the SEIS Alternatives would be similar to that proposed under the 2007 ElS, contributing to enhanced water quality. No Action Alternative it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residentialzoning . The to water and shellfish would be as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.5-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Altematives 1,2 Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction Construction period NPDES general permits wil! need to be obtained and conditions followed to controlstormwater during construction to assure no offsite discharge. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental El&-: =*:; :.ii.--:-;.'+,' -: . :: , December 2015 3.5-5 3.S Shellfish Under Scenario A, the site would remain in its present conditions and there would be no to shellfish. o development of individual lots along the southern shore of the site. lmpervious be less than Altematives 1, 2 and 3, but single-family residential development would by septic tanks which have historically been a problem on Hood Canal. Buffers would be necessary to protect fish and shellfish. Overall, significant impacts would not be expected if residences are properly permitted, and a vegetated'buffer to protect the southerly bluff and control stormwater. Septic tanks and altemative would need to be buitt or to meet cunent water 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 gotf course side, where irrigation and stormwater shall be captured treated, retained, and infiltrated onsite with no offsite discharge. o Clarification: Stormwater from pollutiongenerating 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 al! stormwater from impervious surfaces of the improved golf course ares. 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 cunent codes and protection against leaks and unauthorized discharges shall be provided as part of any permit issued for work on the marina side of the resort. This is a first priority for the project. Fueling permits for facilities shall also require a refueling plan approved by the local Fire Code official as part of the first permit and in place prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for work at the marina or Maritime Village. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented During Operation Marina M itisation Measu res All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington before discharge. There shal! be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times. a a a o a a a a Pleasant llarbq Final Supplemeatal E ,S December20l5 3.5-6 3.$ :- --- --_:- Shellfrslnec erf ^ ^ - ^ ^' - 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 shellfi sh 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 banier 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 Mitiqation 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. a a a a a a a a a a a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplementaffl& i :, : ::-*3isl+t**e- 'ii :--.: December 20t5 : r lriri-r' 3'5-7 3.S Shellfish- a BoGG Gonditions The following shellfish mitigation measures identified by the =lgfferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Altematives 1,2 ffi. Mitigation Measures Com pleted 63 (t) The marina operations shallconduct 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 lnvasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the Department of Fish and Wildlife was drafted in October 2010 (Appendix l). This agreement shall be finalized prior to the BoCC signing of the Development Agreement. sErs With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for shellfish would be necessary. 3.54 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shellfish would be anticipated. Pleasant llar&rFinal Sapplemeda, E S December 2015 3.5-8 a 3.$-, _*: Sfielll,slr -^amr.^e '^' ? 3,6 SHORELINES 3.6-{Affected Environment 2007 Ets 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, Utilaties, of this SEIS. Shellfish is addressed in Section 3.5, Shellfish, of this SEIS. Public access is addressed in Section 3.18, BoCC Conditions regarding the compliance with BoCC Condition 63(d). The 2007 EIS includes a Shoreline Characterization Report (DEIS Appendix 3), which includes a shoreline inventory and assessment of the site. This report describes the elements of the natural and built environment along the Hood Canal shoreline including shoreline modification such as bulkheads, piers and docks. A detailed discussion of the shoreline in Pleasant Harbor is presented in the Marina lmpact Analysis report (DEIS Appendix 2). The southern shoreline along Hood Canal is currently undeveloped and contains natural vegetation. Steep slopes roughly 150 feet tall separate the upland property from the shoreline. The shoreline is comprised of numerous mature trees and overhanging vegetation. Boat landing on this shoreline is inhibited by the high quantity of large rocks and shallow depths. A foot trail on the site provides access from the upland portion to the southern shoreline. Due to the steep slopes along this section of shoreline, this foot trail is the only shoreline access from the site. Within the 2007 EIS site boundary, the shoreline includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina, which includes commercial structures within the shoreline jurisdiction. The southern portion of Pleasant Harbor does not contain buildings or structures and contains natural vegetation. A public access boat ramp borders the site to the south. The 2007 EIS notes that al! 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 'conservancf for the southern bluff shoreline along Hood Canal. Residential development regulations in 2007 required a buffer between a 3O-foot minimum or 1O0-foot maximum setback from steep slopes such as those along the southern Hood Canal shoreline. sEls As noted in Chapter 2, the marina area has been removed from the SEIS site boundary, as this area is now subject to an existing Binding Site Plan, which does not require additional environmental review. The shoreline area within the SEIS site boundary along Pleasant Harbor includes the existing Pleasant Harbor House and the Bed and Breakfast. The shoreline area along Hood Canal remains in the same condition as under the 2007 ElS. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental ElS ,= -''--I..,:..- --:,:.--::'.1'= December 2015 ;' .' -. 3.6-1 3.C 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 southem Hood Canal shoreline remains the same as under the previous SMP. 3.6.2 lmpacts 2007 Els 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 Mailtime 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 prqect site includes five small (non fish-bearing streams) within the marina area. The streams pass through and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The streams carry both stormwater from the state highway and intermittent overflow in the wet season. The streams will be left in their native condition, buffered, and all stormwater will be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge. As a result, the flows would be maintained and water quality would be improved as a result of the project. The golf course area would be designed to retain the shoreline jurisdictional area (ordinary high water plus 200 feet) in a natural condition. No project stormwater would be discharged into Hood Canal. The existing stormwater facilities along the highway are inadequate by today's standards and would require upgrading to protect water quality in Pleasant Harbor and Hood Canal. All development within the shoreline area of the harbor would be required to be captured and treated prior to discharge into the harbor. As a result, with modern stormwater management and treatment mechanisms, the net discharge to the harbor would be cleaner, with less turbidity, solids and potential pollutants (road runoff) than currently exists. ln addition, a 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation would be retained along the south shore conservancy shoreline edge to retain the natural condition to the extent possible and provide native plant treatment for stormwater falling outside the developed area. The purpose is to retain the natural filtration component of the riparian edge to retain the natural condition for stormwater runoff from the undeveloped areas. ln the master plan this shoreline is dedicated to open space and no structures or golf facilities are to be constructed in the shoreline area. Site-specific wetland mitigation plans may provide for water features and wetland mitigation areas at or in the outer 100 feet of the shoreline area to enable the creation of a wetland forested edge mitigation wetland should such designs prove warranted and feasible during permit review. Any site-specific issues of such a feature would be reviewed under the project-specific environmental review for the shoreline permit required and a specific construction/operation mitigation plan shall be approved prior to construction. .= P leasanfrffiina I S u pple m e nta I El S December 2015 3.6-2 Shorelines- The Master Plan would pull all development back from the southern shoreline (including closing the current dangerous trail access) to retain the natural condition and minimal use of the southern shoreline. The present degraded road/trail access to the conservancy shoreline is cut off for safety and environmental reasons and a shoreline permit would be required for all such construction to assure safety in the area. Public access to the shorelines in the resort is limited to the marina area's "suburban" shore where the more intense use is anticipated and public facilities to safely accommodate that access are provided. sErs As noted in Chapter 2, redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation is now limited to occur within existing building footprints with the exception of the storage building shown on the Binding Site Plan (BSP) in the Marina Center (marina upland) area. This redevelopment is approved under a separate existing BSP permit, which does not require additional environmental review. Marina rowhouses, townhouses and stepped/stacked townhouses, illustrated in the 2007 ElS, are eliminated from the proposed site plan within the 150-foot shoreline buffer. No new development would occur outside of that allowed by the BSP in the marina area under the SEIS Alternatives. The Maritime Village proposed in the 2007 EIS site plan for the marina area within the shoreline jurisdiction is now reconfigured and relocated to a new three-story building proposed at the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 't01, 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 cunent site boundary, north of the marina). The streams pass through and discharge into the shoreline jurisdiction of Pleasant Harbor. The streams carry both stormwater from the U.S. Hwy 101 and intermittent overflow in the wet season. As with the 2007 ElS, the streams would be left in their native condition, buffered, and stormwater from new pollution-generating surfaces would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge. As a result, the flows would be maintained and water quality would not be degraded as a result of the project. The 200-foot riparian buffer of trees and native vegetation along the southem shoreline edge of the site would be retained under the SEIS Altematives, similar to the 2007 EIS Alternatives. Public access to this area would be restricted to maintain the natural condition of the bluff. Similar to that under the 2007 ElS, the proposed residences along the southern portion of the site on Black Point would be set back no less than 30 feet from the steep slope in that area. No Action Alternative Under , it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning to the shoreline environment would be as described in the 2007 Final EIS Pleasant Harbor Finat Suppleltnataf,ElS-' ' -.. Decethber20li 3.6-3 ^ ' 3.6 Shorelines r**a, i,/ t. Scenario A, it is assumed that no of the site would occur would remain The homes would be located in the southein of the indicated in the to this area 3.6-3 Mitigation Meagures 2007 Els The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,2ffi Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction . Public access and facilities shall be provided at the marina and Pleasant Harbor. . Public access to the southern shoreline should be curtailed and direct access eliminated. Al! 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 Canalfrom the developed golf course area is required. BoGG Gonditions a a a Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Highway 101. 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 Vitlage noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the ' 3.F.j:-:=:.t ,- fi-ee*r* i ShorellneS' n^ r -December 2015 3.6-4 course under Altematives 1,2 and 3. Homes in this area would need to be set well the bluff to meet'geological 'hazard requirements and limit water quality concerns. lt that the construction of single family residences could lead to demand for docks. ln the Maritime Village area, six additional homes would result in impacts; septic systems would need to be carefully sited to avoid tn no additional shoreline would be nevv proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. a 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they cunently 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,hhe site plan for the MPR shal! "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 Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to shorelines would be anticipated. Pleasant Harbor Final SupplementabEl& ,*-*; -i=-*:=:-.;l:- :: -. December2oTE';''"^' '^' 3'e5 3.6 Shorelines 3.7 CRITIGAL 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 Reporf (see Appendix J). ?.7-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ets Each of the critical areas listed above were addressed in Section 3.10 of the 2007 DEIS. Each of these criticalareas exists on the site, with the exception of frequently flooded areas. Wetlands The 2007 EIS included a detailed wetland assessmenl (2007 DEIS Appendix 9). The site has three wetlands within the gotf course area and none north of Black Point Road within the site. The confirmed wetlands in the gotf course area are identified as Wetlands B, C, and D and are rated as Category ll. The onsite wetlands were delineated using the 2004 wetland rating manual as required by JCC 18.15.325(1X2\.t Standard wetland buffer widths are 100 feet from a'Class !l wetland and 50 feet from a Class lll wetland (JCC 18.50.340(5)).2 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) made a determination on March 27, 2007 that the wetlands are not jurisdictionalfor purposes of USCOE permit review. Wetlands C and D have well established native buffers. Wetland B has seasonal ponding in a large glacial depression known as a kettle and does have some vegetation, but is also affected by vestiges of logging, roads, and infrastructure and as such has disturbed, marginal habitat in places, and was identified as a candidate for modification and restoration to improve both function and value. Aquifer Recharqe Areas As noted in Section 3.10 of the 2007 ElS, portions of the Black Point area of the site are mapped as an aquifer protection district. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas A site-specific Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated July 20, 2006 was contained in the 2007 DEIS (Appendix 7), and existing fish and wildlife habitat on and around the site is summarized in Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife, of this SEIS. I Note: the correct code reference is JCC 18.22.300 2 Note: the correct code reference is JCC 18.22.330, - Pleasantthr&Einal,Su pptemenfal EIS December 2015 3.7-1 Critical Areag Erequently Floqded Areas The site has no flood plains or frequently flooded areas and these provisions do not apply to the Pleasant Harbor site. Geologica!!v 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 runoff is the primary source of hydrology forWetland 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 scruFshrub wetland and is currently undeveloped. Wetland B contains seasonal open-water and is densely occupied by native scrub-shrub and emergent wetland vegetation and that provide food, hiding cover and shelter currently supporting a variety of wildlife species including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Wetland B is not directly connected to streams, tributaries or other wetlands that could provide habitat for fish species. Wetland B is positioned at the bottom of the watershed and collects precipitation runoff from the slopes surrounding the kettle. Precipitation runoff enters the wetland but does not directly discharge back into surface features of the watershed due to its depressional and isolated nature. Wetland B is rated as a Category lll wetland in accordance with the Jefferson County Code with a high score for habitat value. ln general Wetland B scores moderate to high for water quality functions due to it being a closed depressional system that holds back water to allow sediments to settle out and emergent plants to remove pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals and toxic organics. Because Wetland B has no outlet, it was not evaluated for reducing peak flows or decreasing downstream erosion. However Wetland B is considered to function highly for groundwater recharge because there is Pleasant Harbor Final Supplementd El&-. - :-rrr-:rt:1njrr= .: December 2015''^" ' 3.7-2 3.7 Critical Areas'-L... - no surface water outlet and water is only released from the system by groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration. Wetland B provides a relatively high generalwildlife habitatfunction, especiallyforsmallerspecies such as invertebrate, amphibians and birds because there are relatively large sunounding areas of forested habitat, which provide a large upland buffer necessaryforwildlife mobility. Native plant richness provides moderate function and the overall size of the wetland results in a moderate score in functional capacity for mammals, birds, amphibians and other invertebrates. Aquifer Recharqe Areas A description of the aquifer recharge areas within the site is included in Section 3.2.1, Water Resources, of this SEIS. Fish and Wildlife Gonservation Areas A description of the wildlife and associated habitat within the site as well as fish within waters adjacent to the site is included in Section 3.4.1, Fish and Wildlife, of this SEIS. Frequentlv Flooded Areas As noted in the 2007 ElS, there are no frequently flooded areas on the site. Geolooicallv Hazardous Areas A description of the steep slope within the site on the southern site boundary is included in Section 3.1.1, Earth, of this SEIS. 3.7-2 2007 Ers Wetlands lmpacts Wetlands are regulated as a critical area under the state's Growth Management Act, RCW 36.704.060, 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 Iong as the actions are reasonably necessary and the overall suFbasin 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 approximalely 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 retum flow to provide a source of water reuse and golf course inigation 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 boftom of this kettle would be filled, and an Pleasant Harfir Final Supplemenfal EIS December 2015 3.7-3 3.Pte. ,i ; r.:. *' Critical Area5le :'' nna I 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 waterto 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 gotf 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 rightVwastewater discharge permit approval process. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas Section 3.4 of this SEIS summarizes the impacts to Fish and Wildlife within the 2007 ElS. The impacts were also detailed in a site-specific Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment dated July 20, 2006, contained in2007 DEIS Appendix 7. Geologicallv Hazardous Areas The Jefferson County CriticalAreas Ordinance (JCC 18.22.170) requires a 3O-foot setback from geologically hazardous areas, which may be modified by a geotechnical report. The project is retaining a 200-foot vegetated edge along the steep slopes and eliminating potential road and trail traffic down or along the bluffs. The plan fully complies with all requirements and provides an extra margin of safety. The stormwater management plan shall require that all water from developed areas be captured in areas sufficiently removed from the bluff edge and are sized sufficiently to avoid discharge to or destabilization of the bluff in the event of wet seasons or upset. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenfal EIS -:::--=:-:--:E-L?.*j,r+:-ii,. December 2015 '..,.. ?.7-t' ' 3.7 Critical Areas sEls lngeneral,thepotentialforimpactstocritica]areaSfromSElSAlternatives1,2ffi similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 ElS. Wetland B would be filled and the steep slope area at the south end of the property would be preserved under Alternative 1, 2 ffi, as under the 2007 EIS. !mpacts to aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas under Alternative 1 would generally remain the same as under the 2OO7 EtS. Altematives 2 ffi consolidate devetopment into fewer buildings, thus retaining more existing habitat, reducing impervious surface area and increasing aquifer recharge compared to the 2007 ElS. Wetlands Development under either Altemative 1, 2ffi 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 inigation system for use on the golf course. Filling Wetland B with water would create a feature that can be used as habitat for waterfowl and amphibians. The construction of the pond in the kettle would require the removal of vegetation on the slopes and within Wetland B; therefore, vegetation in Wetland B and its corresponding buffer would be removed. The filling of Wetland B and corresponding buffer would result in the loss of habitat primarily used by birds, mammals and reptiles, but, in return, would create additional habitat for waterfowl and amphibians. The Jefferson County designated wetland buffer for a Category lll wetland with high impact land use and a high habitat function score is 150 feet from the edge of the wetland. The buffer surrounding Wetland B is occupied by a multi-layer secondgrowth forest with relatively little invasive species. This buffer is undisturbed and serves as a wildlife conidor and also as habitat for numerous bird, mammal, and reptilian species. The 1S0-foot buffer surrounding Wetland B would be cleared of vegetation to accommodate the proposed water recycling system and driving range. 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. lt is the overall mitigation goal of this project to provide no net loss of wetland functions, values or acreage as a result of development. Mitigation would be on-site and in kind through wetland creation in Kettle C. See Appendix J for a full description of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. under either Alternative 1 2 Wetlands C and D.would retain Pleasant Hxb& Final Sqpplemenfat EIS December 2015 3.7-s 3.Pl,a=anz-:- * Critical Area:Der trti 5 water would not be to wetland conditions associated with wetlands C and D would be maintained and However, development under either Alternative 1, 2 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. Geologicallv 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 Under the No Action Altemative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single- family residential area based on the underlying rural residential The 3.7-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Altematives 1, 2I[. Mitiqation Measures Completed a 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 Supplemenh, E S '-.