HomeMy WebLinkAbout013Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Darlene Schanfald <darlenes@olympus.net>
Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:26 PM
PCo m m i ssi o n Des k@ co jeffe rso n.wa.u s; Pl a n Co m m @ co j effe rso n.wa. u s
darlenes@olypen.com
Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park comments on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and
Golf Resort LLC Master Plan.
BrinnonResort 1-6-16 PlngCmsnCmnts.docx; Untitled attachment 00072.htm
Importance:High
Please find attached comments from Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park on the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort
Master Plan.
Please confirm receipt of this document.
Thank you,
Darlene Schanfald, Ph.D
1
6 January 20L6
To: f efferson County Planning Commission
Fr: Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park (FMPSP)
RE: Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS) - Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort (MPR)
The Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park requests the following comments and hand in
documents regarding the FSEIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned
Resort (MPR) be included in the public record.
We support the Brinnon Group's position. We support any activity on the property be
backed up with a bond. We support additional review time. Most important, we support
the NO Option; preferably A but no more than B. ln addition, we point out the following.
P. 1-7 . 87o/o land disturbance. Claim. temporary disturbance for eagles and other birds.
This is NO TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE. This is a 10 year build out proposal. Even if
there were to be large gaps between build outs, the territory for these raptors and others
will have been permanently ruined as eagle habitat. Consider, too, the light and glare of
such a huge project, in addition to the fertilizers and pesticides that will harm the eagles
and other animals. Thus, the Claim is unwarranted.
P. 1-9: 20,700 sq ft wetland loss. This is a HUGE disturbance! Wetlands are
disappearing around the country, including in our parts. Wetlands are needed for
migratory birds. Attempts to site new wetlands often fail. Removing these wetlands
would be another blow to wildlife needs, both local and migrating.
P. 1-12'. A 10 year build out. This should require a significant sized bond.
P. 1-14. "'Could' result in 225 permanent new employees which could increase housing
demands in the area."
. ls this 225'figure over the 10 year period? lt is the number used with all
proposed new projects. What is the basis for this number? NOTE the
use of their word "could."
. This large development would increase the cost of living, including
property, construction and rent costs in the area. Likely this would be
too costly for the employees, especially on minimum wage.
P.1-16: Claim: Sewage would be transported to Shelton for processing. 280,000
gal/day - a city sized load - is a lot of toxic waste to be hauling many trips and
for many miles.
Please NOTE that the Shelton waste water treatment plant was built in 1979.
It is 37 years old. Could it handle a huge daily load of nearly 900 residents and
additional guests and employees?
P. 1-18: Sewer: 280,000 gal/day Class A. They are correct that (whatever Class) will
result in noise, odors and large energy consumption. Too, heavy rains could
cause the treatment plant inoperable or to overload. This will result in sewage
contaminated flood waters over and into the properties and mold. This will
certainly occur due to the removal of so much earth, tree and native vegetation
removal and resulting green house gas emissions, leaving the area and
humans vulnerable to such flooding.
NO option is the safest, wisest and smartest option.
Other: . There is NO GUARANTEE that the work will go to local or WA State
construction workers. What is meant by the developer's term "a portion." What
"portion?" This is vague. The Citv of Port Anqeles passed a resolution that any proiect
of $1,000.000 or more must include an apprentice proqram for local residents -
construction, plumbinq. etc.
http: //www. pen i ns u ladai lynews. com/article/20 1 40220/news/302209986/0/5 EARC H
. 3.18.1 1: Claim: pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers - list will be open to the
public. This is good, but not the issue. These are very toxic chemicals and fertilizers
often contain toxic sewage solids. The WA State herbicides allowed list alone creates a
toxic environment to soils, air, water systems, wildlife, pets and humans. For instance,
11 of these cause cancer,6 endocrine disorders, 14 reproductive effects, 1 ormore
neurotoxicily, 17 kidneyiliver damage, 17 sensitizers/irritants, 12 detected in
groundwater, 12 potentially leach, at least 6 toxic to birds, 17 toxic to fishiaquatic
organisms, and at least 3 toxic to bees, and we now the important of saving bees for
pollinating our sources of food.
. Transportation: Claim: during construction there will be 300 trips/day. This
is 10% of the build out traffic. OUCH ! This means 3000 additional cars on the road
when the facility is built. This is no small matter to this rural area. Obviously the costs of
road wear, air pollution, litter, and animal and people accidents will be borne by the
larger citizen base and even to citizens statewide.
WASTEWATER. The Response to Comments to our DSEIS comments on wastewater
and sewage shows that the responders are unfamiliar with wastewater issues. To say
that other communities or that agencies condone the MPR reuse of wastewater does not
mean that wastewater reuse is safe. lndeed, it is not. Class A is nearly as toxic as
Class B. Class A does mean further treatment and more minimization of pathogens and
pharmaceuticals. This, however, does not mean safe. Not only do many anti-biotic
resistant bacteria and genes will enter the treatment plant, but the treatment plants can
create their own. This is mixed with the rest of the toxic brew: personal care products
included in contaminants of concern, prions, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, medical
wastes, viruses and bacteria, anything flushed and poured down drains, and more.
lmportantly, it has been shown that pathogens thought "killed" in the treatment process
actually are rejuvenated when they touch soil, especially wet soil. Little in this toxic
brew is required by EPA to be monitored.
NOTE: We will be submitting hard copy documents on this issue, proving waste
water is highly toxic, and should not be reused on fields or for putting out fires.
And putting wastewater that does not meet Class A standards in open storage should
not be kept for more than 24 hours as it attracts flies which can effect disease and
certainly is odiferous.
Respectfully submitted
Darlene Schanfald, Ph.D.
PO Box 2664
Sequim WA 98382