-.'-a-=: :-.-: December 2015 . .; '; 3.7-6 3'7 'Critical Areas impacts to the functions of would be or 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. to critical to stormwater management would be piecemeal, in contrast to the construction of coordinated system that would occur under SEIS Alternatives 1,2 and 3. lt is assumed of the site would be set back the minimum distance toresidences on the south portion scenario assumes wetlands and wetland with applicable construction consistent with a a protection districts. An approved preconstruction aquifer protection plan shalldemonstrate 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 shalldemonstrate no net loss to overallwetland area function and value. o The 2OlZtNetland 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 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 The2012 Wetland Mitigation Plan fulfills this mitigation measure (Appendix J). Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction The stormwater management plan for construction shall require allwetland 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 forthe 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. ln the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall consult with the resort, the local residents, and the State (both WDOH and WDFW) conceming the source of the change. The resort permits shall require the resort o O a a a - flffi HubeFlnal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.7-7 J.Pft--: **;!:d Critical Area{ to implement any mitigation measures determined necessary by the County to alleviate any water quality issues emanating from the resort properties. BoGG Gonditions No mitigation measures were identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) specifically applicable to critical areas that are not addressed in other sections (e.9., Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.2, Water Resources; and Section 3.4, Fish and Wildlife). SETS ln addition to the of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures the BoCC conditions, the following critical areas mitigation measures would also apply: Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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 2012Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J). Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Concurrent with Operation Post-construction monitoring of the created wetland will occur on an annual basis for a minimum of 5 years and up to 10 years based on the success of the project, in accordance with the 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. 3.74 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 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. Pteasant Harbor @ffirrnlal EISD*eiffi*2015 ^--'3.7-8 o a a o .? 'di 3.7=: '-'.-- Critical Areas'-' )i.i. .'i t t' 3.8 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURGES This section of the SEIS describes existing energy and natural resources conditions on the site, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section also focuses on how the proposed project complies with the intent of LEED standards (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), as required by the BoCC conditions for the proposed project. This section is based on the Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED Standards (Appendix K) and Mason County PUD letter dated November 18, 2013 (Appendix K), and Pleasant Harbor ConceptualLoad Esfimafes (Appendix K). 3.8-{ Affected Environment 2007 Ets 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 cunently 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 lmpacts 2007 Els As noted previously, energy and natural resource conditions and impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 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 ''. -?+tesaaf lli&Finalsupplemeilal El S December 2015 3.8-1 3.Pfaas-ar,; *er**.3 Energy and Natural Resources- ^^' ? utility uses would be provided by the Mason County Public Utility District. The Mason County PUD has indicated that capacity exists for the first phase of development (the Maritime Village), with the installation of cooling fans on the power transformer in the Duckabush Substation (see Appendix K). To serve full buildout of the project, a new substation and associated distribution feeders would be required. lmprovements would be constructed as project loads are added. Additional engineering studies and designs would need to be performed to accommodate the remaining stages/phases of the development. Substantial advance notice (up to three years) would be required to obligate the Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA') to serve the project load. For the wastewater pump stations, backup standby power would be provided by the use of a truck mounted gasoline or diesel generator and permanent onsite generators. Propane would continue to be utilized on site for cooking in restaurants in Tenace 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 mi. LEED ln the United States and in a number of other countries around the world, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is the recognized standard for measuring building sustainability. The LEED green building rating system - developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a Washington D.C.-based, nonprofit coalition of building industry leaders - is designed to promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of buildings and improving occupant health and well-being. LEED consists of a suite of rating systems for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, homes and neighborhoods. LEED is intended to provide building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. !n LEED 2009 (the third and most recent version of LEED) there are 100 possible base points distributed across five major credit categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, lndoor Environmenta! Quality, plus an additional six points for lnnovation in Design and an additional four points for Regiona! Priority. The goal of Pleasant Harbor Final Sup{emenfaF€lS-.:-==.-- --:- December 2015 3.8-2 3.8 Energy and Natural Resources '..(i:-r, .v- 'az ' 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 p@ect, the applicant agrees to comply with the intent of LEED standards (see Appendix K - Nanative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED Sfandards). This narrative also includes the potential number of points awarded to the project per compliance with the LEED standards. As noted above, LEED standards are grouped into the following five base categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, lndoor Environmental Quality, plus two extra categories: lnnovation in Design and Regional Priority. Appendix K lists each of the categories and subcategories for which potential points could be earned toward LEED certification and how the proposed project meets the intent of each of categories. Within the Sustainable Sites category, the project would have a potential of 25.5 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the prerequisite of Construction Activity Pollution Prevention. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Site Selection; Development Density and Community Connectivity; Altemative 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 Appendlx K). The project would meet the prerequisite of Water Use Reduction. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Water Efficient Landscaping; lnnovate Water Technology; and Water Use Reduction (further increase water efficiency). Within the Energy and Atmosphere category, the project would have a potential of 25 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the three prerequisites of Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems, Minimum Energy Performance, and Fundamental Refrigerant Management. The proposed project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Optimize Energy Performance, On-Site Renewable Energy, Enhanced Commissioning, Enhanced Refrigerant Management, Measurement and Verification, and Green Power. Withln 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 eam points in the following subcategories: Waste Management; Recycled Content; Regional Materials, and Rapidly Renewable Materials. The two subcategories under Materials and Resources for which this project would not earn points are Building Reuse and Certified Wood. Within the lndoor Environmental Quality category, the project would have a potential of 14 points (see Appendix K). The project would meet the two prerequisites of Minimum Indoor Air P I e as an-tfiarti[ r F i n a I S u p pl e m ental El S December 2015 3.8-3 - 3.Ptee-.. -"1-r*.,' Energy and Natural Resources ^,nier L.t7 r Quality Performance and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control. The project would potentially earn points in the following subcategories: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring; lncreased Ventilation; Construction lndoor Air Quality Management Plan - During Construction and Before Occupancy; Low-Emitting Materials - Adhesives and Sealants, Paints and Coatings, Flooring Systems, Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products; lndoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control; Controllability of Systems - Lighting and Thermal Comfort; Thermal Comfort - Design; and Daylight and Views. Within the two extra categories, lnnovation in Design and Regional Priority, the project would potentially earn 5 and 4 points, respectively in each category. No Action Alternative it is that the site would continue to AS a single-family based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The potential impacts to energy and natural resources would b" ffi the higher intensity development proposed under Altematives 1,2 3.8-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets As noted previously, energy and natural resource impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS. No energy and natural resource mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. residential area o BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measure identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 m. Mitisation 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. December 2015 Harbor Final Supplemental EIS .. -] '. ' .-,'.':f 3.8.., Energy and Natural Resources" $fr{*;" il't ia^^' would occur and Scenario 30 single'family residences and a Mitigation Measures To Be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (x) Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and 'Green Built'green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to commercial and residential dwelling, respectively, "promote design and construction practices that increase profitability while reduclng the negative environmental impacts of buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being. o The Nanative Demonstrating Compliance with the lntent of LEED standards (Appendix K) addresses this condition. lmplementation of the measures noted in Appendix K fulfills this condition. sEts With the implementation of the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for energy or naturalresources would be necessary. 3.84 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 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. o PleaSant Harb6r Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.8-s 3.8.i,J._. -,, Energy and Natural Resources -iJ 3.9 TRANSPORTATION This section of the SEIS describes the existing transportation system on the site and in the vicinity, summarizes the analysis presented in the 2007 ElS, and evaluates how development under each of the altematives 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-i Affected Environment 2007 Ets Section 3.4 of the 2007 EIS describes the existing transportation system within the study area, including an inventory of existing roadway conditions, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, collision history, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and planned roadway improvements. Roadwavs U.S. Hwy 101 is a state rural arterial that runs along the western boundary of a portion of the site. Black Point Road is local access street that intersects with US Hwy 101 and provides primary access to the site. Other roadways in the study area include SR 104, Center Road, Dosewallips Road, and Duckabush Road. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes for 2006 are presented in Appendix 6 of the 2007 ElS. Daily traffic volumes were obtained from WSDOT, and daily traffic counts on US Hwy 101 and Center Road were conducted prior to and during Labor Day Weekend 2006, including p.m. peak hour (4-7 p.m.) turning movement counts at all study intersections. At other locations, a two percent per year growth rate was used to forecast historical traffic volumes to estimate 2006 conditions. During the peak summer month of August, traffic volumes recorded on US HWY 101 (at the permanent WSDOT traffic recorder station 15 miles south of Black Point Road) were approximately one-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 ElS. All intersections operated at LOS B or better. Detailed LOS summary worksheets were provided in Appendix 6 of the 2007 ElS. December 2015 3.9-1 t.$ , ;;;:. , Transportation Collision Historv Table 3-7 of the 2007 EIS summarizes historical collision data as provided by WSDOT for the 3- year period between January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005 at all study intersections. There were no fatal collisions within the project site vicinity in this $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. Publia frcnspaftatan The 2OO7 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 HadlocUlrondale/Chimacum Tri- Area. Service at US HWY 101 and Black Point Road is provided between 7:10 a.m. until 7:55 p.m. with stops every 2lo 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 nanow shoulders and site distances the length of Hood Canal. Planned Roadwav Improvements bv Others Jefferson County's 2007-2012 Transportation lmprovement Program (TlP) identified no transportation-capacity improvement project that would be impacted by vehicular trips from the proposed project. SEIS The existing roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site have not changed substantially since the 2007 EIS to warrant additional traffic counts or data collection. While ongoing traffic counting programs have been completed by WSDOT and other public agencies within the study area of the proposed project, there have been no comprehensive plan updates, transportation studies, or traffic impact studies of other proposed development that would change the baseline data or assumptions of the original transportation impact analysis completed in 2007. The original baseline assumptions and forecasts remain very conservative forthe SEIS analysis. Pleasant Harbflr Final Supplementaf EIS December 2015 3.9lea.:a:tr i;. . : Transportation ' '3.9-2 3.9-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS describes transportation impacts the proposed Pleasant Harbor development would have on the sunounding arterial network and critical intersections in the site vicinity. The discussion includes non-project related traffrc 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. Nqn:Pt'qiect Traffic Forecasts For the purpose of the traffic analysis in the 2007 ElS, year 2017 was selected as the build-out year based upon full completion and occupancy of the proposed Pleasant Harbor development. Existing traffic volumes were factored by 2 percent per year to estimate year 2017 baseline conditions without the proposed development alternatives. Proiect Trip Generation To evaluate a worst-case scenario, p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation was considered assuming peak summer traffic conditions in combination with no reductions for seasonal occupancy factors. Appendix 6 of the 2007 EIS outlines the supporting documentation and trip generation assumptions related to the Preferred Alternative (Statesman MPR Alternative). Table 3-8 of the 2007 EIS summarizes estimated net trip generation by the proposed Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. An estimated total of approximately 4,100 daily and 363 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (186 entering and 177 exiting) would be generated at full build-out and occupancy of the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. Trip Distribution and Assiqnment Using standard engineering practices and guidelines, new vehicle trips generated by the proposed Pleasant Harbor development were distributed and assigned to the surrounding street system based on local traffic patterns and recent traffic studies conducted in the study area and approved by Jefferson County. Project trip distribution was assumed to follow these patterns from the proposed site: 35 percent to the east via SR 104 to Seattle and Tacoma. 3 percent to the west via Dosewallips Road and Duckabush Road. 25 percent to the north via US HWY 101 and SR 104 to the Olympic Peninsula, Port Townsend, and Whidbey lsland. 30 percent to the south via US HWY 101 to Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle. 7 percent localto Dosewallips State Park and Quilcene. Traffic Volume lmpacts Traffic volumes were estimated for daily and p.m. peak hour conditions to the year 2017 without the proposed project and with the proposed project. Peak hour traffic impacts remained within a a Pleasant Harbor Flnal Supplemenfal EIS December 2015 3.9-3 3.9 - Transportation approvable LOS limits at study intersections in 2017 without the project and under all development alternatives. Detailed traffic volume forecast estimates were provided in Attachment A of Appendix 6 of the 2007 EIS: Transportation lmpact Study. Public Transportation lmpacts Jefferson Transit Route 1 stops on the project site at the intersection of US HWY 101 at Black Point Road, providing transit service four times per day to the main entrance of the Pleasant Harbor properties. At the time of the 2007 ElS, the applicant proposed to purchase and maintain a van or smal! shuttle bus available for guests and tenants to utilize on an as-needed basis for use in group trip making, coordinated events, airport shuttle, and other miscellaneous traffic. The applicant also proposed to work with Jefferson Transit in scheduling and expanding service as necessary to the resort as well as considering joint opportunities to provide layover or transit service and facilities within the site. Non-motorized Transportation lmpacts The 2007 EIS noted that the applicant would be required to fully fund and construct associated frontage improvements onto US HWY 101 and Black Point Road to accommodate nonmotorized facility improvements such as sidewalks, improved shoulder widths, or paved pathways internal to the project and accommodations for bicycle traffic through the intersection with US HWY 101 and project frontages. The applicant proposed to work with Jefferson County in developing a nonmotorized circulation system within the site available to the public that would not impact County or State highways and would provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation between the two proposed main development districts (i.e., Black Point Properties and Maritime Village). lntersection Level of Service lmpacts In Table 3-9 of the 2007 ElS, intersection LOS impacts during the p.m. peak hour were evaluated at study intersections in 2017 without the proposed project and under all development Alternatives. All stopcontrolled movements at study intersections would operate at LOS C or better with and without the development Alternatives in 2017. All intersections would meet adopted localand 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 tums and the revised access to the master plan area, reducing the overall number of entry points onto US HWY 101. The 2007 EIS indicated that design of these sections and WSDOT approval for all work on State Right of Way would be required at the time of preliminary Plat approval. Safetv The 2007 EIS noted that as with the traffic volume data, traffic collision data will be reviewed in conjunction with the preliminary plat to assure the plat is approved based on the most cunent data. But Table 3-7 of the 2007 EIS showed no significant issues that need to be addressed .-* P I ea s ant ll arb6r F tn a I S u pp I e m ental Et S December 2075 3.9-4 3.9;:-- t__t'2_rbfr Transportatioffaqsp h - ?' ^'' 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 lssues The 2007 EIS noted that vehicular site access would be consolidated for the marina and Black Point Property at US HWY 101 and Black Point Road under the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative. A right-only driveway from the marina onto US HWY 101 would also be provided. All other existing access connections onto US HWY 101 would be closed and removed. ln the 2007 EIS under the Statesman Plan MPR Alternative, the applicant proposed three new site access roadways onto Black Point Road for the Black Point Property and Maritime Village, including: 1. A private frontage road that parallels US HWY 101 between Black Point Road and the Maritime Village. Existing traffic associated with the State of Washington Boat Launch Pleasant Harbor would intersect this new frontage road in a consolidated access onto Black Point Road. 2. An emergency-only access into Black Point properties, located opposite the proposed private frontage road on Black Point Road, would also serve a maintenance facility and the proposed community center. 3. A main entry roadway into the resort on Black Point Road, approximately 0.7 miles from US HWY 101, that would serve alltraffic 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 cunent road standards for a collector and would be brought up to cunent standards during final plat development for the golf course. Access Manaqement St 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 WSDOT's access management standards. Based on proposed closure of all existing access connections into the Maritime Village area as proposed by the applicant in the 2007 EIS, the proposed private access connections would be located Pleasant Harbor Einal Supplemental EISDecember20li ){ ' 3.9-5 3.9 Transportation' more than 660 feet away from other existing private access connections. Therefore it complies with minimum access management standards. Marine Resort lnterna! 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 MaritimeVillagewould bedirected north bound onlyon US HWY 101 underthe 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 ElS, and the resultant changes in potential traffic impacts. ln general, the overall trip generation i:i,ffi SEIS Alternative 1, 2 W'&Would generally remain the same as those alternatives evaluated in the 2007 ElS. The level of service (LOS) at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection would not change from the 2007 ElS, even with the potential reductions from implementation of a shuttle bus system. Site access and internal circulation would be slightly modified under the SEIS Alternatives. Chanqes to Proposed Circulation Svstem 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 Hv,ry 101 with a nearly 90-degree intersection angle, providing optimal intersection geometry. lmmediately east of US Hwy 101 along Black Point Road, a new intersection would be constructed to provide access to the north and south portions of the site, provide access to a new transit stop/layover area, and serve as emergency vehicle/maintenance access to the main Golf Course Resort area (see Figure 2-8 in Chapter 2). Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.9-o 3.9 Transportation Under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 ar 3, it is assumed that a marina access drive would be built available for walking, biking, electric vehicles, and managemenUmaintenance for between the ResorUGolf Course and Maritime Village and the existing Marina Building Pleasant Harbor boat slips. As shown below in Figure 3.9-r, beyond the Maritime Village and supporting parking, the new access drive is proposed to be constructed parallel to SR 101 into an existing paved/gravel access roadway system that serves an existing residence (currently operated as a bed-and-breakfast owned by others), the existing 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 north of the Black Point Road intersection would be abandoned as of the louxoFY Errvtxo ED At{D(lto reffrcArox IANItu onvE UDfA TAT Figure 3.9-l As part of the trip generation analysis completed for the SEIS, a portion of new trips were assumed to remain intemal 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. ln the event that easements cannot be obtained across private propefi 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 g 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 December 2015 3.9-7 3.9 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 dffierently under the two SEIS alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the WDFW boat launch would be relocated and interconnected with the proposed Maritime Village Access roadway at a new intersection east of US Hwy 101/Black Point Road. UnderAlternative 2,the WDF1 / 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 ElS. The distribution of land uses on site changes slightly under the SEIS Alternatives; however, the overall trip generation and trip distribution and assignment of the proposal remains similar. Traffic Volumes The transportation technical memorandum (Appendix L) notes that the total project trips may be reduced based on the proposal for shuttle buses to transport people to/from Seattle-Tacoma Airport and for group excursion trips. 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. lt should be noted that these potential reductions were not used in design support thresholds at US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road. Level of Service The level of service (LOS) at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection would not change from the 2007 ElS, even with the potential reductions from implementation of a shuttle bus system. The westbound approach would continue to operate at LOS B with a queue of one vehicle or less, and the southbound left approach would continue to operate at LOS A. Site Access Under either Alternative 1,2 sr,'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). Fleasar*tlarbF.rfhal Su pplemental EIS December 2015 3.9-8 3. Transportation Based on procedures and guidelines in WSDOT's Design Manual, a 1O0-foot southbound left- turn lane is warranted on US Hwy 101 approaching Black Point Road. See Appendix L for the results of this warrant analysis. SEIS Alternatives 1,2 ai6dr;3 include this intersection improvement. The potential for a northbound rightturn lane was also analyzed, considering typical evening commute periods. A northbound 60-foot right-turn pocket with a 10O-foot taper was warranted based on the WSDOT Design Manual. SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 include this intersection improvement. WDFW Drivewav Access to 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 I 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 WDFI,V Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch driveway, substantialfill material and topography changes would be required to construct this interior T-intersection. ln addition, property transfer or stringent access easements across private property would be needed to allow for public access to occur within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort properties. This configuration would mix both projectgenerated 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.l Alternative 2 Under this alternative, the WDFW Pleasant Harbor Boat Launch access roadway would be realigned further east and intersect Black Point Road approximately 1,000 feet east of US Hwy 101 (see Figure 24). 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 Wanen and John Hansen, Department of Fish and WiHlife, Lands Division, March 18,2011. 2 Personal electronic communication between Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant's engineer) and Penny Wanen and John Hansen, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lands Division, August 19,2011. -;.;- Pleasant HarffiF&E,lfipptenen/r/ HS' December 2015 ^ 3.9-9 3.9,.,..,,:..- i , ..fi;-iifrrn Transportafior' Construction !mpacts As noted in Chapter 2,the applicant proposes to complete the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort in phases. For each of these major construction phases, off-site vehicle trips would be generated impacting vicinity roadways and intersections over the course of the assumed 10- year buildout period. Completion of major roadway improvements at the US Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection would be completed early in the construction period. During the course of each construction stage, three main types of traffic would be generated: employee trips, transportation of construction materials and equipment, and miscellaneous trips generated by agency inspectors, related business trips, etc. Typical site preparation, utility development, grading and other earthworUwetland construction activities would involve between 20 and 40 employees/contractors on site on a typicalweekday. However, during construction of specific buildings or infrastructure (e.9., wastewater treatment plant), an additional 30 to 40 employees/contractors would be on site. During peak construction activities, ranges between 75 and 100 construction employees would be on site during periods in which intense construction activity is taking place, generating upwards of 250 daily vehicle trips. Transportation of materials and equipment would occur during short periods throughout the course of the day to accommodate specific equipment transfer or occur over several days to handle specific material transport needs. During these limited periods, larger trucks would be utilized and would typically be limited to less than 50 trips on any given day. Best management practices woutd be implemented by contractors during construction, including necessary on-site truck wash facilities or oversized load transport routing and operations. ln total, typical daily vehicle traffic generation related to construction activities are estimated to be up to 300 daily vehicle trips. This level is less than 10 percent of the total site buildout daily trip generation under the SEIS Alternatives, and therefore, would not represent a significant adverse traffic impact. Parkins 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 G for a breakdown of parking stalls by use/location). Table 3.9-1 Proposed Parking Capacity By Alternative Source; David Hamilton Architects and the Sfafesrnan December 2013;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 Haffi Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.9-10 Surface Parking Total Parkinq Alternative 1 1,003 stalls 533 stalls 1,536 stalls Alternative 2 and 3 887 stalls 663 stalls 1,550 stalls 3.9lle*sani ttafffi |Transportatiorf -^'- I Structured Parkinq 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 allAlternatives. Table 3.9-2 PEAK DEMAND FOR PARKING STALLS BY ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE SEIS STUDY AREA 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€ 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 allAlternatives. Table 3,9-3 CUMULATIVE PEAK DEMAND FOR PARKING STALLS BY ALTERNATIVE (sEts STUDY AREA AND MARTNA AREA) No Action Alternative I Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) Alternative 1 1,536 stalls 1,329 stalls +207 stalls 1,353 stalls + 183 stalls Alternative 2 1,550 stalls 1,353 stalls +161 stalls+197 stalls 1,389 stalls L Demand Surplus(+/ DeficitG) Demand Surplus(+)/ Deficit(-) Alternative 1 1,613 stalls 1,406 stalls +207 stalls 1,521 stalls +92 stalls Alternative 2ffi 1,627 stalls 1,430 stalls +70 stalls+197 stalls 1,557 stalls it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family based on the rural would remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. residential area residential zoning, Potential im ., .P.leasant Harbor Final Supplementat EIS Deccmbr 2015 3.9-11 3.e ITransPortatiof '^dr'..*r -rn;r I Proposed Suoolv Weekday Demand Weekend Demand Proposed Supplv Weekday Demand Weekend Demand A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and the traffic volumes and LOS wouldand Scenario B - Redevelopment Under Existins Land Use Desisnations to have Iess traffic impacts and parking demands as compared to SEIS Alternatives 1, Scenario was estimated at '1 100 30 residential units and a 9-hole golf circulationfewer modifications to the on the 2A%3. Total 3.9€ titigation Measures 2007 EIS The following transportation mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1,2 ffi. 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 tums 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 gotf course resort without traveling US HWY 101 . A detailed traffic design to accommodate traffic on US HWY 101 returning to the resort must be developed, with further traffic analysis and design approval by WSDOT and Jefferson County. Reconstruct the Black Point Road approach to US HWY 101 with adjacent left turning lanes, a widened approach onto US HWY 101, and an "entry treatment" on Black Point Road at US HWY 101. The proposed site access concept would also include a consolidated intersection onto Black Point Road with a realignment of the WDFW boat launch at Pleasant Harbor either in a combined or separate intersection. Provide all access roads and internal roads available for public use to County road standards. Private drives may be to a lesser standard approved by the Public Works Department and emergency service providers during the preliminary plat phase if desired by the applicant. 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 haffic bypass through the resort (i.e. Black Point properties and Maritime Village). a a a o a a a ln addition, the preliminary plat approval for the gotf 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 Pteasant Harbh f inat Su pptementa, E S December 2015 3.9-12 Transportatiof - ^*,,,.,"'"''3.!f -r.----=-- to the site, resulting in a net project trip 100 underAltematives 1 and were assumed to be 900 to o a BoGG Gonditions The following transportation mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are appticable to Altematives 1,Zffi. 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. 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). a sEts All transportation m either Altemative 1, below. itigation 2or3. measures identified in the 2007 FEIS would also apply to SEIS Additiona! transportation mitigation measures proposed are listed a 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 cunently identified in Phase 3 of the proposed construction sequence. ln addition to regrading 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 a a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS : December 2015 ^ -- 3.9-13 -f,!;.:4.r_i;5-.i!+_r..;:: -:: 3.9 Transportafion a between Jefferson and Mason Transit systems as wel! as access to public o 3.94 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Harb* Final Su pplemental .ElS December 2015 3.9-14 3.W-:. TransPoftation " ^'nue, znl ri shuttle and operation of the site development under increased traffic on area Alternatives 1 2and3 SR 3.1O 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 Emlssions Repoft (May 2012), included in Appendix M. 3.{O-i Affected Environment 2007 Els Air quality conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Clilnate 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 occuning over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. Scientists have observed, however, an unprecedented increase in the rate of warming in the past 150 years. This recent warming has coincided with the lndustrial Revolution, which resulted in widespread deforestation to accommodate development and agriculture, and an increase in the use of fossil fuels, which has released substantial amounts of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by both natural processes and human activities and trap heat in the atmosphere. The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. While research has shown that the earth's climate has natural warming and cooling cycles, evidence indicates that human activity has elevated the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally- occurring concentrations resulting in more heat being held within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intemational group of scientists from 130 governments, has concluded that it is "very likelf - a probability listed at more than 90 percent - that human activities and fossil fuels explain most of the warming over the past 50 years."t ln 2007,|PCC predicted that under current human GHG emission trends, the following results could be realized within the next 100 years (the 5h Assessment Report by IPCC is scheduled to be issued in 2014):z Global temperature increases between 1.1 - 6.4 degrees Celsius; Potential sea level rise between 18 to 59 centimeters or 7 lo 22 inches; Reduction in snow cover and sea ice; Potential for more intense and frequent heat waves, tropical cycles and heavy precipitation; and, 1 IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report. February 2,2007.2 IPCC, Summarv for Policvmakers, April 30, 2007. a a a a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental HS - -= --:,i:r-.e .-.aiz' :--;- December 2A15 3.10-1 - ' :3.10 ; - Air Quality a lmpacts to biodiversity, drinking water and food supplies. The Climate lmpacts Group (ClG) - a Washington-state based interdisciplinary research group that collaborates with federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies; organizations; and, businesses - studies impacts of natural climate variability and global climate change on the Pacific Northwest. ln 2009, CIG issued the Washinglon Climate Change lmpacts Assessmenf, which included climate change scenarios for Washington State and used those scenarios to assess the potentialfuture impacts of climate change. Key findings for climate change impacts included: Average temperature would increase by 2"F by the 2020s,3.2" F by the 2040s, and 5.3" F by the 2080s. The April 1 snowpack is projected to decrease by 28 percent across the state by the 2020s,40 percent by the 2040s, and 59 percent by the 2080s. Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs. Requlatorv Context United Sfafes Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with enforcing the Clean AirAct and has established air quality standards for common pollutants. On September 22,2009, EPA released final regulations that require 29 categories of facilities to report their GHG emissions annually, starting in 2011. Facilities covered by these regulations include oil refineries, pulp and paper manufacturing, landfills, and a variety of other manufacturing and industrial sources of emissions. lndividual development projects, such as the .Pleasant Harbor project, are not subject to these regulations Western Regional Climate Action lnitiative On February 26, 2007, the Govemors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington signed the Western Climate lnitiative 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 fossi! 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 wil! cover nearly 90 percent of the GHG emissions in WCI states and provinces. Sfafe of Washington a a o Plea:sant lffibr#l nal SuBplem entat EIS December 2015 3.10-2 3. Air QualitY't ^^''r ln February of 2007, Executive Order No. 07-02 was signed by the Govemor 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. ln2007, the Washington legislature passed SB 6001, which among other things adopted the Executive Order No. 07-02 goals into statute. ln 2008, the Washington Legislature built upon SB 6001 by passing E2SHB 2815, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill. While SB 6001 set targets to reduce emissions, the E2SHB 2815 made those firm requirements and directed the state to submit a comprehensive GHG reduction plan to the Legislature by December 1, 2008. As part of the plan, Ecology was mandated to develop a system for reporting and monitoring GHG emissions within the state and a design for a regional multi-sector, market-based system to reduce statewide GHG emissions. ln 2008,4 Ecology issued a memorandum stating that climate change and GHG emissions should be included in all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analyses and committed to providing further clarification and analysis tools. ln 2009, Executive Order 09-05 was signed ordering Washington state actions to reduce climate- changing GHG emissions, to increase transportation and fuel-conservation options for Washington residents, and protect the state's water supplies and coastal areas. The Executive Order directs state agencies to: develop a regional emissions reduction program; develop emission reduction strategies and industry emissions benchmarks to make sure 2020 reduction targets are met; work on low-carbon fue! standards or altemative requirements to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector; address rising sea Ievels 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 "significancen; and, a description of different types of mitigation measures. Guidance was also provided regarding the requirement to discuss the ability of a proposal to adapt to climate changes as a result of global warming. ln 2011, Ecology narrowed the focus of the draft guidelines and in its place developed internal guidance for Ecology staff to use when Ecology is the lead agency or an agency with jurisdiction in Guidance for Ecology lncluding Greenhouse Gas Emissrons rn SEPA Revievvs 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:/lwww.governor.wa. gov/execorders/eo_0742. pdf a Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals, April30, 2008. P I e a s a nt H a rbor F i n a I S u p p lemental EfS:,.';. -. -. . : r. - -- r. December'20li 3.10-3 3.10 Air QualitY,'"'-. ' (consisting primarily of GHG emissions associated with heating, power and vehicle operation) The rest of the site is not in cunent use. 3.10-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets As noted previously, air quality conditions and impacts (including GHG emissions) were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts This section focuses on the probable GHG emissions impaglp.lhat could result with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2'W. New development under either Alternative 1, 2 oru 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 wellas increases in GHG emissions. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 Qfm would occur gradually over the approximately 1O-year buildout of the site, and associated demands for energy and GHG emissions would also increase incrementally over that time period. See Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources, for more information on energy use. Alternative 2 A GHG emissions report was completed for this project which evaluated three scopes of emissions sources. Construction and operational emissions sources are accounted for under each scope. Scope 1 emissions are defined as direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the project. These can include emissions from fossilfuels bumed onsite, emissions from owned or leased vehicles and other direct sources. Specific Scope 1 GHG emissions sources anallzed for the Pleasant Harbor project are described below in Table 3.10-1. Table 3.10-1 SCOPE 1 GHG EMISSION SOURCES Mobile Power Generation Combustion Power to run construction tools and equipment, and to provide providinq heatinq and liqhtinq Land Use Change - Deforestation Land Use Change - Below Grade Carbon Loss Clearing and grading activities. Removal of below grade (root to shoot) organic carbon stocks. Pleasant Harbkpln2l Sapplemeilal EIS Decetnber 2015 3.10-4 3.1G - :---& I Air Qualitfacer'r h^ - nn'7' CONSIRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION M. Table 3.10-l continued Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resoil: Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. May 2012. See Appendix 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.s With mitigation, it is estimated that GHG emissions could be reduced to approximately 4,743.10 tCO2e for construction and to 931.48 tCO2e for operational sources, representing a reduction of approximately 14% and 15o/o, 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 additiona! 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. s tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. Land Use Change - Soil Organic Carbon Loss Methane Emissions from movement and stockpiling of topsoilfor use throughout the site (one-time tillage event resulting in soil Methane created from organic constituents breakdown carbon release 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 Traditionalrefrigerants used in coolers, chillers, freezers, air conditions units and propellants used for fire suppression Fertilizer Application The unwanted chemical reaction that turns a portion of beneficial surface applied nitrogen fertilizer into the GHG, nitrous oxide. Cam pfire/Fireplace Com bustion There are no plans for wood or gas burning fire or campfires - however, campfires could be created occasionally for special or ceremonial events. Pleasant Harhor Final Supplemental EIS - '==*- -*gr.=* ;;:: December20l5 -4"r,,-,:' 3.10'5 3.1c - Air Quality CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION TIONAL SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Table 3.10-2 SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSION SOURCES Source.' Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reporl May 2012. See Appendix M. Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 2 sources are estimated at 172.93 tCO2e for construction sources and 8,146.25 tCO2e for operational sources.B 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 460/o, respectively. Strategies to reduce Scope 2 emissions during construction could include best construction practices and the purchase of renewable energy. Strategies to reduce emissions during operations could include the use of geothermal heating and cooling, dark sky exterior lighting, low flow ptumbing fixtures and renewable energy purchases. See Appendix M for additionaldetails 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 traveland 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 6 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. CONSTRUCTION SOURCES .sr)r rPnF Purchased Electricity Approximately 440MWh of grid electricity could be used each year durinq construction. OPERATIONAL SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Purchased Electricity Purchased electricity from the electrical grid would be one of the largest non-combustion operational emissions source. Peak electricity demand is estimated to reach nearly 3MW CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION Heavy Equipment Battery/Onsite Mining Combustions Fossilfuel 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 dieseltrucks hauling materials for construction activities/supplies. Vehicle Trip Emissions Vehicular emissions from staff, construction workers, etc., travellinq to and from the site. Organic Waste (Wood)Transportation of wood waste offsite (associated with clearing unimproved, forested areas of the site). Electricity T&D Losses Electricalgrid transmission and distribution line losses can ranqe from 0% lo 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. LandflllWaste Emissions related to solid waste pickup for the site Pleasant Harb*tinal Supplemenbl EIS December 2015 3.10-6 3.1(F;: : - ----i=- Air QualitY - 'ot1,rl)f I 'n.1? Organic Waste Emissions related to organic waste created from landscapinq and qolf course maintenance. Electricity T&D Losses Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can ranqe from Oo/o to 15o/o. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resoft: Gr*nhouse Gas Emisslon 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 operationat sources.T With mitigation, Scope 3 GHG emissions could be reduced to 9,130.52 tCO2e for construction sources and 1 6,589.1 8 for operational sources tCO2e, representing a reduction of approximately 60/o aind 37o/o, respectively. Strategies to reduce Scope 3 emissions during construction could include using raw material from the site (including wood chips, live redistributed trees, gravel and sand) to avoid transporting such materials to the site, providing a work camp for construction workers on the site, providing catering and rideshare for construction workers, and using locally sourced materials. Strategies that to reduce emissions during resort operations (some of which are part of the proposal) will include: the provision of on-site staff housing to reduce trips from commuting, locating amenities required for daily living located on the site, bus and rental car availability, intra- resort transportation via electric powered gotf cars and shuttle services, internal walking paths, public transit, video conferencing technology, bike rentals, rideshare program and incentives for offsite stiaff, organic waste diversion, recycling and composting. See Appendix M for additional details on emissions sources and potentialGHG mitigation strategies. Table 3.104 below, summarizes estimated GHG emissions underAlternative 2 (the Greenhouse Gas Emissrbns Reporf 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 3.104 ALTERNATIVEZ - ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf: Greenhouse Gas Emission Report. May 2012. S* Appendix M. 7 lCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. 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 -165.321,096.80 Scope 2 Construction Emissions 172.93 -25.94 Scope 2 Operational Emissions 8,146.25 -3,793.31 Scope 3 Construction Emissions -il3.149,673.66 Scope 3 Operational Emissions 26,459.72 -9,870.54 TOTAL 51,032.98 -15,138.78 Estimated Total Emissions with Mitisation 35,894.20 tCO2e P leasant H arbor F i n al Su pplemental EHt, 1.=='*,+p*=-€* i..- December 2015 ri"' ..- 3.10-7 r 3.10 .. - Air Quality Alternative 1 Due to the greater amount of excavation and grading associated with the gotf course design under Alternative 1, GHG emissions would be greater than those accounted for under Altemative 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 Altemative 2. ffi No Action Alternative as compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 3.{O4 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No air quality mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS. and 3. BoGG Gonditions The following air quality mitigation measures identified by tligrlgfferson County Board of County Gommissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1,2 m[!m. Mitiqation Measures Completed Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to asa residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning with Potential impacts regarding greenhouse gas emissions would be 63(cc) Statesman Corporation shallc,ollaborate 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 Pleasant Harbr Final $upplemental EIS D€cember 2015 ^ 3.10.8 3.1(Fie- Air Quality' -',71,s7 1o< e Alternative 3, excavation and grading would be the same as Alternative 2 (1 million However, more natural area would be preserved on the site (103 acres under v. 80 acres under Alternative 2). Construction-related GHG emissions would, therefore, to be less than those accounted for under Alternative 2. Operational emissions less than those described for Alternative 2 duebe expected to be similar to or 9-hole Scenario A, no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing limited levels of use and GHG emissions would be to limited,a 9-hole SEIS a The following other possible mitigation measures could be implemented with development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 m to further address potential GHG-related impacts. o A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report has been completed to fulfill this condition (see Appendix M). This report only applies to Alternative 2. 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 Attemative 1 , 2 ffi woutd 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 apptiances; 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. Additionalair quality mitigation measures which could be implemented include the following . Renewable energy purchases. Using locally sourced materialso Emissions offsets. Waste heat recovery 3.104 Sis nificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Atternative 1 2, o,r 3 would result in increased energy usage and increased levels of GHG emissions, similarto 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 ElS" , =s.-=.-.isr.+r;=-#= *.: December 2015 3.10-9 ' 't ' 3.10 Air Quality 3.{ { 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 Ers Emplovment Existing employment conditions on the site were not addressed in the 2007 ElS. sEls Housing Srfe Cunently, within the site area there are two single family residences Iocated 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 H *btt-F i n al Su pplemental,ElS December 2015 3.11-1 3.7F,,;i-. - -=- Housing and Employment * ' hor .i,'t 6 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. Table 3.11-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O Jefferson County TotalHousing Units 17,767 Occupied Housing Units 14,049 (79Yo) Vacant Housing Units 3,718 (21%\ Source.' U.S. Gensus Bureau, 2010 Census Demognphic Prcfiles Summary File. As shown by Table 3.11-2, there are 1,060 units in Brinnon (a Census Designated Place). The majority of the housing within the community is for seasonal, recreational or occasional use (approximately 55 percent). Table 3,11-2 BRINNON HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O Source.' US Census Bureau,2010 Census Demographic Profiles Summary File. Census Designated Place Summary. Employment S,fe Cunently, 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 govemment (see Table 3.11€).1 According to the U.S. I Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Brinnon TotalHousing Units 1,060 Occupied Housing Units 419 Vacant Housing Units 641 Vacant Housing Units for Rent 11 Vacant Housing Units Rented, not Occupied ,| Vacant Housing Units, for Sale Only 22 Vacant Occupied Housing Units, Sold, not 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 Pleasant Harbor Final SupplemenfatElS r-=j i-":=*-:,;3,-,ao...r=r d ,'" December 2015,.. 3.11-2 3.1't 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 TotalPrivate 5,610 r3%) TotalGovemment 2,090 (27o/o\ Source.' Washington Securtty Department, U.S. Bureau of I-aDor Sfafilstr'cs. The Brinnon area median income is estimated to be slightly lower than the County's as a whole, at$42,679.3 According to recent employment statistics, Jefferson County has a higher unemployment rate as compared to the state of Washington as a whole, with 10.9 percent unemployment in January 2013, as compared to the state's rate of 8.5 percent. See Table 3.114 for details. Table 3.114 JEFFERSON COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE - RESIDENT LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT Source.' Washington State Employment Security Department. Labor Ma*et and Economic Analysis. 3.11-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets Housing The 2OO7 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 proposa! 2 U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. 3 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, October 2014. Appendix N Location Labor Force Persons Employed Persons Unemployed Unemployment Rate Washington State, January 2013 3,447,U0 3,154,U0 292,800 8.5% Jefferson County, January 2013 11,780 10,500 1,280 10.9o/o Pleasant llarfrEr Final SupplemenfalElS - - December 2015 3.11-3 3.lPtez-an-. *. T Housing and EmploymenDe -'tn'iJ addressed both the increased demand represented by the proposal and provided the infrastructure to support the higher densities necessary to address affordability. Emplovment The 2007 EIS noted that during construction, approximately 80 lo 125 people would be employed onsite periodically through the five-year construction period. lt was expected that much of the work force would be from Jefferson County, though certain specialized skills may require workers from outside the immediate region. Upon completion, the Pleasant Harbor Resort was estimated to create 40 permanent new jobs and 50 seasonal positions, with these jobs representing a 30% direct increase in local employment. lt was also anticipated that seasonal employees would typically be students with the advantage to local students. sEts ln comparison to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the total number of residential units proposed under SEIS Alternatives 1,2 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 670/o, would be for short-term visitors and 33% would be for permanent residents. Regarding employment, subsequent to publication of the 2007 ElS, a jobs report has been prepared and the number of permanent and seasonal positions associated with construction and operation of the resort has been revised up, as detailed below under lhe Employment section. Alternatives 1. 2 and 3 ln 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 Z 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 employment and housing impacts, below, applies to Alternatives 1, 2 period. and 3. The discussion of Housinq Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions Construction of the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resorf would occur incrementally over time in response to market conditions; for purposes of environmental review it is assumed to take place over an approximately 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.a As noted in the 2007 ElS, the Applicant proposes to upgrade the existing RV facilities on the site on a temporary basis (presently approved for 60 units) to provide some temporary housing for construction workers. 4 Wright Johnson. 2014. Appendix N. Pleasant Harbor Final Supf,emental EIS- -- ' -:-,*---.:=:+:-- :-r.- December2075.,.,,....' 3.11-4 3.11 Housing and Employment Lo n g-Term Ho u si n g Cond itio n s Under Alternatives 1,2 ffm, 890 residentiat 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 units would ana increase in the existi stock I n direct H o u si ng Co n d ition s 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. Emplovment Co n stru cti on Em ploy me nt Site preparation and construction of the Pleasant Harbor project would involve: demolition of certain existing buildings; removal of some existing vegetation; grading; construction of new site infrastructure including driveways and utilities; and, construction of a number of new buildings. This work would result in new temporary construction employment opportunities during the approximately lO-year buildout period. As noted above, based on analysis conducted subsequentto 2007, it is now estimated that the construction project could directly and indirectly employ up to approximately 1,750 workers in total. The actual number of construction jobs at any given time would vary depending on the nature and construction phase of the project. Construction jobs would be temporary and would be discontinued once construction of the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort was complete. Based on analysis completed in2014, 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 ($3+,t+3;.s Operation al Empl oyment a a a a Based on land uses conducted su uent to 2007, development of new employmentgenerating could result in approximately 225 direct and indirect jobs. Actual amount of added employment from the proposed development would be generated Pleasant lffir Final Supplemental EISDecember2Oli ;' 3.11-5 3.18.;^:=- .;t*3 Housing and Employment)pc {rr ^' \ to Secfion 3.78,for a discussion on under 1: 399 2:289 3:342 4:720 s Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Earnings, May 2014. Appendix N. Alternatives 1 2 and 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 operationaljobs would eam 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 Source.' Wight Johnson, 2014. The new employment opportunities onsite could contribute to lowering the Jefferson County's unemployment rate (8.2o/o in November 2013), depending on a number of factors. Such could include where individuals reside at the time of hire (i.e. within the County or outside the County) and whether individuals are unemployed at the time of hire. I ndirect Employment lmpacts 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 potentia! to increase activity at area retail and restaurant businesses. As wel!, additional residents in various communities surrounding the site could result in increased spending in retai! and service categories at local businesses. 6 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Eamings, May 2014. Appendix N Job Sector Employees Phase I 13Food Services Marina '|.1 TTA (fun center)31 Suites 5 Village 5 Phase 2 Suites 44 21Food Services Wedding Chapel 1 Spa 21 Convention Center 6 Gift Shop 3 Recreation 't1 2Waste Water Golf 37 Food Services 5 Waste Water Phase 4 Waste Water 5 December 2015 ' . ',- 3.11-6 Housing and Employment 3 4 TOTAL 225 No Action Alternative Under it is that the site would continue to asa residential area Limited additional employment could be added to the site as allowed under the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) process Housing stock could increase by approximately 30 new residences. 3.1{-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Els The.following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 ' Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Because there is a limited rental housing market, it is proposed that the out-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.) o a The creation of new permanent and seasonaljobs 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. 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. BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Atternatives 1,2 ffiffi Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction a Pleasant HartsrFinal Supplemental EISDxember20li 3.11-7 3.7?;z- -* Housing and Employmen?naeml t ^ Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment the site would occur and and conditions 11 on the a 9-hole AS to SEIS Alternatives 1 2 and a 63 (aa) ln fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2). 63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students. Mitiqation Measures Completed 63 (g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income (AM!). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 8Oo/o or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing development. o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' Condrtion 639 for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorf (Appendix N). lt is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of construction jobs and 99 percent of operationaljobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 80% of the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU. 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. 3.114 Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated. a a Pleasant Harbor Final SupplementalElS- - -.:.-: - .- ..- December 2015 " .: .. 3.11-8 3.11 Housing and Employment 3.12 RURAL GHARAGTER and POPULATION This section of the SEIS describes existing rural character and population characteristics on the site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these characteristics. 3.,,12;,, 2007 Ets Population Affected Environment The 2007 EIS noted that according to the 2000 Census, there were 107 permanent residents on Black Point within 57 full time dwelling units, suggesting that the remaining 101 residential lots were for seasonal or recreational use. Rural Character The 2007 EIS describes the rural character of Hood Canal and notes that it includes a mixture of open spaces and more densely packed residential and tourist areas, including both public and private facilities. The Maritime Village and golf resort area were noted to occupy areas that have historically been tourist oriented, particularly during the summer. ln accordance with the provisions of the GMA, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goal LNG 18.0 states that "Rural character is defined by local rural lifestyle, opportunity to live and work in rura! 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 residentialzones 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, residentialdensity 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 l*artg Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.12-1 3.1Ft;.,. -_--+ Rural Character and Population -,'*r I- -, sEts Population The Pleasant Harbor site is located within Brinnon, which is a Census Designated Place in Jefferson County. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Jefferson County is estimated at29,872. The County has experienced strong population growth since 2000. Over this 10 year period, Jefferson County's population increased by 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.l According to the 2010 Census, the population of Brinnon is 797, which represents a relatively flat population rate as compared to the year 2000, when the population was 803. Rura! Gharacter The existing rural character conditions on and in the vicinity of the site have remained generally similar since issuance of the 2007 ElS. That is, the Brinnon Subarea Planning Area is generally characterized by low density residential development with a remote, rural character. The predominant land uses include forest resource lands and rural residential lands. There is also a small concentration of retail and commercial services in Brinnon, approximately 1.5 miles north of the site. The aerial photograph presented in Figure 3.12-1 indicates the general character of development density in the area. 3.',2-2 lmpaets 2007 Ets 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.-Supplemenfal ElS, .-December2Oli -: 3.12;2 ----- ::= 3.7?:::-,- 'Roral Character and Population Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS SEIS Site Boundary Figure 3.12-1 Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity Source.' E4,2013 Hlfff+iffi:;: { ul *' il r) ,F a oA -_ AIfid ,$ , ,./ f!ql *l *^:!-; l-t---t-4 t T ff ,l a '.r t .;F )82 \ t t ( I , , 'iJ, l-. -,''t.t ,. .l I ,.1 \ j |c /, {" I a C 2013 Coogro It r t t i; ', , ,(>, I >.l a; )6 I 1 t: qa It -t J 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 internalto 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. sErs ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, 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 more natural and more follow the Additionally, to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of the MPR, the majority of the housing (67%) would be for short-term visitors, while 33% would be for permanent residents. ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, more housing for permanent residents is specified for Alternative 1,2 and 3. The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and approximately 79,000 square feet of commercial uses. Under Alternativeg 2 arls Q, the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced to 56,608 sq. ft. and under Alternative 1 the overall square footage of commercial uses is less than 50,000 sq. ft. Redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, or as allowed under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Therefore, the site acreage for the SEIS has been reduced to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 ElS, with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area. Alternatives 1. 2 and 3 ln general, and 3; all rural character and population impacts would be similar under either Alternatives 1, 2 alternatives would develop the same number of residential units and would levels of recreational amenities and retail/commercial space (49,772 sq. ft. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.12-4 3.12 Runl Chancter and Population under Alternative 1 and 56,608 sq. ft. under Altemative 2 ffi). The discussion of rural character and population impacts, below, applies to either Alternative 1, 2 m. Con stru ctio n P o p u I ati on Construction of the Pleasant Hahor Resorf is anticipated to occur over an approximately 10- year timeframe. During this period, construction employment is anticipated to generate up to approximately total 1,750 positions. This number of jobs, divided by the 1O-year build out period could result in roughly 175 jobs on the site per year. Depending on the selected contractor and any prevailing union practices, a portion of these positions may be filled by resident workers. Because of the short-term nature of construction employment, it is not anticipated that families or other household members would accompany temporary construction workers to the area. Additionally, because construction would be temporary, no permanent residents are anticipated to migrate to the area. O pe ration al Popu I ati o n Under Alternatives 1,2 or 3, additional permanent residents and temporary visitors would be added tothe Pleasant Harborsite. As described in Section 3.11, Housing and Employment, 890 residential units would be provided on the site with 278 units (33%) for permanent residents, and 560 units (67%) for short term use (i.e. time-shares, vacation rentals, etc.). lt is assumed that two persons per household would reside in the 278 units for the permanent population, resulting in a permanent population of 556. Fifty two (52) units of staff housing would also be provided. This ho-using 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 individuals moved to Brinnon to reside in the Pleasant Harbor Resort on a permane result in a popu lation increase of a pproximately 95,nt basis, this would 1,561). Of the 764percent (from 797 to permanent are assumed to be resort in the 52 units of worker ng 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. !t should be noted that the resort would be expected to operate at a fuller occupancy in the summer (85%), as was estimated for the 2007 ElS. Rural Character Devetopment under Altematives 1,2 ffi 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 Hab6r Final Su pplemenfal EIS December 2015 3.12-5 3.7*iea;e;. ,.- Rtiral Chdracter and Population - '.,t i li would from local ofis assumed that a exact numbers cannot recreational land uses and activities. The changes to the site are anticipated to occur gradually over the approximately 10-year buildout period. ln general, the relationship of the Pleasant Harbor MPR development under either Alternative 1, 2 oitgrto 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 surrounding 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 pe_ople, up to 208 of whom could live onsite in the S2-units of staff housing; resulting in a total of 764 permanent residents on the site. ln addition, the resort would also accommodate visitors for day trips and overnight stays (in 560 units). The increase in site population, site visitors and employees would result in increased activity levels, including pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic travelling to and from the Pleasant Harbor site and within the site. Vehicle access to the site would be provided primarily by Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Activity levels and vehicle traffic noise on these roadways (as well as along other new internal roadways) would be anticipated to increase with development under eitheiAlternative 1, 2 m. tnrt 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 Section and ndix L for details on !n 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 sunounding 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 internalto 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 Harbr Final Supplemental EIS -IEcembei 2015 9.12-6" , j: ::* * -'** R-uralDharfrEr 3.12 and Pofulitiort to construct the Marina Access Drive, then between the Golf Course/Resort and the be negotiated shuttle service an would be in pervious area with landscaping, egres would be pervious under Alternative 2, ffi The preservation of natural area together limit offsite impacts to rural character. As with the 2007 ElS, more intense development would be clustered intemat to the site to limit impacts to views and perception of increased density from offsite land uses. Buildings would be low-rise, ranging_flom one to four stories under Alternative 1, and one to five stories under Alternatives 2 ml; the tallest buitdings would be Golf Course Tenaces 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-T and 2-8 in Chapter 2 for reference). The remainder of the residential buildings would be one to two stories in height. ln general, the Maritime Village would be the most visible portion of the site due to its proximity to Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The largest building within the 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 internalto the site. Approximately 31 acres of natural area (13 percent of the total 231 acre site) would be preserved under Alternative 1 80 acres of the total 231 acre site would be under Alternative Under Alternative 1, another acres of the total site area the olf course fa and 123 with open space on the site would further serve to lndirect lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1,2 er.r,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 sunounding 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 Iikely be limited due to the measures proposed to maintain the resort as a self- contained community (with amenities and commercial/retail onsite). Any new development in the site vicinity would also be controlled by existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan regulations, which would preserve the local rural character of the surrounding area. As a result, significant indirecVcumulative impacts would not be anticipated. No Action Alternative Pleasmt Ha:rbq Final Su pplemental EIS Decenibbr 2015 3.12-7 Rurat character ana popuuli/ofr:1' :'tft:l 100 acres would be under Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment the site would occur and population conditions, which are generally characterized by low with a ruralcharacter would remain of the total 231 acre site under Alternative 1 acres Underffi,itispresumedthatthesitewouldcontinueto asa residential area based on the ng rural residential zoning with a Potential to and rural character conditions would be as described in the 2007 Final ElS. permanent population increase of approximately 15-20 people. 3.12-g Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant sections of this SEIS, as applicable. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction The key to the provision is that the Master Planned Resort not lead to suburban or urban level development in the surrounding area and that result is achieved through several techniques: a The retention of rural area zoning on the lands outside of the Master Planned Resort. The additional public services shal! 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 devetopment 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. Pleasantllarfur Final Deiember 2015 Supplemental EIS.,1 ^' 3.12_g 3.12 Rural Character and Population . :,1? course to 30 with on the site would be much less 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). BoGG Gonditions Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101. o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary. 3.124 Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmoacts With the implementation of the proposed site design features and identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to rural character or population are anticipated. a a Plemnt lffiqEinal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.12-9 3. 'Rural Character and Populatiott 3.{3 GULTURAL and ARGHAEOLOGICAL RESOURGES This section of the SEIS describes existing cultural and archaeological resources on the site, and evaluates how development under each of the alternatives could affect cultural resources. lnformation in this section is based on the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoing and I nadveftent Discovery Protocol (Appendix O). 3.{3-i Aflected Environment 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that prior archaeological field investigations of the site area did not result in the identification of any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. However, background research and preliminary on-site reconnaissance suggested a high probability for pre-contact or ethnographic archaeological sites in the development areas. This determination was based on the nature of the onsite landforms and the proximity of the project to two ethnographic village sites. Those environments most likely to contain naturally buried archaeology, identified in collaboration with cultural resources staff of the Skokomish Tribe, were determined to be kettles, vantage points, and bluff edges. sEts The potentialfor archaeological and cultural resources to be present on the site has generally remained the same as presented in the 2007 EIS; therefore, no changes to the discussion of existing conditions is warranted in this SEIS (see Section 3.9 and Appendix 8 of the 2007 EIS for a description of the existing archaeological conditions). 3.13-2 lmpacts 2007 Ers The 2OO7 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 Fiml Supplemffi&E18.*p==1:, :-,:-: 3.1?: Decerhlnr?AlS' 3.13-1 Cultural and Archaeological Resources,''L '- '!u r t. sEts 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 Sec'tion 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 Altemativefi 2 m, the potential to encounter archaeological deposits would be less than under Altemative 1 and the Prefened Altemative identified in the 2007 ElS. An archeological resource is located at the head of Pleasant Harbor east of the site on Washington State lands. This area is located adjacent to the site and could be potentially i mpacted by inadvertent d istu rbance d u ring construction. To avoid potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources, periodic archaeological monitoring would be carried out during construction excavations and other below-fiI!, grounddisturbing project actions. Monitoring would occur at those locations within the site area that have previously been identified as high probability areas (i.e., ketttes, vantage points, and bluff edge) until it could be determined with greater assurance that continual monitoring was not necessary. Monitoring results would be reviewed with Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation staff and tribal representatives prior to adjusting the monitoring schedule. See Appendix O for details of the monitoring plan. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Altemative, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residentialzoning. Potential to cultural and I resources would be as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.13-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1,2w. Pleasant Harbq Final Supplemental EIS 3./Fle;sa*:t :+arbst , December 2015 3.19"fr., "/ '.r.id ;\ ''' Cultural and Archaeological Resources Scenario A, occur and it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site and no excavation or no to cultural or resources would construction of residences and a small golf course on the of the same area as SEIS Alternatives 1-3, and therefore the potential to resources during construction could be similar to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. lt is likely cultural resources monitoring programs would be necessary during than under Altematives 1 2 Point area would could be lessindividual Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction The project proponent shallwork with the Tribes and County to provide onsite monitoring during all construction to assure identification and management of any cultural resources identified. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Goncurrent with Operation The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal is a significant environmental and cultural area, and is proposed to be closed to resort use. BoGG Gonditions Mitigation Measures Completed 63 0) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource. o Three tribes concurred with the Cultural Resource Management Plan for Archeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery; three other tribes did not comment. See Appendix O for copies of email conespondence. 63 (k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the County Auditor a document reflecting the developer's written understanding with and among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site integrity, provide procedures regarding future ground-disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to provide for community education opportunities. a a The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternative 1,2 or 3. a a o See Appendix O for the Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and lnadveftent Discovery Protocol, and for conespondence with DAHP and local tribes. sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, the following cultural and archaeological mitigation measures would apply: Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented 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. a ,' -*-='*543ard=tlarhorFinal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.134 -. -'; ' - ''3'7+:::tt"--=\-'= ] ' Atttu ral, aild'Att;h aeological Resou rceg 3.134 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or archaeological resources would be anticipated. Pleasarrt Harbq,Ftnat Supplemental December 2015 3.i*s;;=,;;,. =Cultural and Archaeological Resources3.13-4 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 altematives would affect these characteristics. This section includes information contained in the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efticiency Lighting Sfandards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). 3.1+l Affected Environment 2007 Ers Existing light and glare conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. sEts 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 breaKast. Limited, rural residential light and glare conditions occur, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and mobile sources including roadway lighting along certain existing streets such as Black Point Road, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from the existing residences. Site Vicinitv 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. lmmediately north of the site, the Pleasant Harbor Marina contains 285 boat slips, a grocery store/convenience store/deli and office, restrooms, showers and laundry, and a swimming pool. Light and glare conditions are indicative of a rural area, and include residential light and glare, with some light and glare emanating from stationary and mobile sources including roadway lighting along certain existing streets, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from existing retail/commercial businesses. 3.1+2 lmpacts 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 FinalSupplemental EIS :i:p- -Deicember-2Ol5 3.14-1 .t 44,9, 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 Iights cannot be seen, but that through shielding and proper placement and orientation, the offsite impacts are minimized.) sEts ln general, the potential for light and glare impacts from either SEIS Alternative 1, 2 and 3 remains similar to the potential impacts described in the 2007 ElS, in that comparable levels of development are proposed (i.e. golf course, 890 residential units and commercial/retail development). However, as noted in Chapter 2, the site area has been reduced (the marina upland area is no longer part of the project), and less development is proposed in the marina upland area (the area to the north of Black Point Road). Following is a more extensive description of potential impacts. Atternatives 1. 2 and'3 ln general, light emanates from both stationary sources (e.9., interior and exterior building lighting, street lighting, pedestrian-level lighting and illuminated signage) and mobile sources (e.9. light from headlights of vehicles operating on a project site and on adjacent streets). The principal source of glare associated with most development projects is from specular surfaces on building facades, and from vehicle headlights and glazing (and/or specular surfaces on vehicles), which may occasionally create glare as sunlight is reflected. Factors that may influence the amount and effects of light emitted include: the type of environment in which the project is located (e.9. urban, rural or suburban); topography, the existing light conditions in the site vicinity; the proximity of intervening structures, landscaping and/or vegetation; and, the use of light fixtures to prevent light trespass. Factors influencing the amount of reflective solar glare that may occur include: weather (e.9., cloud cover); building height, width and orientation of the fagade; percentage of the fagade that is glazed or composed of specular material; reflectivity of the glass or specular surfaces; the design relationship between the glazed and non-glazed portions of the fagade (e.9., glass inset from the sash, horizontal and vertical modulation); the color and texture of building materials that comprise the fagade; and the proximity of other intervening structures, topography or significant landscaping The Pleasant Harbor project under either Alternatives 1, 2 eiffii,h would develop a largely undeveloped, rural site with a golf course 890 residential units and commercial for resort-related amenities and services. Proposed development on the site would result in new permanent light and glare sources and would be produced from both stationary and mobile sources, particularly at night. Construction Certain temporary light and glare impacts could result during the construction process. For example, area lighting of the job site (to meet safety requirements) may be provided, which could potentially be noticeable in certain areas proximate to the site. Also, glare could reflect off construction vehicles and equipment, and construction-related vehicle headlights could at times , Pl&saal HarE Fihal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.1+2 3.1*t-*z=-:. ;- Light and Glari ''., . r course would be 18-holes under and 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 ahO.A, new sources of glare on the site would primarily include reflections from building fagades and windows, and reflections from vehicle traffic traveling to and from the site. Specific glare impacts would depend upon the amount of reflective surfaces (glass, metal, etc.) that are incorporated into building construction. ln general, the project would likely use low-reflectivity building glazing and building materials (such as wood), and as a result, significant glare-related impacts would not be anticipated. ln order to ameliorate potential impacts, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort would be designed to meet the guidelines for Dark Sky Lighting Standards. The Dark Sky Lighting Standards have three objectives: 1) To limit visible glare across fhe Resort and adjoining property, and to provide a guide for adequate lighting used for navigation within the Marina area and fo suggesf lighting policies that may be applied to the Resorf boundaries. 2) To protect the operation of the Resorf from deterioration by surrounding light pollution 3) Minimize the impact of 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 a.nd 3 to minimize potential light and glare impacts include the following: . lllumination would be to the minimum practical level.. The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical. . The duration of illumination would be as short as practicalfor Resident Safety.. lllumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light.o Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines). 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 to limit the ht and to occur off-site. Altemative 2 acres,percent of total site area). Alternative 1 acres, 13 percent of total site area). The preservation of more natural area under Alternatives 2 .' Pleasant Harbor Flnal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.1+3 3.74 . ,..:.. Light and Glare for alternative with the greatest amount of natural area be Altemative 3 03 45 of total site area), followed have the least natural area ffi could provide a greater visual buffer at the site borders, and could possibly prevent more offsite light trespass than Altemative 1. No Action Alternative Under residential area a it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family 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 maneuveri on and within the site and limited and hti of residences at 3.{+3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to either Alternative 1,2or3. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq 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.) 63 (z) Statesman shall use the lnternational Dark Sky Association (lDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for'areas with intrinsically dark landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited. a BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to either Alternative 1, 2 df_p. Mitisation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction Pleasant Harber Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.1it-4 3./4i-s-*nl Hir:-l , Light and Glar€ A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing glare conditions would remain relatively unchanged. The Black Point Campground area project site is not actively in use therefore it produces no light and the Marina area rural residential light and andwith some and mobile a 9-hole on the site would be less andan overall basis,the level of 1 2 and sEts ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures, the BoCC conditions and applicable regulations, the following light and glare mitigation measure would be implemented. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and 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 Sfandards report prepared for the project (Appendix P). 3.1+4 9isnificant Unav ble Adverse lmpacts with of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be anticipated. Pleasant Ha76s7 HnTl:gvpplemental EIS -'- ' - -:.. December 2015 " 3.14-s 3.14 , Light and Glare on the site and inandtdwoutnresultincreasedanoflevel and 3.{5 AESTHETIGS This section of the SEIS characterizes the existing and future aesthetic conditions on and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site. 3.{5-{ Affected 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS discussed aesthetic character in Section 3.8, Rural character and Population, and noted that aesthetics refers to the visual components of rural character: rural landscape and open space. The local rural landscape was observed to have a predominance of natural open spaces over the built environment, although the RV campground was marginally visible from the south as one travels north on U.S. Hwy 101 and from portions of the subdivisions at the mouth of the Duckabush River, to the wesUsouthwest of the site. SEIS The existing aesthetic character of the project site has generally remained as described in the 2007 Ets. 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 tum-around area are visible. Views of the southern portion of the site are also possible to boaters on Hood Canal. 3.15-2 lmpacts 2007 Ets The 2OOT 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 fainrays 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. Pleabarrt Harbr Final Supplemen(al EIS December 2015 3.15-1 3./S:e*saot Heyaet Aesfhetics sEts As described in Chapter 2, two possible site altematives are evaluated in this SEIS. This analysis describes how the alternatives could affect the existing visual character associated with the site. While Altematives 1,2 ffi 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 Altematives in order to reduce the amount of impervious area. As well, the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina is no longer part of the project site; structures within the Marina would be renovated or replaced, as a separate action within the existing Binding Site Plan permit. Alternative 1 Development of the Pleasant Harbor Resorf would extensively change the aesthetic character of the Black Point campground portion of the site from a largely undeveloped, vegetated area with camping sites and a network of roads, to a developed resort area containing 52 buildings with 828 units of multifamily housing, a gotf course, surface and underground parking, and resort oriented commercial space and recreational amenities. Significant clearing of vegetation, demolition of existing structures, and grading would be required in areas of the Black Point campground not designated as sensitive or protected. Landscaping would include re-vegetating disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be cleared. Approximately 33 acres of natural area (14 percent of the lotal232 acre site) would be preserved under Altemative 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 Canalto the south. Pleasant Harbor Final Edpplemental EIS ^'"-'. DCcember 2015 3.15-2 t lil r 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 internalto the site. The proposed architectural concept for the buildings within the Maritime Village area is a Cape Cod waterfront style incorporating some stone and cedar accents. ln general, portions of the redeveloped resort (primarily the Maritime Village area and the Maritime Village building) would be visible from certain locations along Black Point Road, and to motorists on U.S. Hwy 101. This is one of two major changes that would occur. The other principal visual changewould occuratthe intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, where surface parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would replace current views of a real estate office, unpaved surface parking and a vehicle turn-around area. Parking lot landscaping would be provided in compliance County Code requirements (JCC 18.30.130[6]), which would help to soften to the visua! impact at this location. Alternative 2 ln terms of total development, the Pleasant Harbor Maina and Goff Resorf under Alternative 2 is similar to Altemative 1 as both alternatives include a golf course and the same total number of residential units (890). However, aesthetic impacts would be reduced under Altemative 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 Altemative 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 Altemative 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 Altemative 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 Altemative 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 P,teasant Harber=Ffifil Supplemenfal EIS December 2015 3,f*3 3.llP{gesar+{ *Icrbcg, Aes(hetics 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 Altemative 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 tum-around. iffi of all buildings would remain the same as Alternative 2, and aesthetic impacts with respect to the built environment would be similar. trees re-vegetation of site that would disturbed areas using be regraded, but the would further to Altemative 2 80 rnative 2. Althoug h more of the site would natural this would intemal to site, and views to the site would generally remaln As with Alternatives 1 and 2, a nparian buffer would be preserved along the southisouthwest 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 Altematives 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. Summarv Although the visual character and views of the Pleasant Harbor site would extensively change under Alternatives 1,2 (ffi, 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 forestedivegetated former campground area to a mixed- use development as a negative impact, while others could perceive this change as a positive condition. On an overall basis, positive or negative perceptions of the aesthetic character and views of the site would likely be defined by the quality and consistency of building design, landscaping, and open space areas. Pleasant Harbor Finkil'Supplenental EB .December20li 3.154 t {i- 3.1+ Aestfietics Alternative 3 site plan was from Alternative 2 to reduce the size of the golf 18 holes to t holes, with associated putting green practice area. The number of the amount of commercial space and parking and the number, configuration and 103 acres of natural area (45 percent of the total site acreage) would to Alternative No Action Alternative Under it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family basedresidential area residential zoning The aesthetic character of the site would the surrounding area 3.15-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets The following aesthetic mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fairways, and the upper portion of the development. The proposal shall ensure retention of selected stands of significant trees along the bluff of the golf course to reduce the visibility of the site from the south. The proposal shall provide landscaping between U.S. Hwy 101 and the new access road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village. With the exception of the Condotel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from higher grade elevations. o Note that the Maritime Village building would be 3-stories, but it would be built into the existing topography so that only two stories visible would be visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west (the higher grade elevation) and three stories visible internal to the site. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction 63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts wil! 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 on the underlying rural be more consistent with a a a a a Pleasant Harber Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.15-5 3.1S!=es,rri Aesthetics Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and conditions and views to the site would remain 30 residences and a 9-hole a a trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the propefi as naturalforest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101. o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the Applicant. 63 (u) ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they cunently exist in order to provide for 'the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts (JCC 18.25), and not the SMP. 63 (v) ln keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings. 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. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary. -Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenfal EtSDffinber2015 3.1*6 =is3.g 3.1t AeSthetiCg'i\.rru_i.. r.' r 3.{54 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternatives 1, 2 oi 3 would change the aesthetic character of the site from its existing, primarily vegetated/forested cond ition to a new a course,residential commercial and USES. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts would be anticipated. ' Plsasrrllt llarhgLE in al Su pplemental El S December 2015 3.15-7 Aesthetic.s over the full buildoutcharacter of the site would occur 3.{6 UTILITIES This section of the SEIS describes the existing status of utilities that are provided to the Pleasant Harbor site, and evaluates the impacts of added demand on such services/utilities from development of the site under the EIS alternatives. Utilities evaluated in this section include water, sewer, telecommunications and solid waste. Stormwater management is discussed and anallzed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, and electricity is address in Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources. The discusslon is based on the Pleasant Harbor General Water Plan (2014) and Pleasant Harbor GeneralSewer Plan (2014) prepared by Consultares Engineering (see Appendix Q for Executive Summaries of these reports). 3,{ 6-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ets Section 3.3, Water Resources, of the 2007 EIS noted that the offsite Black Point subdivisions were served by a public water system and onsite sewage disposal systems on individual lots (septic tanks and drainfields). lt was also noted that Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op serves the Black Point area, and has significant water rights. No additional description of existing, onsite sewer or water, conditions was provided. Telecommunications and solid waste were not addressed in the 2007 ElS. sEts Water The private water system infrastructure within the Pleasant Harbor site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. ln the past approximately seven years, the resort has not operated and maintenance of the aged water system has abated. However, existing wells on and adjacent to the site remain. Water Supplv - Two wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second well north of Black Point Road serves the existing Bed and Breakfast. Another well outside of the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula. a a a Water Storaqe - One highly deteriorated wood stave storage tank on top of the hill in the southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground cunently 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 Stipplemental HS ,:;a :: ::-!-r'r-, ,- .-. ''-.- December 2015'^-" 3.16-1 3.1@:: Utilities - at,e, )rt.i F Sanitarv Sewer The site presently has no existing centralized wastewater collection or treatmenVdisposal 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 cunent 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 Cou nty residents, approximately 12 miles north of the site. ln 201 tons of mun solid waste were collected h these two 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 4.2Q pounds of solid waste and 0.80 pounds of recycling waste per person per day.3 Cunently, solid waste generation on the Pleasant Harbor site is limited to the SI residences and Pleasant Harbor House 3.16-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf courses uses, along with associated increases in population r 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 Harbq Final Supplemental EIS December 2013 ; '+ ' 3.16-2 3.1etu:.ar:--,_'-utilitiefie 1n i J total of 17 with 160 tons collected from the Quilcene drop box site. The processed 3,785 tons of recyclables,of which 84 tons and 98 tons came from the Brinnon collections waste at House is and employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related increases in demand on water and sewer systems. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. ln general, water and sewer impacts would be similar under Alternatives 1,2 ffi$ due to the similar levels of development proposed under both altematives (i.e. golf course, 890 residential units and approximately 50,000 sq.ft. of commercial space). 2007 Els Water The 2007 EIS Proposed Action was noted to result in two sources of water demand: potable water demand for resort operations and irrigation, and nonpotable uses of water for operation and maintenance of the golf course and marina. Maximum annual water utilization was anticipated to reach 137 acre feet. The water supply approach for the development was based on an integrated use of groundwater (wells), rainwater harvesting, and treatment and reuse of wastewater (reclaimed water). Groundwater wells would serye as the potable water supply source for the resort. Water for other uses, such as for toilet flush and inigation was to come from stored reclaimed water and from stormwater runoff and rainwater collected from the site. The existing kettles were to be used for water storage (110 million gallons) by grading and lining the bottoms of the kettles. The estimated daily potable water demand was approximately 87,300 gpd total, from 62,300 gallons per day (gpd) at 70 gpd per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for residential uses and 25,000 gpd for commercial uses. The EIS noted that total conventional water storage requirements were approximately 189,530 gallons for an average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU. Sewer The 2007 EIS noted that an onsite waste treatment and disposal system would be used for the Pleasant Harbor site in order to avoid wastewater discharge to Hood Canal or the harbor. Several alternatives capable of creating water that could be recycled and reused on the site were presented in the 2007 ElS, including sequencing batch reactor, membrane bioreactor, and recirculating biofilter (see 2007 DEIS Section 3.1.1.1 for more information). The EIS noted that all residential and commercialwastewater 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 sEts ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, utility demands (water, sewer, telecommunications and garbage) would be similar, except that the existing Marina is no longer part of the SEIS site. Water is proposed to be supplied from the same sources identified in the 2007 ElS, including an integrated use of groundwater (wells), rainwater harvesting and treatment and reuse of wastewater, and a new water distribution system would need to be constructed. As well, the daily potable water demand has been calculated at 17SIERU gpd, versus 70 gpd/ERU in the 2007 ElS. Allwastewater within the development under the SEIS Alternatives is proposed to be Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS -' f :I December 2015 '9.'lt-3' - 3.16't" " Utilittes . _:*-- 'f,,--:-* - treated to a Class A reuse standard and reused onsite for nonpotable purposes, as was the case with the 2007 ElS. A waste treatment and disposal system has been selected for the proposal, as detailed below; the 2007 EIS noted that several options were available. Water Construction A new water distribution system would be required to be built throughout the site under Alternatives'1,2ffi. The new system would be constructed under or near new roadways to reduce the need for clearing and grading (see Figures 3.16-1 and 3.16-2). ln some locations, the water system could cross goff 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 Atternatives 1, 2 ffi, it is that a district would and maintain the new water 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 eommercia! use, 105 acre-feet peryearfor irrigation use, and 28 acre-feet peryearfor Fire Smart Program. The existing onsite wellwithin the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated, and a second well would be drilled in one of two potential locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. A water storage and thetank would be constructed on the property near the 9th Tee 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 residentia! 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 commercia! uses. Average daily potable water use is anticipated to be reduced from 175 gpd/ERU to approximately 70 gpd/ERU with the use of low flow plumbing fixtures. This represents a more conservative water demand in comparison to the 2007 ElS, which estimated average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU, with maximum daily demand up to 140 gpd/ERU. The 175 gpd/ERU used in this SDEIS is in compliance with a Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) condition placed on the project (condition 63 0) requiring all calculations for water to be based on the standard of 175 gpd. The quality of water would be consistent with Washington State Department of Health Standards (see Section3.2, Water Quality, for more information). Pleasant HarbsFinal Supplemental EIS December 2O15 * 3.16-4 3./@Ieasanr Har.L- Utiliti*- Tee under Alternative 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 partialty 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 inigation 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 bri.iA?, 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 5nd 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 a,gllt$, as well as a new gravity sewer system andior individual building sewer pump station and force mains connected to the gravity sewer system. An on-site wastewater reclamation plant WRP) is proposed capable of producing Class A reclaimed water for irrigation. At its ultimate, the plant would be designed to treat 280,000 gallons per day. Construction lmpacts The new sewer collection system would be constructed within easements located under or adjacent to roadways or across golf course 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. Fleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS ro. December20li .3.t&5 3.16", . , 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 Ghapter 2for more information on phasing). Operational lmpacts As noted above, in order to serve the development proposed under Alternatives 1,2 ffi, "new wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment plant would be built to convey and treat sewage on the site. The collection system would include four pump stations and the treatment plant would have the capacity to treat 280,000 gallons of wastewater per day to meet the State of Washington requirements for a Class A Reclaimed Water Permit. Wastewater flow and loading projections were based on the projected build-out population. The per capita loading projections are inclusive of residential, commercial, and public facility land uses, and are based on 175 gpd per ERU, until lower wastewater flows of approximately 70 gpd/ERU can be verified through the proposed use of very low flow fixtures, meters and water conservation measures. The wastewater treatment plant would be located in the northwest corner of the site, and would utilize a nutrient removal activated sludge process with clarifiers and filtration to produce Class A effluent. Effluent use during initial phases of development would include sprinkler irrigation in the native plant nursery and subsurface drainfields in the west area of the site until Kettle B is converted to a retention pond. Operation of the new wastewater collection system, conveyance system, and treatment plant on the site as proposed could result in transportation impacts for waste sludge from the site to a processing facility, fuel for standby generators, and chemicals for the treatment processes. Waste sludge would be hauled by tanker trucks along US Highway 101 to the treatment facility near Shelton. Fuel and chemicals would be hauled to the site. Operation of a new waslewater treatment plant on the site would also result in increased noise Ievels, 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 Solid Waste Under the Alternatives 1 and 2 the amount of solid waste generated from uses on the Pleasant Harbor site would substantially increase as compared to existing conditions where- under the site is largely unused. For purposes of this EIS analysis, it is assumed that the 890 residential units could generate up to approximately 1,364 tons of solid waste per year; and that commercial/retail uses would generate approximately 45 to 51 tons of solid waste per year. This is based on the assumption that each residential unit would be occupied by two persons, with each person generating 4.2 pounds of solid waste per day (County LOS standard) and that Pleasant llarbsr Final Su pplemental EIS December 2071f 3.16-G 3.7@;';17n' llarbc! 'Utilitiea^^-. internet service would be provided on the redeveloped site under Altematives 1 access can be obtained via'rr:satellite to commercial/retail uses would generate 5 lbs/1,000 sq. ft.lday (industry estimate). These are very conservative assumptions, as occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor Resort is anticipated to fluctuate seasonally, with highest occupancy in the summer (85%). lt is assumed that a private service would pick up solid waste and that a composting and recycling program would be utilized to help reduce the solid waste stream. No Action Alternative water Under residential area it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family based on the underlying rural residential 2007 Fina! zoning . The to utilities would remain as described in the 3.{ 6-3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ets Mitiqation Measures Completed Any project approval for the resort shall contain a condition that the applicant demonstrates entitlement to sufficient water rights to serve the approved phase from WDOE (water rights, transfer, and/or rainwater harvesting rights and use conditions) prior to preliminary plat approval and construction of any facilities on the property. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Any project approval for the golf course area will require construction and operation permits for a wastewater treatment system for the p@ect 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 approva! for the Maritime Village remodel and upgrade shall include a demonstration that existing facilities can adequately serve the remodel areas. No a a a a Ifashington Sea Grant Program - University of Washington .- Pleasdtrttlarbq Final Supplemental EIS December 2015- 3.16-7 Utilities ,n - Scenario it is assumed that no redevelopment,of the site would occur and sewer and solid waste conditions on the site would remain would continue to be provided existing community wells or and sewage and wastewater would continue to be treated by individual septic drainfields. Solid waste pickup and disposal would need to be coordinated with a Overall, utility demands would be less than SEIS Altematives 1, 2 and 3, to serve the site would not be developed. lndividual septic systems nutrients into surface waters are believed to contribute to low BoGG Gonditions The following mitigation measures identified by the J-e-ffe-rson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Altematives 1,2ffiH. Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction additional residential units would be approved until the sewer system is installed and operating. 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. o o o sErs ln 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 lmplemented Prior to and During Construction Watero 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 buiHing 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 irrigationffire 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. o Pleasant lffiy Final Supplemental EIS 'Deeember 20t5 3.16-8 3.1Plc .71- - ''-\'-"r Utititie$zeren''' ^^ )' a a 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. 3.164 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts 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 EIE: ,triaar .:upe(ert:rrr+;,: 5rs December 2(nS 'ii';"-.c{ 3.1&9 ? 3.16 Utilities . ,,. - 3.17 Public Seruices This section of the SEIS describes existing fire, police, school and healthcare services, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these public services. 3.17.1 FIRE and EMERGENGY MEDICAL SERVIGES (EMS) 3.17,1-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that the Pleasant Harbor site is located within Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4, which provides both fire protection and EMS. District #4 serves approximately 131 square miles and operates out of three fire stations, located as detailed below. o Fire Station 41 - Headquarters - 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon WAo Fire Station 42 - Duckabush Fire Station - 51 Shorewood Drive, Brinnon, WAo Fire Station 43 - Maury Anderson Station - 341 Beemill Road, Brinnon, WA Station 42, located approximately within a mile of the site (to the west), is the closest station to Pleasant Harbor. The EIS stated that on average, EMS calls accounted for approximately two- thirds of the annual call volume, and that call volumes in the Brinnon/Black Point area increase significantly in the summer, when more people are in the area to stay at their summer homes, take extended vacations on local properties, and visit State parks and other recreation amenities. The 20OT 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. sEts 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 42htas been closed due to flooding1. The fire district is pursuing other locations to accommodate the existing equipment at these fire stations. I Personal communication between Chief Patrick Nicholson (Brinnon Fire Chief) and Craig Peck, P.E. (applicant representative), December 23,2013 and October 26,2014. 3.1Ple .s- ?:-'a* Public Service$ ^^Pmh^' l"t'*' Pleasant flafigfinat SUpplemental'ElS .- Decemher m1!f 3.17-1 2008 146 82 228 2009 171 93 264 2010 146 103 249 2011 155 65 220 2012 M 29 73 2013 161 88 249 Updated fire and EMS call information is provided in below Table 3.17-1for Fire District #4. As shown, the majority of calls are for EMS. Table 3.17-1 FIRE DISTRIGT#4 - FIRE AND EMS CALLS 2008.2012 Source.' Brin non Fire Departnent: hftptlbrt n nonfire.orgl. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a goal of having 1.25fire units and 0.5 EMS units in service per 1,000 population. 3.17.1-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related increases in demand for fire and EMS services. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout period. 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent residential units to the community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development's winter or permanent population was projected to increase by 200 to 300 people, which would translate into a few additional calls for service, but was determined to be well within the capacity of the existing facilities and services and anticipated growth. During the summer, a resort population of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated to strain existing personnel and services and equipment. Accordingly, the 2007 EIS identified measures (outlined in Section 3.17.14, below) to mitigate impacts to fire and EMS services. sErs Compared to the 2007 ElS, 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 ot 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 HS .tiaaf 5rr+j+,iirrIr€.i.:i si-,3.17-; Public Servrces .L- EMS Calls Fire/Rescue Calls TotalCalls site acreage has been reduced to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 ElS, with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.2 ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1, 2 6&' would result in associated increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and ovemight) and employees on the site, which would result in related increases in demand for fire and EMS services. As noted for the 2007 ElS, demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at a fuller capacity, with at least 85 percent occupancy. Construction lmpacts During the develop_ment and construction process for the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 $y.1i3, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4 would be involved in the review and inspection of permit applications for new development infrastructure on the site. The District would also conduct final on-site inspections for new development to ensure that construction complies with applicable fire safety standards. Fire Department service calls related to inspection of specific construction projects onsite and to respond to potential construction- related accidents and injuries would increase as a result of new development and construction. Site preparation and construction of new infrastructure and buildings could also increase the risk of a medical emergency or accidentalfire. Operational lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1,2 or 3 would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout of the site and associated demands on fire and EMS services would increase incrementally over that time period. Under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3, 890 residential units would be provided onsite, including 560 short term tourist residential units and 278long term units. The 278 permanent units, plus 52 units for staff housing could result in a permanent onsite population of l.il (including 208 employees). As well, additional visitors, both overnight and day trip, would be on the site, adding to general activity levels. New development under eitherAlternative 1,2ay,.;,,$ would, therefore, result in an increase in on-site residents, visitors and employees as compared to existing conditions. lt is anticipated that the increased on-site population (both permanent and temporary) would result in an increase in the number of calls for fire and emergency medical service from the Pleasant Harbor site; demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at peak capacity. Based on historic calls for service over the last five years (see Table 3.17-1), it would be expected that the majority of the calls generated from new development on the Pleasant Harbor site would be EMS calls. As noted previously, Jefferson County's goal for Brinnon is to maintain 1.25 fire units and 0.5 EMS units per 1,000 population. Accordingly,0.83 fire units and 0.33 EMS units could be required for the permanent site population of 660 residents and employees. An MOU is being negotiated with the Brinnon Fire Department to address potential impacts resulting from increased demand for services. The MOU cunently 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. ' PtearanfffibrzFlnal Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.17-3 3.lp['**s-* fiarsg;1 Public Serylces 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 ffi would be constructed in compliance with applicable codes, including the Uniform Fire Code and the lnternational Building Code, as adopted by the Jefferson County Code. Adequate fire flow to serve the proposed development would be provided as required by these codes (see Section 3.16, Utilities). Specific requirements regarding emergency access to structures would also be adhered to, as required by the Fire Code. No Action Alternative Underffi,itispresumedthatthesitewouldcontinuetodevelopasasingle-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning and EMS services would be as described in the 2007 Final ElS. . The 3.17.1-g MitigationMeasures 2007 Ers Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction Any preliminary plat for the development of a portion of the resort shall require the following: . Ensure the onsite water system will provide for adequate sustainable fire flow. o All resort buildings to include internalsprinkler systems with FDC connections. o lncorporate Firewise site design standards in the layout of the proposed resort, as appropriate and approved by the localfire authority. . All subsurface parking will have to provide fire systems, including air handling, water, and emergency access and egress. to fire P I e a s a nl H a rbo r F i n a I S u p iilwb &tbEl8en l. -' r- j -'= " -- . DecemEt 2US '- 3.17-4 3.77,1,'-. .on; _ Public Senrices;- .. . r Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and services demands on the site would remain service demands additional 30 housing units and a 9-hole golf course would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1 and 3, but with correspondingly less revenue to support additional services. The addition homes would represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the population in service area, and a corresponding increase in calls for fire and EMS services would Such an increase would be within the range of normal and for the and no would be lnstall hydrants, two portable fire pumps with hoses and related fire suppression equipment at the marina and maintenance area as approved by the localfire authority. Develop an "emergency action plan" with the Fire District [# a] 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 ptan" for coordinated control and additional services BoGG Gonditions Mitisation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction 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 owne/s Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. a a O a a a o 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 December 2O15 3.7?ieasanf idrE-,.1 PublicService$ac:*b 1'e3.17-5 a o sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for fire, medical and public services would be necessary. 3.17.14 Sisnificant Unavoidable Adverse !m pacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 6i 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 POLIGE SERVIGES 3.17.2-1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that police protection to the site is provided by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, which serves all of the unincorporated areas in the County. The Sheriffs Office is located at the Justice Center in Port Hadlock and also maintains an office at the Courthouse in Port Townsend, a substation in Clearwater, and an annex in Quilcene. The Brinnon/Black Point area is in the Sheriffls 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 55 District primarily related to traffic violations, DUI arrests and burglaries. sEts The existing status of police service providers (Jefferson County Sheriffs Office) has generally remained similar to that presented in the 2007 EIS (see FEIS Section 3.5 for a description of the existing status of these services), except that the Quilcene sub-station has been closed due to budget cuts. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a proposed Level of Service (LOS) of 244.5 sq. ft. of dedicated sheriff administrative space per 1,000 population. The Capital Facilities Element states that the proposed LOS would not require any additional space by the end of the planning period (2010), and no capacity projects are required. 3,17.2-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and gotf course uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related increases in demand for police services. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS i i -. , 1j-: .,:, .-r1?l Si,'=-ie..+.-. 3.17 December 2015 ' ?'. - 417-d' Public Senrices r!: 2007 Ers The 2OOT EIS noted that the population on-site would increase as a result of the Proposed Action, and similar to fire and EMS, associated increases in the need for police services would be generated. The resort is located at the southern end of the County and coordination to address the need for additional services was determined to be important. lt was determined that police staffing and facilities would be adequate to serve the increase in site population anticipated under the Proposed Action. sEts Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to police services under 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 ifre ZOOZ EIS to 56,680 square feet for Alternativeb Z 6nffi and less than 50,000 squgr_e feet under Alternative 1. ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1, 2"iS! , would result in associated increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the site, which could result in related increases in demand for police services. As noted for the 2007 ElS, demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at full capacity. Construction Construction activities associated with the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort could result in an increased demand for police services during the 10-year construction period. Service calls could increase during construclion 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 6$i$.1lrculd be incremental and could result in associated incremental increases in demand for police services. lt is anticipated that annual call volumes to the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office could increase under Alternatives 1,2 #fr[#"q ln order to reduce potential impacts to the Jefferson County Sherriffs Office, the Resort would maintain security staff sufficient to provide twenty four hour a day, seven day a week service to the site including roving patrol, video systems, intrusion systems and gated entry, as necessary. Consistent with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LOS guidelines, a 500 sq. ft. "public service room" would be provided on the resort for the Jefferson County Sheriffs 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 Find .Siipplemental EIS December 201t 3.7Ptt:-.-r ;i;3-nrJ PUblic SerYiCeS - sr7lscr \aa e3.17-7 enforcement room and implementation of onsite security measures, significant impacts to the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office would not be anticipated. No Action Alternative Under it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The services would remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS. 3.17,2-3 MitigationMeasures 2007 Ers Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction Project Level: Permit approval for both the marina and the gotf resort shall address security-related issues, and shall include specific mitigation which may include: Controlled access at the entry and exit points of the resort and docks. Onsite security and surveillance systems for the protection of resort guests, residents, and property coordinated with local service providers to assure appropriate communication and controlsystems are in place. Community level: Explore the use of a development agreement or other assurance to provide a mechanism for the County to provide some public safety funding to the Brinnon area from the revenues received from the resort to assure that the funds will not be diverted to the more populous north county. BoGG Gonditions Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such a a 3.77,: :. Public Servrces P I ea sa nt H arbo r F i na I S u p pl e m e1lfal t fl$= t t :1 | | ! \ ; December 2015 3.17-8 Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment the site would occur and services demands on the site would remain a 9-hole service demands from an additional30 housing units would be less than Alternatives 1 with conespondingly less revenue to support additional services. The addition of 30 represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the population in the area, and a conesponding increase in calls for sheriff services would be anticipated. in the 2007 ElS, such an increase would be within the overall planned of would beand nonormaland attrition o agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owne/s Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking. o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson County Sheriff. sEts With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC conditions, no additional mitigation measures for sherffi services would be necessary. 3.17.24 Siqnificant le Adverse lmpacts Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 oi 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 PUBLIG SCHOOLS 3.17.3-1 Affected Environment 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that the Pleasant Harbor site is located within Brinnon School District #46, which serves grades K through 8; students of high school age have a choice of schools in adjacent districts. District enrollment in 2000 totaled 74 students. Enrollment declined to a low of between 30 and 40 students in 2005, and increased to 56 students in the 2005I2OOO school year, and 49 students in 200612007. The Brinnon Subarea Plan identifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard of 23 students per classroom. With four regular classrooms and two portables, the school can accommodate up to 138 students based on the established LOS standard. The EIS noted that Brinnon School district #46 experienced excess capacity from 2000 to 2006. sEls 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. P-leasant Harbor Final 3u pplemental EIS DecemberfllS 3.17-9 3.lPte.r-. ' '--:.-l Public Serylcgs - -.e,'Blt , Table 3.17-z BRINNON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 2008-2012 2006 56 2007 49 2008 31 2009 29 2010 33 2011 38 2012 35 Source.' Stafe of WA Otrice of Supertntendent of Public lnstruction Besides declining enrollment and increased excess capacity, existing school conditions have generally remained as described in the 2007 ElS. 3.17.3-2 lmpacts New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and employment on the site. lncreases in the permanent on-site population and employment could result in new students to the area school district. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout period. 2007 Ers 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 ElS 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. sEls ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, the specific number of housing units that would be devoted to permanent residents versus short term visitors has been defined for SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 ffi s. Residential development and associated increases in the on-site population under Alternatives 1, 2 m would generate some additional student enrollment in the Brinnon School District. !t is assumed that only permanent residents of the site would potentially have children that could Pleasant Harbor Final St$plemental ElS" t.i+al *qi;p,i);eti,cttrat !:!11 December-20l&" 3.17-10 3.17 , Public Servrces Date Student Enrollment 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 qnd 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. lncreases in on-site population and associated student generation would occur incrementally as the Pleasant Harbor site develops over the full buildout period and would be accompanied by subsequent increases in demand for public school services. For the purposes of this SEIS analysis, potentia! 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 m. 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 b*e generated from permanent onsite residential development under either Altemative 1, 2 Bm. iable 3.17€ summarizes the potential students that could be generated from development of the Pleasant Harbor site at buildout. Table 3.17.3 P LEASAN r ro*ro* TJJ[iI=*?31r3 i -r G E N E RAnoN Source.' 2010 US Census and EA Engln*rinq,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 cunently has excess capacity that could accommodate an additional 24 students in grades K-8. Development under either Alternative 1, 2 ffiffi also includes execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Brinnon School District that would contribute to exploring ways to increase revenue to the District's budget. lmplementation of this MOA would help to offset any potential impacts resulting from increased student population as a result of resort development. lt should also be noted that the student generation estimate presented in Table 3.17-3 is very conservative, because permanent housing associated with the resort is likely to be marketed to an older/retirement age demographic - an age set with minimal potential to generate K-l2 students. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 660 24 20 u , Pleasant llarborFinal Sappbmental EIS December 2017 3.7P!c, - -t- -ff;t-'-i Puhlic ServiceS ' '-rtrbor t^'u3;17-11 Potential Permanent Site Population Grades K€ Studentsl High School Students3 Total Students No Action Alternative Under it is med that the site would continue to develop as a single-family residentia! area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The services would remain as described in the 2007 Final EIS 3.1+3 Mitigation Measures 2007 Ers Estimates for planning purposes are that the project will increase the Brinnon School District by 5-10 students and the adjacent district for high school by 1-2 students in any given year. Specific mitigation agreements with the School will be addressed as part of the preliminary plat process for the golf course. BoGG Gonditions Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction 63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owne/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. sEts 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. a Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS-r Sr,-lple-rrre-,;iar, it-'lDecember-?015. 3.17-12 3.17 Public Services Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and school demands related to the site would remain a 9-hole to school demands from an additional 30 housing units would be less than Alternatives 1 with correspondingly less revenue to support additional services. The addition of 30 represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the population in the area, and a corresponding increase in school age children could be anticipated. in the 2007 ElS, such an increase would be within the overall planned of the normalgroMh and attrition pattems, and no 3.17.34 Significant UnavoidableAdverse lmpacts 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 identifled mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public schools would be anticipated. 3.17.4 HEALTH SERVICES 3.17.1h1 AffectedEnvironment 2007 Ers The 2007 EIS noted that the Brinnon Black Point area does not cunently have a medicalfacility. 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.+2 lmpacts 2007 Ets The 2007 EIS noted that the proposal included 500t sq. ft. of clinic space in the development of the Maritime Village for a certified nurse and/or a general practitioner. Selected staff would also be provided with basic emergency medicaltraining. sEts Compared to the 2OO7 ElS, impacts to health care services under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 gf$ii 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. ln general, new development under SEIS Alternatives 1, 2 ffi,#l would result in associated increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the site, which could result in related increases in demand for health care services. lt is anticipated that health care service needs would primarily be related to accidental injury or unanticipated illness. However, permanent residents of the site, as well as employees, would also have basic and specialty health care needs which would require doctor visits. ln order to provide health care services in proximity to site residents and visitors, as well as to reduce the increased demand on Jefferson Healthcare, approximately 500 sq.ft. of clinic space would be provided on site for a certified nurse and/or general practitioner that would be staffed and equipped by Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2OlT 3.1?ieasant H'rb:1; Public Services- >-3.17-13 Pleasant Harbor resort. ln addition, select resort staff would receive training to the level of first responder with ongoing training in CPR, AED, Oxygen Administration and First Aid. With the implementation of these measures, significant impacts to health care services would not be anticipated. No Action Alternative Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to asa residential area based on the rural residential The potential impacts to health services would be limited compared to Alternatives 1,2 3.17.43 MitigationMeasures 2007 Ers Mitiqation Measures to be Implemented Prior to and Durinq Construction a 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. BoGG Gonditions Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction a 63 (c) The project developer wi!! 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. S ugrgrreri er r r* W a nt H a rbo r F i n a I S u p pl e m e nfal EIS Decembdr'2O15 ' :t 3.77't.:,'. Public Services-3.17-11 --.,- ,.: Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the health services demands related to the site would remain site would occur addition homes 9-hole course would represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of in the overall service and a increase in healthcare sEls 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 Sisnificant UnavoidableAdverse lmpacts 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. Pleesant t{arbor Final Supplemental EIS Decembei20l5 3.7 h ;o -,s u rrf r i,*i.:!,. Public Services--3.17-15 BoCC, to comply with the new Shore Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM),--*---1 -*,,,"fuffi. 3.18 BoGG Gonditions This section of the SEIS provides a background of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner (BoCC) conditions placed on the MPR proposalas presented in the 2007 ElS, as well as the status of compliance with each of the BoCC conditions. Since publication of the 2007 ElS, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the line Ma Plan buffer of 150 feet from the 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 Mailna and Golf Resort. The preliminary development agreement and zoning regulations are contained in Appendix S of this SEIS. BoGG Gonditions Background The Statesman Group of Companies (Statesman) applied to Jefferson County for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2006 for a Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation in the Brinnon subarea. This application was processed with the County's 2007 docket of annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. ln September 2007, Jefferson County completed a programmatic-leve! 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. !n 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 lmpact Statement (SEIS) prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW provides projectJevel environmental review to supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 ElS. The project proposa I as reflected in this SEIS has been modified in a number of since the 2007 EIS in order to to and with the BoCC conditions, The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a master plan for a golf course resort on the Black Point campground and the marina area. Since 2008, the applicant has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new SMP buffer of 150 feet. The SEIS Alternatives have been drafted to conform to the conditions and the SMP buffer, Master Plan. and reduce the for environmental associated with the While Alternatives 1 2 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 ;:n:t' 9::.:- . December 2015 ^ t.18-1 ? >-- 3.7&: a.:sarf +::r.:...,' BoCC Conditions on theto commentsto well as new altemative (Alternative 3) has been added for analysis in this Final reduces the size of the golf course from 18-holes to 9-holes, and preserves more on the site 00 to 31 acres under Alternative 1 and 80AS Altemative 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, Altematives 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 ElS. Gompliance with BoGG Gonditions Table 3.18-l outlines all thi BoCC cond 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-l BoGC CONDITIONS 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. b Allapplications 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 Sig nificance, initiating this EIS. 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 Sheniffls Office, Jefferson Transit, Jefferson Healthcare, and Jefferson County (housing). The following MOU's are in draft form and/or have Pleasant llarbor Fi nal Su pplemental El SDecember2Oli 3.18-2 3.l9leasant fiaroor BoCC Condition* -''<h-za- . - indicates measures intended to the conditions,and indicates the status of actions intended to with the indicated BoGC # Condition Measures lntended for Gompliance Status Measures intended for compliance completed. Marina to be and therefore in the by the official Measures intended for compliance completed. Measure intended for compliance partially fulfilled. BoGC # Condition Measures lntended for Gompliance 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; Sherriffs 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 ac@ss conditions shall be included in the Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County. lntended to be addressed in the Development Agreement e Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post otfices 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. lntended 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 lntended to be addressed in the Development Pleasant Harbor Final:Supplemental EIS December 20'15 : 3.18-3 3.7&.. :,:.:.12t: BoCC Conditions BoGG # Gondition Measures lntended 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 (AMl). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 30o/o of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing development. A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was completed: Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy (2012). The report is included in this SEIS as Appendix N. Of the 890 housing units proposed as part of the project, 52 units would be staff housing for resort employees. The 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. The2012 Grading and Drainage Report (Appendix E) includes an analysis of the interconnection between stormwater, water storage, inigation, 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. Any study done at the project levet pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) sha!! include a distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the impacts to the hydrology and hydrogeology of the MPR location of the develope/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 Section3.2, Water Resources, for a summary of Measures intended for compliance completed. Plcre,dnt HarturFindl Supplemental EISDecember20tt - 3.18-4 : 3.7lPrcasdi'tt.Hi:;'5r:rBoCCConditions --'* BoGG Condition Measures lntended 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. t 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. 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 Coun$ Auditor a document reflecting the developeds 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. 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. 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 3.7tF!*ztr;:.;lr !: ,; BoCC Conditions # Measures intended for compliance completed. To avoid potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources, periodic archaeological monitoring would be carried out during construclion 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. ; PlH*ant, Harbr F inal d,tppl,gtnertut EIS!. December 20'15 3.tU3 BoGC # Condition Measures lntended for Gompliance Status in the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and localtribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.9., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 1Q1, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce 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 inigation - tota! of 300 gallons per minute. See Section 3.16, Utilities, of this SEIS for additional detai!. o Detailed review is needed at the project-levelSEPA analysis to ensure that water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use 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 Fleasa#labe Ftnal Supplemenfal EIS Decdmber 2015 - 3.18-0 Measures intended for compliance completed. Measures intended for compliance completed. 3.7lPteasantfia;'j ". BoCC Conditions 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 residentia! 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. The NWP intended io be finalizeo prior to approval of the development agreement. A Neighborhood Water Policy was drafted and reviewed on January 2011, but is notyet finalized (SEIS Appendix F). q Stormwater d ischarge 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 soilstudy 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. Pieasant Harbor Final'$ryphlE€etal EIS: ''--'-:r' S;,. Decembcraxlf 3.18-7 3.78 ' ,..''-: i i::' J' L BoCC Conditions BoGC # Condition Measures Intended for Gompliance Status Measures intended for compliance completed. BoCC # Gondition Measures lntended for Gompliance Status r A County-based comprehensive water q ua lity monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site- specific action, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman, that will include regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitorinq regime. A draftWater Quality Monitoring Plan was completed by the applicant and reviewed by the Jefferson County Water Quality Department in June 2011 (SEIS Appendix F). The draft Plan requires finalization and approval prior to approval of the Development Agreement S The developer must ensure that naturalgreenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbetts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the The proposal includes preserving a riparian buffer along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve the z0$-ftwide Shoreline Environment and a steep slope setback (up to an additional 30 feet wide in places) in a conservation easement. Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. The Maritime Village building is now proposed to be located north of the Black Point Road and U.S. Highway 101 intersection. These easements shall be finalized and recorded prior to approval of the Development Agreement. I Plcars,mt,tlartm Fthal Supplemental EIS December 201i 3.18-8 3.7Urcas*nt riarbor BoCC Conditions{t to BoCC # Condition Measures lntended for Gompliance 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 lnvasive Tunicate Monitoring Agreement between the applicant and the Department of Fish and Wildlife was drafted in October 2010 (SEIS Appendix l). See Section 3.5, Shellfish, of this SEIS for additional detail This agreement shall be finalized prior to final BoCC approval of the Development Agreement. u ln keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 1 8.1 5.1 35(1 ),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views.n ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9,the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent 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 FinalSupplemental EIS -r;:", -!r':r' ::',' ' December 20[5 3.18-9 3.78' .,... BoCC Conditions BoCG # Condition Measures Intended for Gompliance Status rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infil! plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. v ln keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the tenain and landscape with parkJike greenbelts between the buildings. ln order to blend into the tenain, 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 internalto the site. Areas of disturbance would include transplanted heahhy 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 retai!/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. w Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in An individualtree survey has not been completed for health and lntended to be addressed throuqh Fle*atrl#rbor Fiml Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.18-10 3. 7 ltsl e a sar"t !**r t; c r BoCCConditions-- -r Measures intended for compliance completed. BoGG # Condition Measures lntended 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. lndividualtrees will be inventoried to account for size and health prior to construction for viability of transplanting per the arborist report and tree protection plan x Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and "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 lntent 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. v There shall be included as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of a golf course within the MPR that requires the developer to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this information will be made 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. P leasant H arbor Fi n aE Sdpplementat EIS- = i n a ! S'; p p t e r : .. : : - December 2015 3.18-11 3./Fi.::,::_,__"r BoCC Conditions BoCG # Condition Measures lntended for Compliance Status available to the public z Statesman shall use the lnternational Dark Sky Association (lDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for "areas with intrinsically dark landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited. General guidelines that would be followed to minimize potential light and glare impacts include the following: o a a a a lllumination would be to the minimum practical level. The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical. The duration of illumination would be as short as practical for Resident Safety. lllumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light. Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines). See Section 3.14, Light and Glare, of this SEIS for further information. aa ln fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123.(2). Alternatives 1,2 ffiffi include 890 units, including 52 units for staff housing. To meet the BoCG conditions of approvalof the MPR, the majority of this housing (67Yo) 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. 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 willcomplete the report on the capacity of ,Pl e*a t**sbo n E in a I,8u p p I e m e nta I El S December2ttr 3.18-12 3, I FJs ss ar-e * fter ii it r BoCC Conditions- '1- - -==-€ Measures intended for compliance completed. Measures intended for compliance completed. 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 p@ect prior to approva! 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 Prelimin ary Zoning Regulations Jefferson County has drafted a preliminary set of draft zoning regulations for the Brinnon MPR designation, labeled the Brinnon MPR code (JCC 17.60-17.80, Appendix 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 commerciat and conference space. Alternatives 1,2 Hii"ffi 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 commercia!/conference space allowed under the preliminary zoning (49,772 sq. ft. under Alternative 1 and 56,680 sq. ft. under Alternatives 2 ffi;. 3.18 BoCC Conditions BoGC # Condition Pleasant Harbor Final$lipplemcntahflS. i:r?;ri S -, r';1r1.i'a-: 11,:-- Decembiir 1015 3.1&13 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 recreationalfacilities, 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 app!-oximately 48 feet (4 stories) under Alternative 1 and 70 feet (5 stories) under Alternatives 2 . All structures over 50 feet in height must be set back 100 feet from the MPR boundary lines. The tallest Golf Terrace building is proposed to be located 300 feet from the northern property line. The uses and heights proposed within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort comply with the standards for the MPR-GR zone. The purpose of the Open Space Reserve zone (MPR-OSR) is to provide a natural buffer between the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The JCC indicates that this zone shall consist of a tract of land located south of the MPR-GR zone and extend landward 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as measured under the Shoreline Management Act or 25 feet from the top of the bank as measured under Chapter 18.22 JCC, whichever is greater. The MPR-OSR zone permits restoration and maintenance of existing development intrusions (roads and campsites) and passive recreation. The Pleasant Harbor Resort proposal includes a 200 foot buffer within this zone, which would be restored and planted with native vegetation, consistent with the purpose of this zone. The trail 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 2l&W 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 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS December 2015 3.18-11 3.18 BoCC Conditions Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS pfF []' BRTAATONMPR- ZONINGMAP I BLACK POINTV Ro. J R0 us 101 HICHWA MARINA VILLAGE=(MPR-MV) GoLF RESoRT (MPR-GR) oPEN SPACE RESERVE (MPR-oSR) HOOD CANAL Source.' Cnig A. PecR & Associates,20l3 EIIftffiffiil: Figure 3.18-1 Zoning Map 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 faci lities, a nd on-site retai l/com mercial services; (e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and (0 Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and RCW 36.708.170(3). A preliminary development agreement between the applicant and Jefferson County was first drafted in April ot 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. ".,:lBleasror' *larbot- Final Supplemental El$ December 20tt 3.18-16 3.7&ieas**. ri.rrDor BoCC Conditioni 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 cunently 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 initia! development of the Black Point area, beginning with grading of the site and the initia! construction of the golf course and the Golf Terrace and Conference Center flerrace 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 Iimited 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. f,lea sa nt ltarbor F- i i afrSu pplemenfal EIS December 2015 3.18-17 Ghapter 4 Key Topics CHAPTER 4 KEY TOPIC AREAS Consistent with SEPA requirements, a public comment period was provided for the November 2014 Dratt Supplemental ElS. 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 FinalSEIS. Ghapter 5 contains a summary of comments received. A number of comments (written and verbal) were received that identified common subjects; these have been refened 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 speciflc 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 Water lntrusion +7 FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS lntroduction 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. lt 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 Proiect Conditions of Approval ln November 2OO7 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 potentia! to negatively impact local service providers (school, fire, police, EMS, parks, etc.), ability of the projest to foster local job creation, and ability of the project to provide affordable housing opportunities for new employees on the site. !n response to these public comments, ln 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 St$plemental El& rlnet SuoD!2,=txnrar tlS December2Ali +1 Key Topics .,'a- Chapter 1 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 SE S 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 altematives 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. ln 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 approvalthat 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 Binnon school, fire district, Emergency MedicalServices (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation, and transit pior to approval of the development agreemenf. Sucfr agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, cosfs, 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 Util$ District. Additional lnformation 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. a a a Pie;asentltarbor. Final S upplemental EIS December 2015 4-2 Key TopicsPleasant Haroor I Chapter C I 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 sunounding 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. a Provide a space for a medical clinic that would be available to the community Housins AffordabiliW Summary of Draft SE/S EnvironmentalAnalysis 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) Ihe 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%o or /ess of the Brinnon area average median income (AMl). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 80% or /ess of the Brinnon area AMl. 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. lt is estimated that 223 of the 225 total operationaljobs (99 percent) would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of the Brinnon area average median income ($3+,t+a;. The Draft SEIS also indicates that affordable housing is defined as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income. lntended 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. +2 - $altwater lntntsion lntroduction Redevelopment of the Pleasant Harbor site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase water demands by consuming groundwater resources for residential and commercia! 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. O a o Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental HS December20li :KeyTopic*' Chapter 4+3 5di;^ Pleasant Harbor Proiect Conditions of Approval ln November 2OO7 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. !n response to these public comments, ln 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 Water 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. a a 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 reserye, 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). Summaru of Draft SE/S Environmental Analvsis As identified in Section 3.2, Water Resources, of the Draft SEIS, construction and master plan operations on the site under the EIS altematives would require the applicant to conduct groundwater monitoring to ensure saltwater intrusion does not occur in Pleasant Harbo/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 ff saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Polnt, 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. P leasant*lartu ti n al S u pplemental El S December 2015 4-4 Key ChaPter tl'^' Additional lnformation 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 quali$ (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 potentialfor 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. P I eas a nt H arbo r F i nal'Stryplene nfaf EIS -r aal .Supp; +.nrln iel tsis December 2015-. - +5 Key Topics)le- - .rr H'.,. Chaptert,- , "; Ghapter 5 Summary of Gomments Received on the Draft SEIS CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS This chapter of the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact 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 2O 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. a 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 FiscaUTaxes - 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 3,20'14 open house, and provides an indication of the genera! 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. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS Summary of Comments Reeeived on Draft SES , December 2015 :=--:, .-,:,- :1r ,: r j,!-1.'.:r{idl $rdgie."?enta, €I5 Chapter 5 . ,-;:-_..---t a a a a a a I GffiI Prerd nd oth.i Walar Plant Flsh & wlldllt. Crhlel Aeaa Tnnrponador Alr Qu.llty .Nd GHG Housltrt I Enployn.il RuEl ch.mc A.rlfi.ds Publlc Itcrvlc.a Culto6l nrser tlel t Taras a a a Chepter 5 ma? Iopl6 d confranl t Eafrh 2 3 5 Wash. St. DOH 7 Wash.5t. DOT I 9, 10 It. Genene Kluck Laurie Maltson Joy McFrdden 36 John Mcky Erenda McMillin Rob Mitcheli Richard and Sheila Moore William and Rorianne Morris Mirlam Murdtrh 6ary and Pam Myhr Jefterson County - Pub. Works Port Gamble S'(allam Tribe Wash.5t.oAHP Wash. St. OOE aa a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Erinnon 6roup Frlends of Miller State Park Hood Canal Environmental Council a a a a a a a a a aa a al3 14 15 t8 1t 20 21 74 25 26 27 2a 29 10 31 32 31 34 35 Slerra club Joe Saisch Joy Salsch J. Hal Beattie & Rebekah R Ros5 Bonnle Beaudoin Bonnic Ecaudoin f2 Barbara Buchman loseph Suchman Scott 8um! and Margaret_ Sarah Clawron'S.huch Ruth Dl Domeni6a Dolila Dowd lohn Dowd Davld Galle Ierry Germaine Belinda Graham Eric Hendricks Joan H€ndricks Jennlngs Heins & P6sociates K. Kennell a a a a a a a a a a o a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a t a a a a a) a a a a a a a a a ,7 38 ,9 {} {t 42 tx 44 {s 461 47) 48 49 50 si' a a a a a a a a a aa a a a Jerry and Susan Olson Joleph and K.!4V64 Orrl.o Mo.gan oslake Kirle Pederson Lynne Robinson Mark Ros David P. Sadler oavid f. Sadler#2 a a a I Arcember 2015 *1 ilama Plant3 Flrh & wlldllt sh!lltuh Shor.ll..r Cilldl &aaa t.nrpon don Alr Qu.ltty .Nd GHG Xoudnt I Emploviiail Ru?al Ct.nd.r A..lhdd Utllltl..Publlc Saivlaaa Cuhhal Rasa6a tlEl & Tarat Ganaral Prorad.nd Olh.r Topl6! 52 Eleanor Sather d, willlam and Vlctoria stewart Richards Nicole Un-named Commenters TOTAT 3 30 5 I 10 1 27 37 26 3 2 5 10 3 31 67 5-2 Ple.a.nt Harbor Fln.l SEIS D*ember 2015 Summary of Commonts Racolvad on Drrrl SE S Chepter 5 matlopg d ffiarnl t Elea.or Sather #2 Eleanor Sather S3 Bud ard Valerle Schlndler George selfridge Peter Sletert Mike and Joan Stelte Fred Stern Phil Thenstedt .ludd Tuberg Greg and Tina Tyler Lori Uddenberg Steve Wnlker Patty Wells Del and Terri Weron Xatie Whitman Lynda Wibon Ralph Woodall PU'IIC MEEII{G COMMETTI George Sickel (?) MikeWe,d Mirian gurdock Rob Mltchell a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a I a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Ghapter 6 References :? Ghapter 6 References Brinnon Fire Department htto://brinnonfi re.orq/. lntergovemmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth Assessment Report. February 2, 2007. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. April 30, 2007. Jefferson County, Department of Community Development. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Draft ElS. September 2007 and November 2007. Jefferson County, Department of Community Development. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final ElS. November 2007. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 2004. Jefferson County Code. J efferson County S heriffl s ffi ce. http: //www. iefferson s heriff . orq/. 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. ffice of Superintendent of Public lnstruction. Brinnon School District Enrollment. Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS D*ember2015 6-1 ChaPter$'t -:;.;: ::;:: '- References